Real DirectX 11

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
You know what would speed up adoption of DX11. Free upgrades from XP to Vista. Then everybody (who has a newish GPU) can run DX10. Code for DX11, it still runs on DX10. WIN-WIN!
 


I'm not missing your point, I'm simply saying you're wrong, and you're missing the counterpoint which has be proven by every game out there over time.
Developers dropped GLide, DX6, DX7, DX8, SM2.0 as baselines. So what you say has not held true, and they WILL drop XP, and DX9, and then DX10 and eventually DX11 too, regardless of the tiny pockets of people who will never give it up. PERIOD.



So did Win 98SE and SM2.0. And they got dropped even while they were the biggest single chunk compared to XP and SM3.0 install base. But it's not about just install base, it's about gamers, the type of gamers that spend $60 new on a game, not $6 9 months later. That $60 market is already moving, and is not about to be a barrier to sales if the features are compelling enough. And out of making the features compelling in DX10/11 versus making an XP codepath, a company's better use of resources is to optimize their DX10/11 features for their engine and future expansion packs, not to support old rigs for intel Extreme gamers.



And all I'm saying is you're wrong. Just like developers dropped suport for the PS2 and Xbox whih had a bigger install base, there's the very same reason to drop the XP install base especially when you need to make a Vista DX9, Vista DX10/10.1/11 codepath and then add a totally different XP DX9 codepath. Bo point to waste the effort on the last one unless you're a game like WOW that relies on low-end computers to push it's numbers. Games like Crysis, COD, FartCry, Oblivion, etc don't rely on the low-end install base, and there's no reason that those games that focus on the DX11 future would either, nor does it benefit the company to expend a ton more resources on the XP install base unless they're looking for that MMORPG or SIMS crowd that had never been cutting edge.



Thank you for making my point for me again and showing you understand that making a 3rd or 4th codepath for the XP-DX9 market makes little sense, when the Vista DX9,10,11 market is where it's at.



So now you're saying a hardware install is no problem? So what was your point then about the resistance to DX10 & DX11? Your last statement seems to run counter to your whole argument and resistance to enewmen's points. Seriously, stop and read your own points, maybe you can get it across to yourself.
You pretend it's like we're all still on DOS 1.0 because change is to be feared. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]



You really don't know anything about gaming do you?
WIn98SE didn't have that large a market share? Not a player in the gaming market? On what Planet?
ME was a flop, and even those of us who were professionals or needed network and filesystem support dual-booted Win2K and Win98, specifically for gaming and other app support.



No it doesn't. Pure and Simple. As I already showed you, XP has nothing to do with holding DX11 back, they are mutually exclusive. DX11 is Vista only, as every aspect that would benefit it, so it's development will be as separate from each other as Windows and Apple development.



Strawman, I didn't say it was so don't go down that road unless you concede you're wrong on the other points. Remember the BASE Vista path for EVEYTHING is WDDM DX9, which means that regardless of superset features, having a DX11 and DX9 Vista path covers EVERYONE in-between. And you're wrong about DX11 down-level hardware support.



No it doesn't, and perhaps you should take an economics course to help you with this. Sales is HALF the equation, the other half is production. Margin and ROI and profit maximization are king. So if the effort put into production doesn't not yield enough sales, then it won't be done even if it means less sales overall, because adding DX6, 7, 8 & Win 95/98/ME support might give you more sales than your scenario, I doubt you're under the silly impression that anyone would make a cutting edge game that would incorporate all that support only to increase the potential consumer base.

No one is saying that XP nor DX7,8,9 are going away, but your statement that DX10 & 11 aren't going anywhere because of the legacy systems is ignorant the install base that already exists in Vista & DX10+.
 


You're basing that on what?
XP DX9 and Vista DX10 needed a separate codepath, Vista DX10 and 10.1 do not need different codepaths, and DX11 doesn't necessarily need it either. Features like Tesselation are OPTIONAL to implement.



You're the one who needs his head examined. If you'd bothered to read the information I linked to above you'd see someone like Allison Klein, Senior Lead Programmer for M$' D3D group, believes that, and essentially says what you're saying is WRONG !!

dx11stfucj1.jpg


http://www.xnagamefest.com/presentations.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=E410716F-12BF-4E8F-AC41-97B4440C3B90&displaylang=en

Perhaps now you should stop posting in this thread, because this is for informed discussion, not your adamant ignorance. :pfff:
 
Different code paths will be necessary if something only DX11 is used like the tessellator or compute shader is used. That will still make it alot easier to program for as that will be the only thing to change all else should work fine on DX10, 10.1 hardware.
 
