ISI Planning to convert RF2 from DX9 to DX10 or DX11 like iRacing did?

re.Iracing -they only added certain dx11 touches to certain tracks (apparently these are DX11 updates )

I could see some differences mainly in some barriers ( the updated ones looked much better ) but this was only noticeable when you crashed into one and the sim cars bonnet was pressed against it, not when your driving round the track

I noticed no fps increase, the updates were good I guess but it wouldn't really matter to me if they had never bothered,
DX what ever is not really a topic that I see as being that important.

(I use 3d vision so depth if field effects or what ever else would be pointless also)

 

DX12 (while fully taking advantage of it).

Bye.

 

First, no it won't give a huge boost, unless your definition of huge is vastly different to most people.

Second, it probably would suck if anybody had actually said that. We've been very careful not to say never.

Added smiley to signify tone.

 

Maybe upgrading to a new DX won't offer a significant improvement, however if an engine is fully taking advantage of the new DirectX (may require a massive overhaul of the game engine, if not a new scratch made engine) then I don't see how it wouldn't offer a significant advantage...

Even just DX11, let alone DX12, has a crap-load of technical advantages over DX9.

Regarding DX12 Microsoft themselves just stated that, although it will offer much less CPU overhead just like AMD's Mantle, it won't quite have the performance of Mantle. It'll will still be a big improvement from previous DirectX versions though.

 

well, your info is probably better than mine, as it comes almost entirely from this http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Talks-DX12-DX11-Efficiency-Improvements & 'popular opinon'; well that & the common sense of mantle becoming a potentially serious thorn in msft/nvidias side if something isnt done to counter it.

glad to hear yr not saying never; i didnt read the thread but just assumed from defensive tone of the comments that it wasnt going to happen. i imagine they mostly leveled at the accusation from one reviewer that rfactor2 currently using dx9 is evidence of it being outdated, which...plbbbbbbbhhh

 

OpenGL

 

I think that IF ISI decide to go to a new DX, that they should go about it the following way:

A. Go to DX12, not 11
B. Do it properly so that the new DX gets properly and fully implemented, rather than some "hackjob" update like iRacing (iRacing's engine is hardly DX11)
C. Combine the new DX version of rFactor with other deep engine updates like much better use of 4 or more CPU threads (8 will be the new standard as that's what the new consoles are all going to be programmed for).
D. Since graphics, unfortunately, are the main thing that drives sales (even in hardcore simracing it sadly seems) maybe think about calling this big update "rFactor 2.5", "rFactor 2B", "rFactor 2 DX", "rFactor 2 Super Modern Graphics and CPU Threading Engine Edition" lol, or whatever, you get the point.

The problem with such a massive update is that it takes a lot of money, time, and resources. With all needed to go into such a large update, ISI may just be better off to wait for rFactor 3.

 

iracings engine isnt dx11...its going to be upgraded, but its not now. where is this coming from?? unless this suddenly happened when my HDD was out of commision, its dx9 with some 'dx 10 optimizations' supported.

couple other things; consoles actually only have 6 dedicated threads, & weak ones at that. although of course 8 (real) cores will eventually be mainstream, itll still be a bit & have nothing to do w/ consoles. if any of the AMD-involvement console scare stuff was true, an amd 8 core & any post 7850 GPU would be as good a gaming platform as there is on the planet..just not close to the case.

-the great thing about dx12 is that they should just get those updates free -- i'm not sure how well rf2 uses multithreading, but the basic idea is certainly to allow it to be able to use either what it is, or more, without choking out your GPU.

 

Oops, I meant DX10 then, not 11.

I know this is a bit off-topic from the OP, and that it regards CPU multi-threading rather than DirectX, but I thought that I would clarify for you and others.

From all the research I've done on cores/threads, I've found out that a peice of software only gets written for a certain amount of threads, it doesn't differentiate between HyperThreaded cores and real cores, it is just simply written for a certain amount of threads and that's it. Then, your PC will use it's threads (real, and virtual if available) to run the software. Obviously a real core is much more powerful than a hyperthreaded virtual core (gains of close to 100% vs 25%-50%) however the piece of software itself is just programmed to use a certain number of (or unlimited) threads, it's not programmed to use real threads or hyperthreaded ones.

rF2 is, at the moment, written to make use of just 2 threads.

Some benchmarks a while back showed some small but decent improvements when using 3 cores instead of 2 (I'm assuming this is due to allowing the CPU more breathing room for other system/operating system processes) after 3 though, there was no improvement whatsoever. The program itself though is a dual-threaded program.

 

Then why does it run sooo bad on my machine which has a dual core CPU? 2.66 GHz per core not fast enough? HD6850 Not enough card to push decent frames without stuttering/freezing? 4GB of DDR2 Ram not enough? While I understand that rF2 will not be able to run buttery smooth on this hardware with all graphical settings on max, at least it should be able to run stutter free on low settings, right? Nope.

