the future of Clouds .

[CharveL]

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.

What?? I don't see anything about DX11 in there anywhere or how it makes DX11 the holy grail of performance for CoD. Also, I'm not contending that everything you've copy/pasted or rambled on about is wrong by any means, just some of your conclusions on how it should be applied to CoD.

I also got a kick out of your suggestion to Luthier that maybe he should try using simple "hit boxes" around trees as a solution to performance. That's like me telling my mechanic to check the engine as a solution to why my car won't start.

If I had the inclination to joust with you further I'd bring up the post where you shouted about how CoD doesn't use more than one core, showing pics of apparently idle cores from task manager, which further illustrated your lack of understanding of how tasks tend to be distributed to additional cores in games. Then, while you were obnoxiously insulting another poster that came in to correct some of your misunderstandings, Luthier dropped in to explain that yes indeed CoD uses other cores as needed.

I'm not going to follow you down your preferred path of debating by hurling insults, although I've got a thick enough skin that it doesn't really bother me. People really aren't interested in wading through our back and forth banter.

You do bring some good information to the table and if you just stuck to that, instead of pretending you know better than the developers, and getting pouty and butthurt when someone steps in to correct you, you wouldn't find yourself being embarrassed when it does happen.

If you can stick to that, I'll look forward to your posts and will learn a few things myself from you and the discussion.

[Cobra8472]

When you say that CryEngine 3 is a step back from CryEngine 2, I'll just leave you with this .pdf:

http://www.crytek.com/sites/default/...20Features.pdf

Just because they cut back some of the settings and numbers of dynamic lights etc etc for console versions, does not mean the engine is worse...


and for that matter, ALL respect to Oleg and Luthier for amazing skills in various areas of game development, but I'm unsure as to how many HLSL shaders they have written....

[Cobra8472]

Here's another SDK to get those tastebuds working

Easily implementable,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WluLUXMg604

[CharveL]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Clouds don't need to move.

Moving clouds is a huge FPS killer.

Fact is, in an aircombat simulation the player is always moving. Usually at a speed far exceeding any cloud movement. Cloud movement would be practically non-discernible to player.

Also, when programming for AI:

Not being able to see in the clouds it would be much more difficult for tracking cloud positions along with AI movement. This would affect the FPS as well.

It can all be done I'm sure, but to be honest with you. I would rather have the ability to have more moving objects that really mean something to gameplay.

So, give me static clouds that don't move, that AI cannot see through.

Above all... I want the best FPS possible. So give me eye-candy taht doesn't affect FPS.

Agreed. It's a shame we can't have it all but frame rate really is king.

Then again, they might be able to do some clever work to get them in without as much impact or offloading to another core but that would raise the minimum system requirements to 4 cores, much like the tree collisions Luthier mentioned. The other factor would be the effect on online play keeping track of them in relation to all players and AI.

Who knows, maybe DX11 will give us free clouds.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by CharveL

What?? I don't see anything about DX11 in there anywhere or how it makes DX11 the holy grail of performance for CoD. Also, I'm not contending that everything you've copy/pasted or rambled on about is wrong by any means, just some of your conclusions on how it should be applied to CoD.

I also got a kick out of your suggestion to Luthier that maybe he should try using simple "hit boxes" around trees as a solution to performance. That's like me telling my mechanic to check the engine as a solution to why my car won't start.

If I had the inclination to joust with you further I'd bring up the post where you shouted about how CoD doesn't use more than one core, showing pics of apparently idle cores from task manager, which further illustrated your lack of understanding of how tasks tend to be distributed to additional cores in games. Then, while you were obnoxiously insulting another poster that came in to correct some of your misunderstandings, Luthier dropped in to explain that yes indeed CoD uses other cores as needed.

I'm not going to follow you down your preferred path of debating by hurling insults, although I've got a thick enough skin that it doesn't really bother me. People really aren't interested in wading through our back and forth banter.

You do bring some good information to the table and if you just stuck to that, instead of pretending you know better than the developers, and getting pouty and butthurt when someone steps in to correct you, you wouldn't find yourself being embarrassed when it does happen.

If you can stick to that, I'll look forward to your posts and will learn a few things myself from you and the discussion.

Please show me where I posted pics of COD use and cores. Seriously - I never saw this reply but you are a lier - find that post. As usual you make up whatever you want, I never posted any pics like that because I DO NOT OWN COD (yet) and could not of possibly posted any pics of it running on my machine. Over that the pic you are talking about displayed 8 virtual cores, I run a 980x which has 12 virtual cores.
Also DX10.1 uses basically the same shader pipelines and lighting effects that DX11 does, DX10 uses a lighting system closer to DX9 than DX11 which results in bad performance. Therefore the DX11 rescource managment which is grouped with dx10.1 are both better than dx10/dx9 which is shader model 2-3. DX11 builds on this improvement by harnessing dynamic graphics detail systems to further increase performance per effect than dx10.1 does (basically dx11 adds a few tweaks to the underlying unified platform, and a bunch of new graphical techniques).

Since you yet again lied, without any proof of your statement, I am going to call you yet again a name. Sorry, when you misquote me and bs I feel the need to say it and I will stop when you decide that in order to have a conversation, when you paraphrase what you think I said, you should probably have proof to back it up, at the minimum it makes you look lazy when you dont. I dont know better than the devs about the functioning of their own engine, but when it comes to solutions to problems that are not in the immediate engine, I feel I have enough knowledge to discuss it. If there werent so many rediculous problems, I wouldnt feel the need to comment at all, if the devs comments added up with what we see in the engine, I wouldnt feel the need to comment on the product, which is better to have fact based criticism and my money (as a customer) to fix problems then for me to not bother saying anything and not purchase the game at all. I also wouldnt be as blunt and outspoken as I have been if my comments were not eventually supported by the devs own comments months later (for example talking about the uses of DX11 features, and I wont link my comments and 4 months later the devs nearly point by point confirmation of what I said).

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Cobra8472

When you say that CryEngine 3 is a step back from CryEngine 2, I'll just leave you with this .pdf:

http://www.crytek.com/sites/default/...20Features.pdf

Just because they cut back some of the settings and numbers of dynamic lights etc etc for console versions, does not mean the engine is worse...


and for that matter, ALL respect to Oleg and Luthier for amazing skills in various areas of game development, but I'm unsure as to how many HLSL shaders they have written....

I never said the engine is worse, I said that in order to get it to run on consoles they had to spend four years working on optimizing features they already had, and cutting back on many of the Cryengine 2 effects. They have made some improvements graphicaly within confined spaces, as outlined in the document, but remember the range of view in crysis 2 is probably 1/4 or less than in crysis. Also note Chivas that a month or so back you argued that console gaming/multiplatform engines were not holding pc gaming back. But as the doc says - the lowest setting on the PC is equivalent or better than the console version (better I would say because you are guranteed to be running it at a higher res, and with more AA which is a big multiplier). They did great with optimizing the engine and cutting it down for consoles, but cryengine 3 in its current state is minimaly (aka most people wont see a real differance) better looking than cryengine 2 in the short distance with 3+ years of work in optimizing but lacks ability to implement the effects in anything but a confined space.

interesting article below
http://www.geforce.com/#/News/articl...eld3-interview