![]() |
|
Technical threads All discussions about technical issues |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Well don't take my word for it.. Spend 5min an do a little research and you will see that I am right! There are plenty of Microsoft Links on the subject.. But I know how the uninformed love to bash anything Bill Gates so instead allow me to post something from AMD on the subject, i.e. Quote:
If not set your conf.ini to DX11, or 10.1, or 10.0, or 9.3, or 9.2, or 9.1 and see for yourself! ![]()
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 12-25-2011 at 08:11 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You quoted me as saying (which I did): "you are wrong on a number of your points, DX11 has no API for dx9 features and such more then any other engine" You replied with this: "If they did that it would defeat the purpose of upgrading to the DX11 API.. Because one of the new features of the DX11 API is the ability to select different feature levels (DX9, 10, 11) on the fly." First off I hate having to educate people so I will make this brief: In the above statement you said that one the DX11 api features was to select different DX levels. ZOMG, you do realize that just means that the API is backwards compatable? For example I could use a DX9 lighting system while also using dx11 tesselation. So its nothing new, its existed for nearly every DX upgrade (they normally build on each other) and the whole point of switching to dx11 is to use the new dx10/11 lighting features among other things. These are completely new for dx11/10 and are "new dx11 features" and they are NOT back compatible. However like said a older dx9 system can be used (of course, not news to anyone but you it seems) instead of the new code etc. Your statement basically was like: "upgrade to a new car, hover car, it can even use wheels if you want!" The reply is then wtf is the point of upgrading? (and the only reply would be say, a more powerful engine but the main selling point no longer is useful). http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...795#post233795 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Your mixed up your quotes there.. That is to say that reply of mine you listed above was to a previous quote of yours, not the one you listed.. So to get this train back on track allow me to re-post it in the correct order.. You said Quote:
Quote:
PS it is done at run time, not compile time Nuff said? If the AMD reference is not enough for your, please read the following Microsoft link, i.e. Quote:
Do you have anything to support your claims?
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 12-26-2011 at 03:36 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Again, just because the DX11 engine is backwards compatable does not mean the dx11 compiled shaders and code is compatable with dx9 api content available. It is in the API, but its from the older DX version, there is a new DX10/11 version for the processes which is the most up to date version/best version. Its not worth arguing if you dont understand the mechanisms. |
![]() |
|
|