DNF Graphics

[Mr.DJ]

Prediction: Primarily DX9 based rendering with a dx10 mode with a few added options!

more heavy dx10 fx's or dx11 introduction, in updates/expansions later on! together with physx updates!

IF released this year! :-)

[Jiminator]

the latest steam survey shows 22.8 % have vista + DX10, but of the "promoted" DX10 titles the 8800 series does not do a great job with them, IMO you need at least a GTX 260 or 280, and that puts you at 1%

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

[fast-1]

Well that's something of a relief direct X 9 is still going strong.

[peoplessi]

Relief? It will be the major player for few years, the move to DX10 will take a bit longer.

[vincentdante]

I made this thread asking because my new rig is pretty beasty and I want to see more DX10 titles tbh, phenom x4 9950 quad-core, 4gb ram and a HD4850 x2 I think I can probably handle DNF when/if it comes out

Brand new build and needless to say I want games that can handle DX10 well with something like this XD

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

A lot of people believe that games are not fully using DX10 to it's potential and won't until they retire the DX9 compatibility in games. Fog effects in games like Bioshock are a night and day difference. But I don't see a huge difference in most gameplay.... In fact Tomb Raider Underworld looks amazing in DX9. It certainly doesn't cripple the textures.

I don't know the technical aspects, but looking at the back of new video card boxes the differences are crisp and bold, and completely breathtaking. Basic bull

DX10 isn't some sort of magical box full of fancy graphics. If anything looks different than in DX9, it's because the developers made it that way, which is exactly what they did in Bioshock.

[peoplessi]

DX10 isn't only about graphical bells and whistles, it's more optimized. Making certain tasks more quicker than on DX9. Due less overhead compared to DX9. Based on your first post I can't see what you are aiming at, since if it's to your knowledge "DX10 is just a failed marketing experiment."

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Jiminator

the latest steam survey shows 22.8 % have vista + DX10, but of the "promoted" DX10 titles the 8800 series does not do a great job with them, IMO you need at least a GTX 260 or 280, and that puts you at 1%

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

NewEgg has a BFG GTX280 for $320 right now....

which means it will be $100 by XMAS

[Derwin]

Originally Posted by Mr.DJ

Prediction: Primarily DX9 based rendering with a dx10 mode with a few added options!

IF released this year! :-)

I agree with this prediction, if released this year as you said. I would love the game to feature DX10, but it still absolutely needs DX9 support. The reason I would love to see DX10 (heck, even DX11) features is because this is a game I could see myself upgrading for.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Originally Posted by peoplessi

DX10 isn't only about graphical bells and whistles, it's more optimized. Making certain tasks more quicker than on DX9. Due less overhead compared to DX9. Based on your first post I can't see what you are aiming at, since if it's to your knowledge "DX10 is just a failed marketing experiment."

Your graphics card drivers are optimized to run faster. You don't optimize DX, you add new features and DX10 had none of those. It didn't have anything new so Microsoft made up random crap on the spot, like making Halo 2 a Vista only game, or replacing the Very High graphics settings in some games (Crysis, Bioshock, GoW, Assassin's Creed) with Vista only DX10 settings. All of those games can be very easily modified to display those so-called DX10 settings on WinXP at the exact same performance.

The problem here is they didn't sell anything new but they convinced people that they were buying something new. It's the most blatantly dishonest marketing ploy you could think of, and they managed to pull it off on a global scale. They made ludicrous amounts of money off people's ignorance, and that's just weak.

It's ridiculous.

[alexgk]

I'll be happy enough if DNF runs decently in my lap

[Parkar]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

Your graphics card drivers are optimized to run faster. You don't optimize DX, you add new features and DX10 had none of those. It didn't have anything new so Microsoft made up random crap on the spot, like making Halo 2 a Vista only game, or replacing the Very High graphics settings in some games (Crysis, Bioshock, GoW, Assassin's Creed) with Vista only DX10 settings. All of those games can be very easily modified to display those so-called DX10 settings on WinXP at the exact same performance.

The problem here is they didn't sell anything new but they convinced people that they were buying something new. It's the most blatantly dishonest marketing ploy you could think of, and they managed to pull it off on a global scale. They made ludicrous amounts of money off people's ignorance, and that's just weak.

