why new software cant run in old hardware

[raaaid]

lets take this game would it be posible to run it in rasperry pi at cpu700mhz with 256 ram?

i say if the devs want it would be posible

make it 16 colours instead of 32 million, hey i paint with less

make the posibility to make all ground just blue and green and brwon of buildings

take all shades away

well you know...

so if its posible to have a toned down game as to run it in low end pc why they dont give us that option and force us to buy new hardware?

[AndyJWest]

No. Wrong processor. Wrong operating system. Insufficient memory. Insufficient speed. Insufficient graphics capability. The RPi isn't intended to be a replacement for the average desktop PC, never mind a high-end gaming machine. That isn't what it is for.

[raaaid]

i can see that the flying model is something that rpi wont be able to handle however much you tone down the graphics i guess

but i still see a problem here

why we are not given the option to run the game in 256 colours or take buildings off completely

i bet the average spending for people on this game is:

30 euro in software 100 euro in hardware

[SDT_longshot]

personally i understand that for the realistic games to be played hardware and software will need to be upgraded its all part of the process reason i have brought myself a new computer so i can play cod if you want the standard games go play xbox or ps3 whats the point in toning the games and graphics down when we all want them improved it defeats the point of the new games coming out.

[GraveyardJimmy]

You also have to take into account the architecture used will be based on modern hardware, the programming will be written to take advantage of multiple cores and such. Windows itself has minimum requirements- no point in making Cliffs of Dover DOS compatible for example.

[raaaid]

I'm up for better graphics
but why am i not given the option to tone the graphics down
is there any reason why i can't run moder Games in 256 COLORS

edit:

myslef ill use the rpi to play scummvm games like monky island

i can run any game with it pre 2000

[5./JG27.Farber]

I'm up for better graphics
but why am i not given the option to tone the graphics down
is there any reason why i can't run moder Games in 256 COLORS

...because software is not backward compatable...

[GraveyardJimmy]

I'm up for better graphics
but why am i not given the option to tone the graphics down
is there any reason why i can't run moder Games in 256 COLORS

i can run any game with it pre 2000

There are ways that you can run games in older directx versions, but there will still be strain on the CPU for calculations. Team fortress 2 for example (and other source games), can run on directx 8. This wont work in all games as the engine may be reliant on dx9 or dx10 (or dx11) features that cannot be called in earlier versions of DX.

I think you could run the game in lower amounts of colours, but the problem is not rendering the colours, but the textures, the polygonal shapes etc. Therefore forcing a display of a lower colour amount probably wouldn't show an increase in fps.

[keinmann]

It's not simply a matter of performance (e.g., not enough memory or "power"), though that is certainly a big part of it. It's a much bigger and more complex issue. It goes down to how gaming software works at the lowest level...

Modern games for Windows use DirectX (typically 10, 10.1 or 11). Nowadays, DirectX no longer includes the FFP (Fixed-function Pipeline). FFP has been totally replaced with programmable shader pipelines. In modern DirectX, NOTHING gets on the screen without a shader. Shaders are what ultimately push pixels to your screen. And shaders require a proper GPU to be run!

If you ever try writing a video game or any real-time 3D application, you'll then realize how painful it can be to write code and shaders for different hardware. One card might support only Shader Model 2.0, while another supports 3.0. There are vast differences in these, and the workload it can put on programmers to be backward-compatible with old hardware can be obscene. Think about the fact that DirectX 9 only had vertex and pixel shaders. DirectX 10 introduced geometry shaders. Now in DirectX 11, I find myself writing pixel shaders, vertex shaders, geometry shaders, hull shaders, compute shaders and more! To put it in simple terms: Any hardware capable of running a modern DirectX or OpenGL application like IL-2 already has a shader-capable GPU and can do better than 256 color lol. So it's unnecessary.

And this is only the tip of the iceburg. The differences between versions of DirectX and hardware goes much, much deeper. The latest versions of DirectX have new controller APIs, for example. Another example is DirectX 11 no longer includes any "built-in" 2D API that works with D3D! There are new math APIs, lots of stuff is discontinued or no longer supported, etc. D3D 11 supports multi-threaded rendering and has a new Device Context COM interface... And it goes on and on and on... If you want to see what I'm talking about just dig around in Microsoft's release notes and the DirectX documentation. There's a LOT more to developing games (even very simple/crappy games) than a non-programmer could ever imagine! ;)

And this isn't even considering many other factors... Oh, now you have to port your game to OpenGL and make the darn thing run on Mac and Linux! Oh joy! Then a million new bugs get introduced... Programmer shoots himself in head... :shock:

[WTE_Galway]

Why be so wasteful as to go to 16 colours raaid ?

Surely someone should be able to get a version of CloD that runs on an ascii green screen terminal :D

[keinmann]

Why be so wasteful as to go to 16 colours raaid ?

Surely someone should be able to get a version of CloD that runs on an ascii green screen terminal :D

Personally, I think 16-bit monochromatic is the way to go... But that's just me talkin! :cool:

[raaaid]

personally i find more apealling just two colours:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61EMO2A%2B29L._SL500_AA300_.jpg