[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by recoilfx

1.) You are right, it was from 2010. I didn't see the finer print. However, you did make a mistake, the page you linked is the count of all DX10/DX11 cards. The actual percentage since February is over here: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc. Adding all the values at DirectX11(Vista/W7 + DX11 GPU) system section will net you 17% - for all DX11 parts.

2.) We don't have to get into this, I personally think Crysis 2 look great and they made great improvements on the both the art direction and optimization.

3.) You missed my point. I brought up Sandy Bridge because it has competent a GPU for the masses. Even if it were DX11 ready, it would not make a tent for for DX market share, which you btw, agreed with me.

4.) Are your serious? You were referring to using part of DX11 for computation heavy tasks, so I WAS talking about games UTILIZING directcompute for their prominent engine features (for CloD, that'd be physics, and weather(?)), other engines, I don't know, but you are welcome to correct me.

5.) This is the NEXT GEN flight sim engine. Please point out a comparable flight sim engine that's released/being released in the next 6 months (or a year). I have never believed one bit that this engine has the best graphics in video games (I don't remember Oleg saying that), but it does have the best graphics we have seen for flight sims. It has its short comings - crappy clouds and water as I have pointed out earlier, but over all, everything else is leaves the competitions in the dust.

DX11 is easier to develop on, but you'd be insane to not develop for DX10 too. So in the long run, DX11 will still cost development time.

The question remains, is 17.1% of market share at the time of release justify developers maintain two different rendering paths plus different physics engines? Seeing how Maddox is strapped for cash (Oleg had mentioned that CloD was supposed to be released by BoB anniversary last year due to financial issues), aiming for DX10 is the wise choice.

And no, it does not mean that it's antiquated. If this is antiquated, then show us a comparable flight sim engine.

TBH good post. I missed the stat page you used from steam, I was viewing it through the client (although I am sure it has the options in it) and never used specific windows/that page before. thanks for posting that, good info.

As for sandybridge people who use those gpus probably wont be gaming though.

As for direct compute, maybe it was the wording but to me it came off as you saying it was equivalent to DX or something similar (which I assumed you were thinking). Direct compute is meant for particle physics mainly (so smoke/water/fog/clouds etc), as far as plane physics its unusual but yes they said they would use it. But when you said game "based" on direct compute that lead me to believe that what you were saying was different then what you intended to say. Yes it is the best upcoming flightsim engine, so my wording (antiquated) may not of been the most appropriate to use. What I was making and argument about was that it is not bleeding edge tech at release (just because its the only flight sim to do this doesnt make it bleeding edge tech...). I think it is a bad argument to make when people have to say - it lags horribly and the devs can only put it on medium settings (which tbh dont look that good) and therefore since we cant max it out, it must be amazing!

Glad we cleared that up, and thank you for the clarifications - which if people make an argument based on sound reasoning and evidence for their points I am fine with (being wrong), what gets on my nerves is people like Chivas trolling posts with general insults without substance and that makes me a bit jumpy on the trigger in my replies.