It's ridiculous.

There is an API between the game and the graphics driver though, maybe you have heard of it, it's called DX10 in this case which has less overhead compared to dx9, or so they say. You can most defiantly optimize the API. The most obvious optimization is allowing the same to be done with fewer function calls (this would be a typical overhead optimaization).

From what I have heard there were a lot of layers all the calls had to go through with dx9 which is suposed to be removed in dx10. I don't know any of the details about dx10 vs dx9 though.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

That "less overhead" crap will only come with DX11. They did put it in their SP1 DX10.1 update but no one has made a card that supports DX10.1 yet. And they probably never will because Windows 7 will come soon anyway. So like I said, there's nothing about DX10 other than untold misery and fail.

[peoplessi]

You need to educate yourself on this subject more, before you make fools claims: http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/55/

First off, the DirectX 10 we have now, can't work on XP. No matter what you do, it's designed with new Windows's in mind, Vista / Seven and beyond.

Second, the games that supported it, like the ones you mentioned, only used DX10 to do certain things, faster than on DX9. So nothing that DX9 couldn't do, but DX10 does better. The so called DX10 ports only used to circumvent the Vista-only thing, as in Halo 2, but it didn't bring DX10 to XP.

Third, what and what doesn't DX10 do then? Read more here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/libr...68(VS.85).aspx

Your claims are that it isn't nothing significant, it's very much significant, it's first step of the new generation of DX, and that's alone important. DX10 had a bit poor destiny, but it's nonetheless significant, not "untold misery and fail".

[sRfuzzyLogik]

Seems like a lot of people haven't really seen DX10 in action. Play a game like Crysis with everything turned all the way up on a machine that can run it with >30fps...then you'll see what it's all about. Graphically it's simply amazing.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by sRfuzzyLogik

Seems like a lot of people haven't really seen DX10 in action. Play a game like Crysis with everything turned all the way up on a machine that can run it with >30fps...then you'll see what it's all about. Graphically it's simply amazing.

I went to GenCon and visited the Alienware Trailer where they had Crysis running on small and large machines - some screens that would take up most of a wall, and made a big scene pointing at the Jaggies saying "that's not the best graphics of any game" , and saying things like "Why is the foliage flashing on and off on every machine in here?"

Crysis graphics are good but they are very overrated, and not a good example of DX10. Just like looking at dust particles for PhysX you really need to look at specific features in games that have been released so far. For example, Bioshock has a great amount of highly detailed fog rendering that DX9 simply wouldn't be able to do. As far as new and yet unreleased games, I think they will slowly start making them in ways that more fully improve graphics.

[sRfuzzyLogik]

wow. I said a game LIKE Crysis - it wasn't the end-all-be-all of great looking DX10 graphics to begin with, just a single example. The whole point is that if you have a DX10 driven machine the graphics compared DX9 is very noticeable (and thus significant). Shaders, lighting, water, volume/effects etc., are amazing. Even the difference between DX9 CoH and DX10 CoH is huge.

And if you saw jaggies and foliage flashing on and off while playing Crysis they must have had some pretty crappy machines.

//people use FC2 as a good example now, but i've barely played that game.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by sRfuzzyLogik

wow. I said a game LIKE Crysis - it wasn't the end-all-be-all of great looking DX10 graphics to begin with, just a single example. The whole point is that if you have a DX10 driven machine the graphics compared DX9 is very noticeable (and thus significant). Shaders, lighting, water, volume/effects etc., are amazing. Even the difference between DX9 CoH and DX10 CoH is huge.

And if you saw jaggies and foliage flashing on and off while playing Crysis they must have had some pretty crappy machines.

//people use FC2 as a good example now, but i've barely played that game.

I understand... I just never used Nelson before, I was itching to haw haw.
No offence... in any event, there is a few new ones that I understand are a notch or two above Crysis.
You like CoH?
I'm actually in the CO closed beta... I wish I could say more (they did say I was allowed to say I was in it)

[sRfuzzyLogik]

Lol, then none taken

I think for the most part companies are really just starting to get the handle of DX10 and what it can really do... and if you have the machine for it, can do some pretty amazing stuff that certainly leaves DX9 behind...and DX9 isn't bad by any means!

And yeah I like Coh, actually after Starcraft CoH is my favorite RTS.

[vincentdante]

Well I reckon if DNF used DX10 it would be that more awesome, however I wouldn't care if it used only DX9 as long as it came out

[Jiminator]

there is nothing that you can do in dx10 that you can't do in dx9 with a little more work

[hark]

Duke Nukem Forever should stay on DirectX 9 so that it releases sooner. The next Duke game can be made with DirectX 11/OpenGL 3.1/Larrabee API/whatever.

[oak man]

^^ couldnt agree more hark!

I think 3DR should focus on gameplay, the graphics already look amazing!

[hightreason]

DX9 is good enough - It can look excellent - and from what we've seen, if DNF uses it, it'll look awesome. But for me, it could be DirectX 3 - I wont care as long as it plays good.
They'll probably release it DX-10 only, and i wont be able to play it (I have DX-10 for XP, but my PC is too crappy to do it)
Gameplay, that's what i want.

[vincentdante]

Yeah man, I don't care if it looks like DN3D at this point lol, I just hope that it plays good as well. It is after all why I am here.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

No offence... in any event, there is a few new ones that I understand are a notch or two above Crysis.

Lol dude. No game even comes close to coming close to Crysis in terms of graphics, let alone a notch or two above it. Bioshock is maybe 5 years behind in terms of the technology it uses.

[Echo Black]

Bioshock has a great amount of highly detailed fog rendering that DX9 simply wouldn't be able to do.

This is incorrect. The same way DX10 can currently emulate XPDM, DX9 could emulate WDDM and upwards, meaning pretty much all DX10 libraries (Or do you think SM4 support required a new DX release to be implemented? An incremental would have sufficed - The push is a monetary one) are interchangeable, give or take. Not to mention DX10 (not 10.1) had a lot of legacy code (can't point too many fingers, look at the drama going on regarding the latest OpenGL release), which should further raise people's eyebrows.

In nearly every way, DX9 and DX10 are very "close" APIs. If you think there was a reason other than marketing ones (New DX version to go with Vista = MS trying to make an excellent impression, not to mention an attempt at luring gamers to the new OS), you are either giving them too much credit or being naive. Essentially, anything that "can't be done" on DX9 really can (or could) be done if there was support and interest from Microsoft and the hardware industry. Sadly, that's not how it works, and there's not much that can be done about it. I have a DX10 rig (can't miss Alan Wake, man), but not for a moment should one fall for MS's sweet talking regarding the API. They're a business making multi-millionaire partnership decisions, remember that.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

Lol dude. No game even comes close to coming close to Crysis in terms of graphics, let alone a notch or two above it. Bioshock is maybe 5 years behind in terms of the technology it uses.

The newest shooters are better, from what I've seen, and what the industry and gamers are saying. But you're just trolling... I never said Bioshock was better, I gave a simple response as to what DX9 - IN IT'S CURRENT STATE - can not do.... and it was another post. You intentionally took my posts completely out of context.

Proof of that is this silly argument of how the hardware people and Microsoft could do it , yet want to make money with the marketing of DX10.

Well they didn't provide an upgraded DX9 .... pee all you want, but DX9 can't do it. I have wrote at length how XP should have given upgrade support rather than shoving Vista down our throat with promises of better graphics - but I digress - please don't use my posts to troll up nonsense.

[Echo Black]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

Proof of that is this silly argument of how the hardware people and Microsoft could do it , yet want to make money with the marketing of DX10.

You're not making sense, and using a logical fallacy to "make a point" is not very nice.

Well they didn't provide an upgraded DX9

Actually, they did, and it's called Direct3D 9EX.

.... pee all you want, but DX9 can't do it.

9EX/WGF 1.0 is the latest development of DirectX 9 (Vista only). It supports WDDM, so, yes, DX9 "can do it".

9EX essentially bridges the gap between XP and Vista, though not being available for XP while infighting with DX10 on its native OS severely hampers its buzz. But we're not talking "what API is more widely used", we're talking "can DX9 do it?". You ask me, if 9EX was available for fifth generation Windows systems, I'd wager we would be seeing shared functionality (read my previous SM4 comment) between it and DX10 already.

