bit-tech.net

Farewell to DirectX?

Comments 1 to 25 of 140

Reply
will_123 16th March 2011, 09:14 Quote
Very interesting article. Makes sense to drop it if its going to help the platform, but with developers not wanting to release many games on it just now will they want to put even more time/money into developing a game without the API?
maverik-sg1 16th March 2011, 09:19 Quote
I think DX9 was the ast really user friendly API, DX10 was a mess, 10.1 ws only adopted by AMD - so for the last 3 years or more the API has been a diffcult beast to tame, DX11 fixes some fo that but also brings in more complications.

I liked the info provided about processing efficiencies of the console and what they are capable of without using an API - one could also argue that most PC titles are restriced because they have to be ported across to PS3 and XBOX and also cater for DX8 or DX9 gpus that are still in PC's today.

The points made are valid, the API has to cater for a very broad range of GPU's I think this would be made less restrictive if the industry would agree that any gpu older than 4yrs becomes an unsupported legacy product (with a legacy instruction set), thus allowing designers to develop and opimise for a much more streamlined set of products using modern techniques.

The alternative would be back the good old days of selecting your GPU from a menue when installing the game and have direct to metal instruction sets for each - watch AMD and NV splash out the millions then to make one more optimised than the other :).

I'd like to hear more developers feedback on the DX Versus OPEN Versus Console.
Deders 16th March 2011, 09:23 Quote
So what about OpenGL?:
Snips 16th March 2011, 09:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
So what about OpenGL?:

Funny how Elma Fuddy here didn't mention that isn't it. Which API does AMD favour again?
arcticstoat 16th March 2011, 09:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
So what about OpenGL?:

The same also applies to OpenGL - it's just that most cutting-edge PC game developers use DirectX now, and they're the ones who are most likely to be interested in programming direct-to-metal. We've also got a big feature all about OpenGL coming up in Custom PC soon.
l3v1ck 16th March 2011, 09:36 Quote
I'm old enough to remember having to select what hardware (egh sound card) you had to play Doom. If it wasn't on the list, no sound.
I really hope we don't go back to that. It was especially annoying if you had hardware newer than the game. Remember when sound cards were advertised as "Sound Blaster compatable" so you knew you'd be able to get them to work in games?
If you take away the ease of use then you really will kill the PC as a gaming platform.
l3v1ck 16th March 2011, 09:45 Quote
If getting the best is a question of coding directly for the hardware, imaging how good games will look on the next generation of games consoles when they come out in five years or so.
I'm hoping for masses of tesselation.
SpAceman 16th March 2011, 09:48 Quote
Very interesting. I can see this happening in the future but not for a long while yet.
mi1ez 16th March 2011, 09:55 Quote
Interesting theory but I can see too many perfectly good, older gaming architectures out there that devs will still want to be able to sell to creating too many options.
Jaffo 16th March 2011, 09:56 Quote
So last week Huddy praises Microsoft for D3D and this week he wants rid of it? If they start dropping stuff like DX, they really will kill off the PC as a gaming platform.
Da_Rude_Baboon 16th March 2011, 09:57 Quote
I thought the xbox was called the xbox because it used directx?
sp4nky 16th March 2011, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticstoat
We've also got a big feature all about OpenGL coming up in Custom PC soon.

Page 117 of the current (May) issue.
x5pilot 16th March 2011, 09:58 Quote
So are there any examples of real world "direct to metal" games available?
arcticstoat 16th March 2011, 09:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sp4nky
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticstoat
We've also got a big feature all about OpenGL coming up in Custom PC soon.

Page 117 of the current (May) issue.

Nah, that's about OpenCL :P
BRAWL 16th March 2011, 09:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
I'm old enough to remember having to select what hardware (egh sound card) you had to play Doom. If it wasn't on the list, no sound.
I really hope we don't go back to that. It was especially annoying if you had hardware newer than the game. Remember when sound cards were advertised as "Sound Blaster compatable" so you knew you'd be able to get them to work in games?
If you take away the ease of use then you really will kill the PC as a gaming platform.

Oh I remember that, used to drive me MENTAL. However, I could see it being alot easier these days... auto-detect and the such.

I mean, say you buy something on STEAM and you've got your rig details uploaded somewhere. The copy you download could be optimised (wording, I know) specifically for your system!

