Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Heliocon there's no need to be aggressive. Most of us are intelligent enough to understand that DX11 will obviously be better than DX10.
That doesn't mean it's a fully mature technology yet, nor that it can be done in time (they will need to get used to working with it first to the detriment of other stuff that are equally important for a lot of potential customers, like for example spending time on the aircraft), neither that everyone has a DX11 GPU yet, so i don't really share your anguish.
Granted, it's a matter of taste and i tend to focus more on things like "how do the airplanes fly, is it accurate?" and prefer it when they focus on that kind of stuff, but i don't think delaying the game for 6 months to add DX11 support before release would mean much for you.
You still wouldn't have a DX11-capable CoD either way until 6 months later.
As for the processing load, Luthier said that it's not so much the graphics but the positional references that hog the system resources. I think he said that they could reduce each house to a pixel and we would still get almost the exact same FPS: the CPU would still have to track each of that pixels' positions relative to the player's aircraft and we all know that a PC is only as fast as its slowest component for the given task. Even if our GPU could render everything just fine, in all likelihood it would probably have to "synchronise" with the rest of the components and wait for the CPU before fusing the complete set of data to present on the screen.
|
My problem with charvels response is that he never specified what he had a problem with, or disagreed with. The reason I said what I said is that if the devs statements of true it is poor planning. I dont think its "lazy" but they knew what they were getting into, knew what they wanted out of the engine and they should of planned it in a way that takes into account all these problems. What I see is a lack of foresight that can be crippling to a game engine.
Now as far as DX11 is concerned - I think they should of cut out dx10 completely and just gone dx11 and dx9, because dx11 builds on dx10, but is far far easier to work with, so the time they spent on 10 could of been spent on 11, and would of been completed far faster. Also it would mean that they would have alot less modeling work to do (although this depends on alot of factors). Now I think mechanics are as important if not more than graphics - but they keep saying they want fps fidelity, which is absurd because atm it has no where near the detail of an fps, and no where near the detail it should have as a flight sim either, because when buildings sprout from the ground it screams "cheap indie game". That should not happen at all in 2011, there is no excuse for it with modern hardware and tech. Now maybe on mid range systems it does not happen, but since they dont care to update their non russian community, we dont know.
The supposed CPU bottleneck on buildings is due to bad optimization and tbh makes no sense.
1. Its because the cpu keep track of every building, irregardless of LOD or distance and has to tell the gpu to render shadows and lighting interactions on each of them irrespective of if we can see the effects or not = Gpu bottleneck. If not and it is purely CPU then I have no idea what the hell they are doing because you dont need to track a houses position, the damn thing is stationary. Why do you need to track its position if it is not visible? Because it blocks another object? Thats crazy, who the hell makes maps / engines that way? Also adding to that there no reason why they would need to track stationary objects for anything BUT LOS rendering on the GPU. Computers can dome enormous amounts of calculations per second, but its like we are adding 1+1 and we get 33.33333x66.6666^infinity. It just doesnt add up and it should not be an issue in the first place...
-p.s DX11 has been around for two years now, its time to move on.