[peoplessi]

DX9EX isn't upgraded DX9 per se, you are wrong there.

"Direct3D 9Ex (known internally during Windows Vista development as 9.0L or 9.L, the L standing for Vista's codename: Longhorn): allows full access to the new capabilities of WDDM (if WDDM drivers are installed) while maintaining compatibility for existing Direct3D applications. The Windows Aero user interface relies on D3D 9Ex."

Totally different ballgame when you compare DX10 to that, it's new DX generation, nothing to do with the old. You have to start somewhere, and the main argument was that DX10 "offers nothing" "marketing gimmick" "could be done on XP". Well, it could, if it would be build from ground up. The changes to the underlaying architecture in new Windows's meant that it was impossible to bring the functionality to XP. It remains as so. I can't see why we are going around and around here on this useless subject. Since any one of those bolded claims are incorrect.

[Echo Black]

Originally Posted by peoplessi

DX9EX isn't upgraded DX9 per se, you are wrong there.

Uh, it is DX9 + WDDM support. It is an upgrade. The last part of my previous post was just a "what if", if I didn't make it clear. I know MS won't roll back all DX10 functionality into an older version because that's simply not how it works.

Totally different ballgame when you compare DX10 to that, it's new DX generation, nothing to do with the old. You have to start somewhere, and the main argument was that DX10 "offers nothing" "marketing gimmick" "could be done on XP". Well, it could, if it would be build from ground up. The changes to the underlaying architecture in new Windows's meant that it was impossible to bring the functionality to XP. It remains as so.

Somewhat unrelated, but in the end, a company deciding on naming conventions is what divides one API "generation" from another. It's up to MS alone to decide if whatever additions to the next DX release are, indeed, worthy of a "new" numerical increase. It makes no sense to act as if DX10 is a completely different platform that cut contact with what has come before.

I can't see why we are going around and around here on this useless subject.

We're allowed to discuss as long as we stay on topic and don't break the rules.

Since any one of those bolded claims are incorrect.

Incorrect by which standard? Not trying to reply with "well thats just ur opinion lololol" as it would be just obnoxious, but you know what they say about opinions.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by peoplessi

DX9EX isn't upgraded DX9 per se, you are wrong there.

"Direct3D 9Ex (known internally during Windows Vista development as 9.0L or 9.L, the L standing for Vista's codename: Longhorn): allows full access to the new capabilities of WDDM (if WDDM drivers are installed) while maintaining compatibility for existing Direct3D applications. The Windows Aero user interface relies on D3D 9Ex."

Totally different ballgame when you compare DX10 to that, it's new DX generation, nothing to do with the old. You have to start somewhere, and the main argument was that DX10 "offers nothing" "marketing gimmick" "could be done on XP". Well, it could, if it would be build from ground up. The changes to the underlaying architecture in new Windows's meant that it was impossible to bring the functionality to XP. It remains as so. I can't see why we are going around and around here on this useless subject. Since any one of those bolded claims are incorrect.

Right... I don't even want to understand why DX10 code or new uber DX9 is Vista only.
I'm just going to trust that it goes to the fundamental archetecture of the OS. People of all levels have differing opinions as to the necessity versus marketing debate on a design that's too late to change - it sure would go nowhere as an anti-trust issue (as some seem to indicate is viable)

Myself, in an attempt of empathy, am opposed to the promises made on the back of video card boxes. It's not the code I'm against, or even a Vista-Only upgrade in graphic technology. The argument of forcing the new OS may be relevant, and something I feel strongly about, but is still not a tragedy. Most new games will be made to run on XP for a while.

I believe DX9.0c, and even SM3 (that's right, I said 3).... is probably going to be looking almost as good for a few more years it's still pretty close -

I just hate to see marketing that so boldly claims that it's not... that's my beef - they tell us we're living in mud with DX9. Maybe in a year or two, I'll look back and say "yes, NOW we would be living in mud by comparison"

[peoplessi]

New uber DX9 means DX9 made Vista compatible, to run over the new driver layer. It's nothing special, yeah, upgrade in that very narrow and specific sense, but nothing more. Also, games still use DX9(D3DX9) on Vista.