Sure turnaround times on games will go up... but to be fair, this kind of thing is a good way to go =]
bob_lewis 16th March 2011, 10:01 Quote
Interesting, indeed! Please follow up on this.

I know it's probably not a great comparison, but perhaps we can move towards something like the luxury sports car world. Just like with high-end PCs, most people won't / can't afford to buy an Aston Martin DBS, but those that do will probably say it was worth every penny (or cent, or what have you). If you pay "top dollar" for something you sure as hell expect to get more out of your investment than the guy that bought a Skoda.
julianmartin 16th March 2011, 10:26 Quote
A very good article, thankyou.
AstralWanderer 16th March 2011, 10:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
...It was especially annoying if you had hardware newer than the game. Remember when sound cards were advertised as "Sound Blaster compatable" so you knew you'd be able to get them to work in games?
I'd second this - having games too tightly coded to specific graphics cards makes them less likely to work with future ones. The PCs biggest benefit has always been having access to the largest collection of software, going back to the 1980's (though much of the early stuff now requires emulators like DosBox or ScummVM to run properly).

As for games "looking alike", isn't that more a reflection of them using engines developed by the likes of Unreal and ID? I would have thought a more valid complaint would be about games *playing* alike - particularly with companies previously known for breaking the mould descending into generic 3D FPS-hood (*cough* Bioware *cough*).
maverik-sg1 16th March 2011, 10:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
If getting the best is a question of coding directly for the hardware, imaging how good games will look on the next generation of games consoles when they come out in five years or so.
I'm hoping for masses of tesselation.

Well its a poor state of affairs but I did say it reference to the console article (next gen due out on 2014) that this will be the next big performance leap for pc games and then we will have to wait for the generationa fter that for the next big leap - whereas before 3d tech leaps came with every new DX revision (18-24mths).
ajfsound 16th March 2011, 10:39 Quote
Very interesting - I had no idea that consoles could still render more geometry than pc (seems unbelievable). I have to agree with AstralWanderer though - I suspect the uptake of developing around popular game engines has a big part to play in games 'looking the same'.

Also as above I will reserve full judgement until it's clear which games today are being coded direct to metal.

Maybe this explains why GTAIV struggled to run as well as it shold've on PC?
wuyanxu 16th March 2011, 10:39 Quote
the problem is that CPU have a common instruction set: x86. even if software programmers use assembly language to write highly optimised code, they are still issuing x86 Opcode to be decoded by the CPU decoder.

different GPU architectures, even Fermi to G80 from the same company will have a vastly different instruction sets, this is the same argument RISC to CISC. it will never happen in this world of everyone wanting backwards compatibility and half-year hardware cycles.

this is like asking developers to develop for the alternative universe ARM where they release a new ARM instruction set every 6 months. no developer will be able to keep up!.



API exist for a reason, they do have overhead, but it makes sure there is a common programming standard across all level of hardware. even if DirectX is removed, there is still graphic drivers, if we remove that, we remove those graphics company's source of income from blind/clueless enthusiastic: multi-GPU.

i see this as a way of trying to make game developers do the hardwork for them, so that they no longer need to provide so frequent driver updates to optimise for games.



TL;DR: too many different architectures, lack of backwards compatibility. basically AMD asking developer to do their own low level optimisation.
Da_Rude_Baboon 16th March 2011, 10:46 Quote
Would this not ultimately shift the 'API' from directx to the game engine makes? I.E. Cryengine, Unreal or ID engine effectively becomes the API as the engine authors work to get the most out of hardware leaving the devs free to work on the rest?
Siwini 16th March 2011, 10:56 Quote
So wait Xbox 360 got better game graphics in games than my GTX 570???
sb1991 16th March 2011, 10:58 Quote
It's not really in Microsoft's interest for PC games to be 10 times better than Xbox games though, is it? People will buy their OS even if the games are terrible, and they can make a lot more cash from people paying £40 for the latest Halo than from someone picking up a PC game in the Steam sales that used their software tools at some point. It's a shame, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft were deliberately crippling their API on the PC (yes, it's still better than the alternative, but that says more about OpenGL than it does about DirectX) in order to keep the gap between console games and PC games somewhat manageable.
BentAnat 16th March 2011, 11:02 Quote
The big issue with this that I see is really the compatibility list... "runs only on AMD GPUS".
Suddenly "the way it's meant to be played" would turn into "the only way to play it".
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums