@CamiloNino Ok Niño, it's not because you don't find it right away that it don't exist. As you are just looking for fights, I'll don't reply to you anymore. None the less, thank you for participating.
Sure, the official posts are out there, somewhere.... Funny how there are no info at all about this issue, considering that as you say there are "official posts" about it. Strange isn't it? I was not looking for a fight, I just cant stand people that make up stuff just to avoid recognizing that they are wrong, specially when it is clear they have no idea what they are talking about, as you do with your ever changing story. It turns out you were not talking about DX11 being slower in general, just display latency even when it has better performance than dx9 (It surely makes sense because "it does more things!" right?), the source of that being a dev secret and hard to find, no benchmarks available, but not really, turns out its not a secret and you can actually find official posts about it on Microsoft forums... except there aren't any there, or anywhere else for that matter. None at all, weird, considering how this is such a widely used API. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that's why I even when you were clearly talking about something you don't understand, I asked for your source, who knows, maybe I could learn something new. So to summarize the answer to this stupid thread, the reason S297 went for DX11, despite professional simulators not doing so (according to you) is simple: The target market between rF2 and professional simulators are completely different and looking for different things. Professional racing teams don't care about graphics, they care about the correlation of the simulator with the real car data, nothing to do with graphical APIs. The market for rF2 looks for, among other things, better graphics (you may not, but it turns out different simracers have different priorities, shocking, I know) and support for VR, which you can achieve with DX11, which is known to have better performance for most games. And since S397 is in the business of making money, they took the path that will answer to the demands of their target market. There you go, its not rocket science.
Is it really bad do you know? Everything I've googled seems to be a few years ago, nothing too recent. I just have the Hardware Monitor open on the desktop, never turned it off as I've never know about a potential FPS issue with it (and not noticed anything drastic either!), thanks
As far as I understand the problem is with the On Screen Display performance monitor, in some games, because that one has to modify your current frame to place the performance measurement info. I would guess that delays the frame presentation by 1 or 2 frame times, but I don't know the exact mechanism.
@CamiloNino "they care about the correlation of the simulator with the real car data"... it's called "realtime" and that's why they didn't went for dx11, thank you for confirming...! Read the thread, don't overfly it, even the rf2 "unconditionals" admited it at half word. So If you want to think that F1 don't use dx11 because they are so lazy, ok go for it! But please, don't talk to me anymore.
The correlation of the physical simulation to real data has nothing to do with the graphical API used, it would be the same with DX9, DX11, OpenGL or Vulcan. The simulation even runs on a separate thread and calculates things like load on the tires, or downforce, not what color should be x pixel on the screen. That's why professional racing teams probably don't care about the graphical API, because it doesn't affect the simulation, get it? You claim pro simulators don't use DX11 because "its a known fact it is slow". People explain to you that is not the case, DX11 is not slow and pro simulators probably don't use it because they don't care about graphics, and you somehow think that confirms your first statement?
@CamiloNino You are still wrong, it's because of the minimal graphical API latency that Ferrari went for rf on their simulator, they stated it.
This has to do with RF engine in comparison to other commercially avaiable engines, the fact that RF engine IS DX9, doesn't mean that the reason, or only reason it's that. Correlation is not causation.
http://www.autocarpro.in/news-inter...witches-driving-simulator-software-rfpro-6554 They selected Rf Pro because compared to their own simulator (and I guess other from the competition), rF pro has better terrain quality, better FPS and yes, better latency. They were testing the simulator as a whole, as a package, not just which API is used. And they were comparing it against their own solution, again, whole packages. They were not comparing graphical APIs on the same software. There is a brief mention of OpenGL, but again, is in the context of comparing whole solutions. That means the latency they measured includes the time it takes to poll the inputs, the calculations performed by the simulation itself, the rendering of the frame and the presentation of the frame. The polling rate and ticking rate of the simulation in rF pro is probably much higher than the one we get in rF2, it probably runs with reduced graphical candy too, and that alone can reduce latency a lot, regardless of the API used. So you can't reasonably conclude that the reason they went with it is because rF pro used DX9, there is nothing there that indicates that, just that rF pro as a package is fast. So unless you prove that under the same conditions, with the same FPS, rF pro has higher latency with DX11 than DX9 and that it was a decisive factor for Ferrari, you can't claim that as a base to state that DX11 is slower and that's why pro teams don't use it.
@Comante So, why wouldn't Ferrari have choosed a more polished API, or swapped their rf version for dx11? Still the lazyness argument? @CamiloNino rFPro use more or less an evolved graphical API version of our rf, where they plugged Matlab/Simulink models.
What??? Plugging Simulink models into an evolved graphical API?? Exactly how would have Ferrari "swapped" their rF for DX11? Do you even know what an API is? let alone a graphical one? I'm just going to assume you have been trolling this whole time, well done sir.
Actually I understand precisely what you're getting at. I understood right from your first comment. I just don't agree with your statements. I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'll assume you understood my points re: performance variations between GPU architectures. I'd happily admit I'm wrong if you can point me at reference information to support your statement. As is - I'm unconvinced. Comments like "it's a known fact..." with nothing to back it up mean nothing to me. And I'm not trying to be argumentative or wind you up. I tend to base things on facts with supporting information. I can find nothing supporting your claim that DX11 inherently has more latency when rendering vs DX9. Do you have a link to that? - I'm curious about the specifics ? ...and that's the problem I have with your statements. You've provided nothing to back them up at all. Other than comments regarding it being a known fact amongst developers. I suspect the perceived latency you are referencing is directly related to GPU architectures. Developer forums are not secret. If you've got a reference to supporting information - I'd love to have a read. ..hang on a second. Just to remind you. Your original comment that started this thread was talking about increased rendering latency in DX11 vs DX9. Not talking about other simulators that don't use either version of DirectX (rFactor Pro for example use their own API). Your original comment is below. So far you've provided nothing to back that statement up at all - and I've read the entire thread. ...so to repeat - do you have any reference information to support your statement? Regards
@muz_j @CamiloNino @MarcG I see that the mini-moderators are in formation again to ruin a subject, you guys are just pointless, always doing the same thing on every thread, replying just aside the question... good system... I like, you like me, I like you... and again! You talk about trolling and seems quite an expert on this Niño!
@Stan Other people have liked your posts, but no one seems to complain. *omg, I know, I'm another mini-moderator. I forgot. Maybe try actually discussing things properly instead of playing some sort of weird victim and creating false dichotomies. You're not fooling anyone.
I had a spare 5mins so did a Heaven Benchmark with MSI On and Off and there was no difference, I'm guessing this perhaps affects lower spec machines and/or MSI fixed any lag caused by their program, all is good though so I can keep it on