DX10 is fresh start for DirectX, and yes, it couldn't have been done as it is now on XP. It never will come for XP, for said reasons explained above. The fact it just happens to be named DX10 has nothing do with it. DX10 is significant, but maybe not to your average gamer yet. That's true also. I purely doubt the decision making process went like "DX10 equals more Vista sales" on Microsoft.

OpenGL has failed with their newest revision, and why is that, because they are too afraid to cut some of the old functionality away. That keeps hindering them a lot, in the future if they keep on doing that, it will fade away. That would be a shame, since two proper APIs is always better than having just one of which Microsoft would have "sole" control over.

Also, I haven't seen many developers ranting about the functionality DX10 brings, like removing overhead. They complain mainly because it's nothing earth shattering, and that's what people complain here to about. You have to start somewhere, and DX10 was the first step. We already have DX10.1 and soon DX11 - DX11 has some new nifty features too.

You have to options, go the route Khronos Group decided, maintain utmost backwards compability with OpenGL 3.0, or take a fresh start like MS did with DX10. OpenGL has the industryworld behind it, due long relations to the CAD world, but CAD is moving towards Direct3D also.

Developers haven't done a pure DX10 game due small market, that's understandable, but different render paths for addional effects - not impossible. Xbox 360 shares some of the functionality that DX10 has, goes a bit beyond here and there, and falls short in parts.

Echo Black: Then argument your case, how does DX10 _not_ offer _anything_ new? Or how do you bring DX10 to XP? In which way is it "just a marketing gimmick"? You didn't answer any of those.

[Echo Black]

KO Gilligan : I think it's a little too early to start worrying about that. Don't think we'll see DX9 getting out of the picture anytime soon. Even if it gets desperately left behind, it'll probably be supported for years to come.

peoplessi: DX10 offers new things, I was simply saying it was all attainable with DX9. But as I admitted, that's not how things work in the industry. And the push for a new API might not have been entirely motivated by Vista pimping, but to think that factor didn't play a major part would be pretty silly.

EDIT: On the Wikipedia page about games that support it, you can check the 20 titles with DX10 support that are already out...And on the upcoming games list, you see DNF. Was there ever a statement about this or should I just chalk it up to Wikipedia BS?

[peoplessi]

I bet it's just wiki BS DNF looks gorgeous in DX9, but maybe the next Duke Nukem game will have DX11/12/13 support.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

The newest shooters are better, from what I've seen.

Well they just aren't. Not even close. The only games that I've seen that look like they could even come close to Crysis in terms of graphics are FEAR 2 and Cryostasis, but both of those don't even use half of the effects in Cryengine2. And even if by some obscure miracle they did, Crysis managed to display all of its skull shattering, mind-devastaging, monitor melting visuals in colossal sized open air maps, as opposed to endless dark boring corridors, and run reasonably well on today's computers.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

Well they just aren't. Not even close. The only games that I've seen that look like they could even come close to Crysis in terms of graphics are FEAR 2 and Cryostasis, but both of those don't even use half of the effects in Cryengine2. And even if by some obscure miracle they did, Crysis managed to display all of its skull shattering, mind-devastaging, monitor melting visuals in colossal sized open air maps, as opposed to endless dark boring corridors, and run reasonably well on today's computers.

actually, I think you are on to one major reason why Crysis was so taxing on Computers, The maps are enormous.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Well at least now I know that you've never played that game.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

Well at least now I know that you've never played that game.

I played it... I hated it, I tried to like it, the graphics were good. The Boat/Jeep driving was a joke... But the game killer for me - the A.I. - I don't know who was dumber, the enemy or my own team. Major waste of money for me, and I'm pretty easy on most shooters

But to each his own

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Yea ok maybe you've played the demo at medium settings, but mostly you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. For instance, in all other games, the character shadows are just pathetic little dark pixels drawn under their feet. Crysis is the only game in which the characters and every visible object cast a dynamic shadow not only upon themselves but also on the ground which varies in length and direction depending on infinite light sources. And that's just one of dozens of dozens of things that this game does that no other game can do.

But if you want to believe that DX10 is somehow better because of some vague crap you've read on Microsoft's site, despite there being almost no known functions added to it other than a fancy logo and an assload of marketing, then there's nothing I can do for you.