Ilya answers regarding CoD scaleability

[Blackdog_kt]

Just like i was suspecting, they went about it the same way as with IL2.

We didn't have perfect landscape mode or detailed water in the early versions of IL2 either

I like the way they are doing it to be honest.

hopefully they don't scale back too much. When new kepler is out, which is meant to be 3 times faster than fermi, there's again plenty of room for better graphics and physics.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Just like i was suspecting, they went about it the same way as with IL2.

We didn't have perfect landscape mode or detailed water in the early versions of IL2 either

Exactly

I cant believe they built a 2013 game built on DX9-10 and not DX11. That just doesn't add up.

[TheSwede]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

I cant believe they built a 2013 game built on DX9-10 and not DX11. That just doesn't add up.

With some common sense I think they prepared the engine so it is competitive in 2013 => DX11, DX12 etc AND prepared to handle the mainstream market of today => lots of computers out there with DX9 gpus.

Ilya has already mentioned that they have lots of features in store ready for activation when they are needed.


Bad comparison but BWM doesn't launch the M3 right away together with their newest iteration of the 3-series.

@ TheSwede, surely thats because they hadnt built it back then, but the sim has been built already.

Originally Posted by TheSwede

With some common sense I think they prepared the engine so it is competitive in 2013 => DX11, DX12 etc AND prepared to handle the mainstream market of today => lots of computers out there with DX9 gpus.

Ilya has already mentioned that they have lots of features in store ready for activation when they are needed.


Bad comparison but BWM doesn't launch the M3 right away together with their newest iteration of the 3-series.

well i guess time will tell, but if DX11 isnt switchable, it only leaves us waiting for bigger CPU's and Graphics cards to cope with any features that are currently disabled, personally i think that is very short sighted.

[addman]

Funny thing about all this is that a large part of the PC owners still uses WinXP and we all know WinXP won't go any higher than DirectX 9. Even though many gamers have bad-ass graphic cards that supports DirectX 10/11 they still use WinXP. Might be ONE of quite a few reasons why they choose to have the game scalable. If you make the game DirectX 10/11 only then maybe many potential customers might be lost.

[TheSwede]

Originally Posted by addman

Funny thing about all this is that a large part of the PC owners still uses WinXP and we all know WinXP won't go any higher than DirectX 9. Even though many gamers have bad-ass graphic cards that supports DirectX 10/11 they still use WinXP. Might be ONE of quite a few reasons why they choose to have the game scalable. If you make the game DirectX 10/11 only then maybe many potential customers might be lost.

+1 on that one.

WinXP will still be used in 2012.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by addman

Funny thing about all this is that a large part of the PC owners still uses WinXP and we all know WinXP won't go any higher than DirectX 9. Even though many gamers have bad-ass graphic cards that supports DirectX 10/11 they still use WinXP. Might be ONE of quite a few reasons why they choose to have the game scalable. If you make the game DirectX 10/11 only then maybe many potential customers might be lost.

Exactly.

Also, correct me if i'm wrong but isn't DX11 mostly about tesselation?
I'm not an expert on graphics, but from reading that nVidia article a while back it seems that tesselation is mainly a technique used to add bumps and a relief structure to 2d items, in order to make them 3d without having to manually specify each and every curvature point/height data/etc. It seems like it's an algorithm that combines a couple of 2d sources to produce a 3d item on its own, on the fly. The advantage seems to be that it saves you some workload since it goes about it automatically, the disadvantage seems to be that you don't have as much control over how the surfaces are created, is that a good approximation?

Well, if that's the case then i really fail to see the use for it when the aim is to produce painstakingly accurate reproductions of military hardware when their silhouette will be closely scrutinized by hordes of rivet counters

I wouldn't want to fly a 109 and have it create overdone bumps and whatnot on the metal fuselage skin that were different each time, plus that Spitfire screenshot we saw at one point (at high detail with AA/AF enabled) showed that "wrinkles" in the aircraft skin were already reproduced just fine with other techniques (like bump mapping).

In fact, i vaguely remember them stating this was their exact reasoning for not including it...it would destroy the accuracy of their 3d models and would need a complete rework of all models from the ground up to be of any real use.

I think it would be useful to add a true 3d feel to things like gravel surfaces on railroad embankments, masonry and stonework on buildings or maybe waves in the channel, but as for the actual units the needed workload is off the charts and would cause further delays, so i don't really mind them not including it at this point.