Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan Even if they did 16bit or 32 bit channel colors, it is totally useless anyway with all those fancy LCD panels everyone has nowadays.
LCD's can barely display a decent 8bit channel color space! so even if it is 16/32bit channels nobody would notice anyway. And that is a shame of costly GPU resources.
Are you saying that I could write a game with an 8 bit colour space, and if people are running an LCD monitor they wouldn't notice if it was any different to a 32 bit colour space?
If this is right, this could save a lot graphics processing power from wasted colour space. Is it really possible to effectively design a game in a 32/64 bit environment, and only use an 8 bit colour depth? How would other display types like projectors differ if the game was only in an 8 bit colour space?
Sorry for all the questions, but I'm very keen on finding out more about graphical efficiencies that can be found by removing unneccesary graphics processing, leaving more room for the essential stuff.
i think that making sure we can add more than 4xAA is what we should be focusing on tbh... if anyones tried 8x or 16x AA, you probably notice a lot more than you would chasing the DX10 or 11 or 12 or ..... bandwagon...
Just remember, if we can add more than 4xAA and more than 4XAF, we beat console gamers anyway.. :P and tbh games imo look so much hotter ramping up the AA and AF into the 8x and above....
The water looks rubish. You telling me when a car drives through water there are no splashes, just ripples and a little wave. Although it may be an improvement over water in DX10/9 it doesnt look all that different.
Expecially as you lose all those FPS for not much difference
Originally Posted by ian8415 Haha, directx 11 game from the ground up? Dream on guys, we havnt even got a directx 10 one, this is dead before its started =[ Its guna have to be something big to make a leap from 9, We'll have to wait and see what the next generation of consoles are doing ha!
Shattered Horizon is DX10 only and built from the ground up for DX10.
So only ATI cards can have prettier water, wavy flags, and crowds? That's it? That's all they did with DX11? lol..
Hopefully more games will support DX11 soon, and incorporate more things than prettier water effects, flags, and crowds.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Due to the enormous rush *cough* on my last lottery (Batman AA), today I'd like to offer an easier way to receive a free copy of Dirt2. Well at least the steam-activation-code for Dirt2. So the rules of the game:
The fifth one to PM me the make and model of Colin McRae's car he drove 2003 will receive the code.
No multiple entries.
Originally Posted by tejas oh dear the AMD anti Nvidia fud train has stalled!
typical AMD not delivering when promising huge things from DX11.
To be fair this DX11 failure has very little to do with ATI. Its a microsoft product that developers implament. If anything its encoders only being half assed in the attempt to implament DX11 rather than rebuild the game from the ground up using it. Unfortuanatly this takes time + money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tejas I am sure if Nvidia's driver team optimized for DX11 they would do a far better job due to better resources and developer relations.
based on what? Nvidias drivers of late haven't been up to their usual standard. There no guarntee that theyll do any better than ATI. After all, ati have worked closely with microsoft reguarding DX11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tejas Stalker Call of Pripyat yet another example of AMD not delivering on DX11 and it's so called efficiency...
Again abit harsh to blame ATI for that one too. I do understand tho that they design the hardware and like previous DX releases 1st gen cards have been under powered.
Far cry 2 was an example of a DX10 game being more efficient than DX9 and crysis did look slightly better in DX10 although less efficient.
I still think that encoders need to get to grips with DX11 before we see great gains from it. The DX11 demo shows it can look very well and run fairly efficently.
I also think Your bashing of ATI was unnecessary. Theres no guarentee Nvidia will be any fast until they release their card and with the problems theyve been having, again theres no guarentee their drivers will be better than ATI who after all, worked with microsoft in deciding the features of DX11
I tried the demo briefly then ran the built in benchmark in the full game. Seems to run a lot better than the demo tbh. With the built in benchmark i got:
Average fps : 74.6
Minimum fps : 49.2
Ultra settings, with 4 x AA
Resolution 1680 x 1050
A better CPU than mine would hopefully get higher averages/minimums again.
The improvements from the likes of GRID are subtle, but some of the lighting and water effects are impressive.
Originally Posted by Rotcrack I agree totally, Direct X11 will not be as good in a game built on DX 10 then converted to DX 11 as in a game built on DX 11.
This is a game built on DX9 with DX11 bolted on. From what I've seen from Unigene Heaven and Stalker 3 the drop off form DX9 to DX10/11 is typical. However, I've had odd performance on my system, occasionally it temporarily drops to ~.20fps in game regardless of the graphics settings applied so yeah, it's probably still buggy.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Due to the enormous rush *cough* on my last lottery (Batman AA), today I'd like to offer an easier way to receive a free copy of Dirt2. Well at least the steam-activation-code for Dirt2. So the rules of the game:
The fifth one to PM me the make and model of Colin McRae's car he drove 2003 will receive the code.
No multiple entries.
Look at those first two images with the cars arriving at that big arch; the atmosphere (general lighting), the details in the images of watching people, how you can see hay bale details at the side of the road in DX11. Look also at the other images.
There is a lot of difference, (but it is still the same game).
Comments 76 to 88 of 88
ReplyI agree. Clippit looks exactly the same to me.
Are you saying that I could write a game with an 8 bit colour space, and if people are running an LCD monitor they wouldn't notice if it was any different to a 32 bit colour space?
If this is right, this could save a lot graphics processing power from wasted colour space. Is it really possible to effectively design a game in a 32/64 bit environment, and only use an 8 bit colour depth? How would other display types like projectors differ if the game was only in an 8 bit colour space?
Sorry for all the questions, but I'm very keen on finding out more about graphical efficiencies that can be found by removing unneccesary graphics processing, leaving more room for the essential stuff.
Just remember, if we can add more than 4xAA and more than 4XAF, we beat console gamers anyway.. :P and tbh games imo look so much hotter ramping up the AA and AF into the 8x and above....
Expecially as you lose all those FPS for not much difference
Shattered Horizon is DX10 only and built from the ground up for DX10.
So only ATI cards can have prettier water, wavy flags, and crowds? That's it? That's all they did with DX11? lol..
Hopefully more games will support DX11 soon, and incorporate more things than prettier water effects, flags, and crowds.
nVidia is failing to deliver a DX11 card.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Due to the enormous rush *cough* on my last lottery (Batman AA), today I'd like to offer an easier way to receive a free copy of Dirt2. Well at least the steam-activation-code for Dirt2. So the rules of the game:
The fifth one to PM me the make and model of Colin McRae's car he drove 2003 will receive the code.
No multiple entries.
To be fair this DX11 failure has very little to do with ATI. Its a microsoft product that developers implament. If anything its encoders only being half assed in the attempt to implament DX11 rather than rebuild the game from the ground up using it. Unfortuanatly this takes time + money.
based on what? Nvidias drivers of late haven't been up to their usual standard. There no guarntee that theyll do any better than ATI. After all, ati have worked closely with microsoft reguarding DX11.
Again abit harsh to blame ATI for that one too. I do understand tho that they design the hardware and like previous DX releases 1st gen cards have been under powered.
Far cry 2 was an example of a DX10 game being more efficient than DX9 and crysis did look slightly better in DX10 although less efficient.
I still think that encoders need to get to grips with DX11 before we see great gains from it. The DX11 demo shows it can look very well and run fairly efficently.
I also think Your bashing of ATI was unnecessary. Theres no guarentee Nvidia will be any fast until they release their card and with the problems theyve been having, again theres no guarentee their drivers will be better than ATI who after all, worked with microsoft in deciding the features of DX11
Average fps : 74.6
Minimum fps : 49.2
Ultra settings, with 4 x AA
Resolution 1680 x 1050
A better CPU than mine would hopefully get higher averages/minimums again.
The improvements from the likes of GRID are subtle, but some of the lighting and water effects are impressive.
game over. winner will start playing soon :)
There is a lot of difference, (but it is still the same game).
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums