DurgeDriven
Banned
+1
Anyways you have the luxury of being to able run Linux on a partition.
Boot with SSD takes how long to swap OSes.
Wouldn't open source rF2 just make limitless car versions, more rfm's and dilute rooms further.
ISI Planning to convert RF2 from DX9 to DX10 or DX11 like iRacing did?
- Thread starter Marcel van der Linden
- Start date
- Status
+1
Anyways you have the luxury of being to able run Linux on a partition.
Boot with SSD takes how long to swap OSes.
Wouldn't open source rF2 just make limitless car versions, more rfm's and dilute rooms further.
Minibull
Member
Same here, I never seem to have issues with software. I can play a game for ages and not find an issue, my brother has a go, and in 5 minutes he's bugged it out. Never could figure it out haha.
In terms of windows, I ran vista for a long while...again, never had an issue.
Gaming will not be going open source as a majority type thing...it just won't be.
I've tried most new generation sims (or so-called) and I think RF2 has the most realistic and beautifull graphics; at least in cockpit view.
That said, it mostly depend on the track itself, and thus, finaly, on the modder.
That is, switching to DX11 won't do anything except, maybe, pershaps, who knows, a little fps gain.
That said, it mostly depend on the track itself, and thus, finaly, on the modder.
That is, switching to DX11 won't do anything except, maybe, pershaps, who knows, a little fps gain.
WhiteShadow
Registered
Oculus Rift SDK future versions:
Due to API and resource limitations, we’ve decided to deprecate DirectX 9 support and will be removing it from LibOVR in the near future. This will allow us to focus on future work using DirectX 11 and OpenGL that will help deliver a great VR experience on Windows. Apps that use DirectX 9 will continue to work for the foreseeable future, but they won’t compile in future SDK releases and may have additional runtime latency after we remove DirectX 9 support.
Glasses-free 3D PC monitors in 27-inches and 32-inches. Ultra-D sets should arrive in retail outlets soon.
http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/glasses-free-3d-tv/#vpu2FMQO1ZqE
Second thoughts ?
Nuno Lourenço
Registered
There are so many other things they should be working on...for instance that rain drops in the cockpit! Better rain effects and so on. Lets polish what we have and not making it worse!
Agree!
hardtohandle
Registered
So if we are talking of going from dx9 > dx11, the 3 options are what tuttle says : a) porting, b) optimised patching, c) start from scratch (with regards to dx code)
Well, after a certain amount of reading it would seem that options a) and b) are non starters, unless you want a bodge job that does not give you the results you are looking for, and also a lot more problems on top. dx10 and dx11 are not just improved versions of dx9, the way they are operating internally has some fundamental differences and to gain those benefits available you need to do things differently yourself which involves quite a lot of work changing code.
So, if you go to dx11 via option c (scratch built dx code), ISI is saying that will break all 3rd party content, is that right? If that is right then that is almost the end of the discussion. But it would also lead to the question why? Who is going to be taking the hit exactly, the modders or the developers of the game engine, or both?
If it is going to hit the modders then I assume when IRacing upgrade to dx11, as they are, then IR will also have to upgrade all of the content also to go with it? Or can it stay the same in fact and only* affect the game engine? If not and IR can use the same content then why cannot RF2? I do not know answers to these questions. Are the content of our rfcmp's intrinsically linked to dx9? I do not know.
* I say 'only', it is not a small undertaking! But it's a huge difference between doing massive work on engine AND writing off all 3rd party RF2 content, which will basically kill the game probably.
Sure dx11 would be nice to have however the main reason I see to do such a huge amount of work on engine is to solve the problems that have plagued the dx9 engine for so long, by which I mean the SLI issue. ISI reckons there is no issue, but I reckon there almost certainly is. If it would take a huge amount of work to fix that on dx9 maybe it is then more appealing to take on dx11 and kill 2 birds with one stone. If that would even do it, even that is unknown. And that's just the thing. DirectX is very complicated, you probably need to know a lot about it to know what is and is not possible, and I don't and prob most of us here don't. There are many small details that are hugely important that we cannot determine ourselves, thus it is almost pointless to be discussing these things endlessly in the dark.
Owing to my frank and open discussions with fanboys here I am often awarded by ISI a kind of special elevated 'greyed out' status on this forum, which I believe is ISI's way of telling me what I am saying is so obviously true that it is not even necessary for me to expand any further on that undeniable and comprehensive truth which has already been stated. And I must say I do appreciate and enjoy my special greyed out status very much, but sadly all good things must come to an end.
