Second video looks bad, first one looks ok because of the advanced lighting features. I am going to say this again and I know I know... DX11

Why? Because volumetric clouds that interact with light and weather physics would only be possible using DX11 tech for both cpu and gpu reasons. (it would also run faster).

This is certainly NOT true.

An implementation of cloud rendering based on basic light scattering through clouds (or particles.. basically), is possible, and perfectly viable using DX9.
(and older versions too)
on a sidenote, I believe I have an old demo on my other PC from a whitepaper implementation from 2002, that looks amazing.

Again and again I see people overestimating the capabilities of DX11 or DX10 vs DX9.

It MUST be noted time and time again that while these DX iterations are more powerful, they do not drastically improve the amount of things that you can actually do on the GPU.

DX9 vs DX11 does. I have already explained why in many post from a base level pov with pipelines all the way to a graphics designer pov that makes it more efficient, better looking and easier to create.

So DX8 had sub surface scattering, and advanced particle physics/light interaction? Care to back that up with pics/evidence?

Been reading some more wiki's I see.

DX11 is a great incremental improvement in many different areas, especially visual quality and efficiency of certain effects (among other stuff) but much like DX10 it's hardly the panacea you always make it out to be.

Good topic though, and I'd love to see some developer input although I'm also just as sure you'd be telling Ilya what he really should be doing with DX11, or assume he's just lying. ;)

If we're not seeing a lot of implementation of cloud systems like that first video by now after 4 years it's a pretty good indication it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Other systems like SpeedTree have caught on and are being used in CoD (I'm pretty sure) and many other games.

As usual charvel you have to butt in like a moron to smack talk and make yourself look ignorrant. I am getting really tired of you idiotic canned replies to whenever I post.

http://translate.google.de/translate...ews%2F&act=url

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...795#post233795

"PCGH: Would the use of DX11 will only accelerate the performance when rendering or DX11 provides for a clear appreciation of the optics?
Oleg Maddox: Beide Aspekte sind sehr wichtig. Oleg Maddox: Both aspects are very important. Zum einen ist eine verbesserte Performance hilfreich. First, an improved performance is helpful. Zum anderen planen wir, die Landschaft per Tesselation optisch aufzuwerten und Post-Effekte wie einen Local Tonemap Operator oder High Qualitiy Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (HQSSAO) einzusetzen. Second, we plan to enhance the landscape visually by tessellation and post-effects such as a Local Tonemap operator or high Qualitiy Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (HQSSAO) use."

As always if you post like an idiot - I reserve the right to call you one, especially because its the only type of post you ever write in response. I guess your reading skills arent very advanced because this is not the first time I have had to link you to info like this.

Actually - you are making yourself the fool.

Both SSAO and Tonemaps (+ a WIDE variety of other post-processing shaders & filters) are fully available in DX9, and with good implementation, are perfectly viable performance wise.


The BIGGEST example of this is CryEngine 3, which is running under DX9 (on consoles and PCs) and is an amazingally beautiful engine.

http://gaming.icrontic.com/files/200...ft-Effects.jpg

http://get-2.wpapi.wp.pl/a,61764431,...e/crysis_2.jpg

I'd rather they take their time and properly implement a cloud rendering solution for the next expansion or something as such.

Clouds are by far one of the most important factors when it comes to the look and graphics of the game.

Agreed. I think they already have better clouds on tap but I suspect they realized some time ago the performance hit in it's current state is too much at this point, much like the dynamic weather. I guess we'll see.

Helicon the only issue I have with your posts is how you draw conclusions from the technical aspects whose purpose you know but have little clue as to their real-life implementations.

It's just that you end up spreading a lot of disinformation that confuses people unless someone calls you on it, which has happened a few times now, once by Luthier himself. I'll be happy to support your posts that are constructive or even just posited as opinion.

I never said they cannot be done - they are done alot better and with less of a performance hit in DX11. Crysis 3 is a CONSOLE oreinted engine, its sacrfices alot of Cryengine2 features and in fact is less powerful. They cut down on its draw distances, physics, lighting effects among other things to gain performance. ALso you just called Oleg Madox the fool because that was a quote from him on DX11 use vs DX9 in COD! So instead of criticising me on the hssao which I never once wrote (until right now) maybe you should pay attention to something called a quotation mark (") and a link, but as someone who thinks cryengine 3 is the best thing since sliced bread I should not of expected more (because its a crappy engine and game, not to mention that there is only three graphics setting on the computer (discluding res) which is "gamer" "advanced" "hardcore" and absolutely no info on what each entails. But I guess thats how you like your options, clean cut and just what you see right infront of you?
But I suppose if you know squat about what goes on under the hood you might think it looks better.

Now remembering that cryengine 2 is many years older then 3, and that its running in DX10 not DX11 (10 is not as efficient and is harder as a graphics designer to use) this shows the differance well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

Wait Luthier called me on what? Did you read my linked posts? I was right and saying what they should do 4 months before they even announced that it was infact what they were going to do. I also have a decent amount of experience in Maya/Autodesk which is what the majority of games and CGI graphics are modeled and textured/animated in.

So what disinformation exactly? As usual you completely fail to support any claims you make, its a habit you seem to refuse to break and I wouldnt respond to you this way if you would 1. stop trolling about 1/2 my posts, and 2. actually provide evidence or a cogent argument.

Edit: A few hours after making this post, luthier posted this: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19819
Under E for how to improve performance: "E. NOTE: DirectX 9 offers slower performance and lower graphic fidelity. If your system meets Recommended system requirements, upgrading to a DX10-capable operating system will offer better performance boost in Cliffs of Dover than perhaps any hardware upgrade."

Not to sound arrogant - but yet again I am verified indirectly by a dev statement.