The simple fact is that rF2 is not nearly optimized enough for all the years put into it so far. I love this game and play it every day that I can, but lets not kid ourselves about its optimization and how it works compared to other sims. For all the time and development put into the game the core of the program still needs a ton of work to become what it should have been at least a year ago. That's what is most disappointing about this game. While alot of people are complaining about the graphics it is really more a problem with the optimization of the program that is holding this title back. The mechanics, FFB, and physics are all completely spot on. Its just too bad that getting good frames requires soooo much downgrading of the eye candy.

I wont even get into the online multiplayer issues with the Grayed out "Join" button... but thats for a different thread.

PS I still love the game and keep up the hard work.

 

one thing to do if you havent is download MSI afterburner (along with rivatuner for framerates if you wish), set it to monitor (just about) everything in the ingame onscreen display (OSD) & flip it on with rf2. since you only have 2 cores, its possible rf2 is just strangling your computer & your gpu is running at really low capacity.

that said, spinelli only mentions small improvements with an extra core, which would be all the headroom you'd theoretically need. at any rate it should help you pinpoint where the weakspots of your hardware are ir2 rf2.

re it only being able to use 2 cores, so does the arma 3 engine. and i know, at least when i was testing the alpha, it didnt matter how many extra cores you had, if things got really cpu intensive your gpu just tanked like a stone in a well. i'm not nearly savvy enough to understand why this is, although id imagine the explanation, if not the fix, is pretty simple...and maybe bohemia improved it to a degree that its no longer nearly as bad; i know they came a loooong way in optimizing arma 2 over the years. so...theres som random way out on a limb advice to any devs i guess; if you have a friend of a friend who knows someone at BI, AND theyve done a good job in that dept, maybe you cd have a pow-wow of some sort.

though with BI having released the karts DLC for arma the competitive spirit might prevent any productive sharing of information.

 

Because your dual core cpu isn't just running rF2. It's running an OS too and other stuff in the background that is choking your cpu. My cpu is now 4 years old but if seems be going great with 95% of things I run. I think the extra two cores takes a heap of stress off the other two cores

 

I use an Intel 2600k and Rf2 runs fine with only 2 cores. Not only the GHz or the core number is important, the ipc the instructions per clock is one of the main things. But if i reduce the core clock to 1,6 GHz Rf2 benefits clearly from 4 core., compared to stock clock where two cores are fast enough. All in all the cpu limitation is Not the problem and Dx12 could Not make it better, yeah on maybe on old machines, but are they compatible to it and when the Gpu is to slow to benefit from it

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

 

like iRacing did? they still dont have it....

 

Because your entire system is terribly outdated, no offence. Those 2 threads of yours are relatively weak, your entire system is. You have a very old CPU, at a very low 2.66 GHz, with very little system RAM, of a very old RAM type (DDR2), with an old GPU (AMD HD 6850) that was only a mid-range GPU when it first came out 4 years ago let alone compared to today.

I know rF2 isn't optimized well, but honestly the game should be the last thing to blame with system specs such as yours.

Anyways the fact of the matter is that rF2 itself is a dual threaded program.

 

Still would love to see a dev comment on the threading ideas. Just wish I could find all the posts I saw regarding threading and simulations, and how they cannot be easily spanned across multiple threads.

 

No offense taken. I know how old the machine and hardware is. (once finances allow I will be replacing this machine with something that can simply power through the lack of optimization) However, even with all the eyecandy turned off the game chugs along. Tim said that he was building this game with people who are still running XP in mind right? At least that is what I read into his comments about a fair amount of people still using XP to make the leap from rF1 to rF2. If that is the case then on low settings it should be buttery smooth. Just not terribly pretty.

That's the problem with trolling through these forums... Cant remember where I saw the things I am remembering and citing.

 

Thats the spec of an average 32bit XP running user, whos latest upgrade was around rF1 glory days, is it not?

 

The question was will rF2 use Dx11 like iracing .....the answer from ISI was empathatic.

All I heard about iracing improvements is fences that sort of look better if you crash into them .........great.



The only reason they invested millions in DX was to beat Open GL.............once they did they rested on their laurels ( arses )


Still these anomaly threads ................ the sim with what I consider easy the best physics and people are worrying about what fences look like.

DX11 dont help performance who said that ? what I load of crock

 

That pCars comparison is a poor example. I have the game and the engine has moved ahead by a quantum leap since build 160. DX11 has many virtues besides just nice bells & whistles. To argue against it because DX9 is good enough is pretty pathetic. That being so, I still like rF2 in DX9 but obviously there IS alot to be gained from DX11 ( or 12 or 13 ) if and when ISI are ready to make the jump.