What I get tired of, is every time my special status expires I come here and see the same old tired issues still churning on and on. The same issues as 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 3 or 4 years ago, and it will be the same in 6 months and 1 year time and 2 years time also. It's a waste of all of our energies typing anything here it seems.
And ISI do not help, because ISI are about as forthcoming with information on future plans as the Illuminati themselves. It does not really happen. Perhaps they do not even exist!
I think ISI should seriously consider making a 'roadmap' available, so we can see what is and is not in the pipeline and what the priorities are. Is it the drive train model? Is it a newer dx? I am not talking about cast iron guarantees with deadlines, that's stupid, just a loose plan with no solid commitments that gives us an idea of what to expect over next 12 months. And it will reduce all the moaning and perennial speculation on forum too which must be a good thing.
Getting back to the dx I expect the following 2 things need to be true if a migration is to occur :
1) To get RF2 working natively with dx11, using dx11 properly, not these cheap ass quick ways of porting to dx11, which is probably a big mistake.
2) To keep all the 3rd party content working throughout, cause it will be fatal not to do so.
So for a very start, that involves huge amount of work for ISI to rework gfx engine big time for native dx11 support, so my final question is the same as where I started, IF, even IF ISI did do that, is it technically possible for the existing 3rd party content to still work or not? That is crucial thing.
I wish ISI would be more forthcoming with information and also consider making a 'roadmap' as suggested.
Well, after a certain amount of reading it would seem that options a) and b) are non starters, unless you want a bodge job that does not give you the results you are looking for, and also a lot more problems on top. dx10 and dx11 are not just improved versions of dx9, the way they are operating internally has some fundamental differences and to gain those benefits available you need to do things differently yourself which involves quite a lot of work changing code.
So, if you go to dx11 via option c (scratch built dx code), ISI is saying that will break all 3rd party content, is that right? If that is right then that is almost the end of the discussion. But it would also lead to the question why? Who is going to be taking the hit exactly, the modders or the developers of the game engine, or both?
If it is going to hit the modders then I assume when IRacing upgrade to dx11, as they are, then IR will also have to upgrade all of the content also to go with it? Or can it stay the same in fact and only* affect the game engine? If not and IR can use the same content then why cannot RF2? I do not know answers to these questions. Are the content of our rfcmp's intrinsically linked to dx9? I do not know.
* I say 'only', it is not a small undertaking! But it's a huge difference between doing massive work on engine AND writing off all 3rd party RF2 content, which will basically kill the game probably.
Sure dx11 would be nice to have however the main reason I see to do such a huge amount of work on engine is to solve the problems that have plagued the dx9 engine for so long, by which I mean the SLI issue. ISI reckons there is no issue, but I reckon there almost certainly is. If it would take a huge amount of work to fix that on dx9 maybe it is then more appealing to take on dx11 and kill 2 birds with one stone. If that would even do it, even that is unknown. And that's just the thing. DirectX is very complicated, you probably need to know a lot about it to know what is and is not possible, and I don't and prob most of us here don't. There are many small details that are hugely important that we cannot determine ourselves, thus it is almost pointless to be discussing these things endlessly in the dark.
Owing to my frank and open discussions with fanboys here I am often awarded by ISI a kind of special elevated 'greyed out' status on this forum, which I believe is ISI's way of telling me what I am saying is so obviously true that it is not even necessary for me to expand any further on that undeniable and comprehensive truth which has already been stated. And I must say I do appreciate and enjoy my special greyed out status very much, but sadly all good things must come to an end.
What I get tired of, is every time my special status expires I come here and see the same old tired issues still churning on and on. The same issues as 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 3 or 4 years ago, and it will be the same in 6 months and 1 year time and 2 years time also. It's a waste of all of our energies typing anything here it seems.
And ISI do not help, because ISI are about as forthcoming with information on future plans as the Illuminati themselves. It does not really happen. Perhaps they do not even exist!
I think ISI should seriously consider making a 'roadmap' available, so we can see what is and is not in the pipeline and what the priorities are. Is it the drive train model? Is it a newer dx? I am not talking about cast iron guarantees with deadlines, that's stupid, just a loose plan with no solid commitments that gives us an idea of what to expect over next 12 months. And it will reduce all the moaning and perennial speculation on forum too which must be a good thing.