Nvidia releases a OpenCL driver.
I didn't hear ANYTHING from ATI. Just a discontuned Close to the Metal and Stream that no one uses. Avivo isn't even available for download.
I hope to hear something soon since DX11 will arrive shortly.
Any rumors? anyone?
Thanks..
 
Again, I see DX11 as another incremental DX version. XP not supporting high end DX levels (thanks to M$ making a new driver model to try to kill off XP...), you will still have games codes for DX9 first, DX10 second, and DX11 third.

I find no coincidence more and more games are using OpenGL again (ID, Stardock, etc); M$ is killing DX by having a split API at this point.
 
I have to agree with Gamerk, it is all about sales and profit, why is M$ rushing out Windows 7 ? Simply because Vista sales are not taking away the XP market fast enough, this to them is a failure that needs to be fixed. I hope DX9 and and XP die sooner than later, but at the same time, the consoles in my opinion are holding back games more than any operating system could. If only Xbox 360 had DX10 support.... we would see twice as many DX10 titles.
 
Well.. I don't see that DX will not have any support in games because performance wise, DX is doing a lot better than OpenGL and in fact, as far as I've seen Valve games like L4D, TF2 and even HL2 doesn't allow the option for the use of OpenGL. I haven't seen OpenGL games since CS 1.6.
 


Galactic Civs (I & II), Sins of a Solar Empire, and almost all games by non-major studios use OpenGL.

Also, stop complaining about consoles holding DX back; do you really think that sony pays M$ to use directX? Anything made for the PS3 is rendered using its OpenGL engine (OpenGL ES 1.0, with some elements from OpenGL ES 2.0 and CG (C for Graphics)). M$ own stupid decisions are holding DX back.
 
Semi~Necro'd thread, but I'd like to point out that market share numbers only reflect what has been sold already. Pointing to what's out there and saying "you can't develop further because the market is still old stuff" is (to my mind at least) tantamount to pointing at all the old gen 1 iPods as an argument to not create or sell generation 2... The point our resident Superlative Simian was making is that the die has already been cast.

What's important in a conversation about developent futures is what the trend in sales is. And - very intentionally - XP sales are dead. D E A D Once old stock is gone, it's no more.

Like it or not, Microsoft have already banished it to the Old Software home, where it'll receive the technological equivalent of weekend visits from the kids and periodic diaper changes. Therefore, DX9 is also dying as a development platform fro a very simple reason: No new DX9 sales. Going forward it's going to be Vista's version of DX9 for backwards compatibility, and DX11. (I don't believe 10/10.1 will be developed for any/much more than already, since Vista SP2 is supposed to include 11, as Win 7 will. Given the couple years it takes for a development cycle to complete?? I know I wouldn't have *my* guys writing in 9 any more.)

It'll take a couple years to make the transition but, like it or not, from here it's only a matter of time.



 


You just made my point, M$ decision not to include DX10 path in THEIR Xbox 360 console is holding DX back. PS3 has almost nothing to do with this discussion, because Sony is not a major player in API, therefore you cannot discredit the 'consoles are holding DX back' argument by pointing to the PS3 :non:
 


CTM was very early very low-level, and rather hard to use, Brook+ and CAL were what most devs used and would be the equivalent of CUDA for ATi; and technically CTM is not discontinued, it's just no longer actively promoted. As for Stream it's used by alot of people, just not as publically, nor as consumer orietned as CUDA. ATi/AMD's Stream clients have always been targeted at the enterprise / HPC market more than the smaller implementations (unfortunately, since support is kinda weak). The question will be the need for either camp's specific solutions as we move beyond the adapting 3D to do compute versus building for compute functionality.

ATi also has OpenCL supported drivers, as pointed to by Randomizer's link to the Havok demos, but it's obviously not a wide release to devs yet, just a select few.
At the end of 2008 they stated that their target date was the first half of 2009. I'd assume that nV's release to developers will spur AMD's as well.

Right now it's all very early, but it's dissapointing it's taking so long to get the tools out there to the developers.
I had to drop ATi as an option for one customer due to the lack of laptop drivers that supported CAL and the requirement that they be driver specific, so this Seismic company couldn't put it on existing laptops in the field, let alone ensure go-forward compatability for future deployment.
That's is an example of the best tool for the job sometimes being stimied by the underlying support, and with their being competing solutions from MANY companies, people aren't as locked in as when this first started, and OpenCL and DX11 compute shaders should make it even more IHV agnostic, hopefully giving S3 and eighth of a chance (nowhere near half a chance).