Getting back to the dx I expect the following 2 things need to be true if a migration is to occur :
1) To get RF2 working natively with dx11, using dx11 properly, not these cheap ass quick ways of porting to dx11, which is probably a big mistake.
2) To keep all the 3rd party content working throughout, cause it will be fatal not to do so.
So for a very start, that involves huge amount of work for ISI to rework gfx engine big time for native dx11 support, so my final question is the same as where I started, IF, even IF ISI did do that, is it technically possible for the existing 3rd party content to still work or not? That is crucial thing.
I wish ISI would be more forthcoming with information and also consider making a 'roadmap' as suggested.
Last edited by a moderator:
stonec
Registered
Something you notice if you play iRacing often is, they very often update all their car and track content when a new build is released. I'm sure this will happen with the DX11 release as well. For rF2 it's a much more difficult scenario as not only do all mods need to be updated, but updating ISI content is a manual task as well unless you use Steam workshop.
Btw I agree with the roadmap and communicating part. Track team twitter is great but it's the only communicative part of rF2 development, very little news and previews about upcoming car content as well.
Diogo Oliveira Falcão
Registered
This would happen only once, when the update goes live.
In my opinion, rF2 is already the almost-perfect product.
We have the best track dynamics, best physics, best FFB, best AI, and overall features like racing rules, garage options, etc.
So, if we have all this, why not start focusing on improving the graphics? I mean, think about it: Updated DX11 graphics with stunning visuals = more people buying rf2 (remember some people prefer graphics than FFB or physics), more people buying rf2 = more content, more money and the already best sim racing would grow even more.
Together with this, we need improvement on communication. We don't have a clue about what ISI is doing or is going to do. We are customers and we would really like a roadmap.
alpha-bravo
Registered
a big lol but true for the last time
The technically possibility is not enough. The Amount of time it needs to do it is also crucial.
But it is very interesting question.
I agree with you.
A wild speculation (from me). They work on something great ^^ ?
Last but not least the Reiza guys announced dx12 for their next project.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/reiza-simracing-bonanza#/story
The hopes are on this for some years now. Won´t happen. Nobody will ever know on what they are working most of the time.
(and I have the fear that they are indeed working mainly on rF2 and/or Rouge system, what would tell a lot....)
I sometimes think the end-users want ISI to switch to DX11 because they have nearly exhausted their extensive libraries of DX9 complaints and need work on their "when is ISI ever going to DX12" complaints. I think an interesting question would be which would be more profitable to ISI: sales of their existing products vs receiving a nickel for every DX(fill in the blank) post on their forum....
stonec
Registered
If ISI continues to improve existing (but incomplete) features such as rain effects, dynamic weather system, clutch/gearbox damage, animations (pit stops), I don't think anyone would be unhappy and the volume of the DX11/12/13 requests would tone down. Now many seem to have the impression that because rF2 doesn't have much rain effects and lacking other visual stuff, it's necessarily because of DX9.
alpha-bravo
Registered
I agree again with you.
WhiteShadow
Registered
Cons with rF2 DX9 are lack of performance, no support to SLI, VR, new 3D monitor technology and triple screen 120fps gaming is also difficult.
COMMUNITY Q&A
Graphics/Performance
Q: Any internal talks about DX11 in the future ? Is the move to DX11 much to complex?
A: It’s not about complexity, it is about benefit. There isn’t enough benefit to using it right now, though that does not mean there won’t be benefit going forward (though that might be with DX12, DX13, etc).
Maybe we get DX12/13 in the future you never know
COMMUNITY Q&A
Graphics/Performance
Q: Any internal talks about DX11 in the future ? Is the move to DX11 much to complex?
A: It’s not about complexity, it is about benefit. There isn’t enough benefit to using it right now, though that does not mean there won’t be benefit going forward (though that might be with DX12, DX13, etc).
Maybe we get DX12/13 in the future you never know
DurgeDriven
Banned
I would like dynamic wind and humidity to be on the priority list.
On Topic, my view has not changed, unless ISI physics were found to
be at least as good as in DX9 I would rather they not move.
Something is scary to me, that all the DXxx sims feel like turds.
lol
GTClub_wajdi
Registered
Traveller
Member
Successor to OpenGL: https://www.khronos.org/vulkan/ .
DurgeDriven
Banned
stonec
Registered
None of that has anything to do with DX9. Well alright, it's possible that some general lack of performance in rF2 is due to DX9, but even that we have no idea of knowing since we can't run gMotor in DX11 and compare FPS.
- Status