You can read up more on AMD', MS' and nV's sites, there's alot of info there from the GPGPU crowd and from the recent GDC presentations, info that includes both the graphical and compute/stream applications.
 


Now THIS is great news!

3 hours to port a game from DX10 to DX11 ? Sounds like a no-brainer to go DX11 on new games.
 
yeah i'm also hoping devs finally make the switch to DX10/11. i dont know if anyone realizes this or u guys just dont say it but, we're paying for DX 10 features in our cards, yet they're never touched. We could get way better performance AND features that are just not being used because....MS is a money freak and wants to sell Vista. thanks bill
 


Non-major studios? But how many games do they sell in comparison to major studios?
Also what's the point? Flash & Java games could outnumber DX10 games 100,000:1 , however if they aren't major titles, and aren't the ones generating either game sale $ nor pushing gamers to upgrade, then their significance to the market and to this discussion is as X approaches nil.

Development for both PS3 and Wii are very different than OGL development on desktops, with XNA being a far easier bridge between the X360 and a DX9+ PC than between either other console and a PC OpenGL game. The consoles do hold back people who are targeting the consoles first (which was the recent flurry of develpoer comments) where they will target lower hardware models than the cheap gaming rigs nowadays. You'll need a little bit more than a handful of titles to show OpenGL as being a viable challenge to DX. It's a capable platform, but it's got nowhere near the stable of titles it had before the D3 days.

The main thing to think about is not that everyone HAS to code for DX11 or DX10 or even Vista, simply that those motivated to be at the cutting edge of gaming are likely already ahead of the software requirements with their hardware, before the software hit's the marketplace.
That invisik's link shows DICE is waiting on their DX11 hardware to test their DX11 code alterations is a good indication of the company's willingness to move ahead, and they make a game that benefits from having a large install base for online play. But they also have a history of dropping support for older generations to ensure a solid playing experience for those who pay the price. BF2 dropped support for the HUGELY succesful GF3 & GF4 generation hardware (which were limited to PS1.3) making the minimum support level (without hacks) being that of the PS1.4 equipped R8500. This may have limited their potential install base, but it ensured everyone had the same level of smoke & blur effects and such.

I concede developers want as many people to buy the games as is feasible, however the ROI on developer resources becomes less if they have to invest more resources in a segment of the market that is less likely to buy the latest and greatest games, and less likely to pay full price, let alone pre-order special editions, etc.
 


Except for the minor point that only the GT300 and ATI5000 series can use DX11...again, why make a game DX11 when it will cost the devs SALES? Thats what it all comes down to, and the fact remains, you will sell far more games supporting DX9 (XP) then you will by supporting DX10 or DX11.

As for the console debate, given the fact that only ONE console even uses directX, not the mention the completly diffrent architectures (PowerPC/Cell vs. X86, 256 bit data bus vs. 32/64 bit data bus, etc), there is no way you can make a valid argument that console development has any effect on DirectX adoption rates.

DX11 will be a flop, just like DX10, because of the split API, and the lack of hardware support (remember, the vast majority of people still use DX9 capable hardware, and I for one have no plans to upgrade my 4890 to a DX11 card just for the sake of DX11 support). Moving to DX11 will simply cost too much in sales, so DX9, and to a lesser extent, DX10 will remain the primary DX version for at least the next 2 years.

Now, when 5 games are out that do no support DX9, then you know the turnover has happened. So far though, we don't even have one.
 
The key isn't to look at where the market is today. The reason is that development of major titles takes no small investment of time - 1~2 years. Therefore, developers have to target what the market will be 2 years from now.

This is a very different question from what sales look like now.
 


If that were the case, where are the DX10 exclusive games? It takes a lot of work to support multiple code paths. Supporting DX9 and DX10 is hard enough, now you ALSO want a DX11 code path to manage? I've seen too many poorly coded PC games to even consider a thrid DX line that needs to be supported.

And once again, any DX11 layer would simply be a DX11 layer sitting on a DX10 layer sitting on a DX9 layer. Too much hassle for such minor improvements.
 



You're telling me that MICROSOFT isn't a major, if not THE major player in the API adoption business ? That is where you are dead wrong. Microsoft and their console has everything to do with the holdback from DX10, and eventually DX11.
 



No - Check the above link showing DX10 being ported over to DX11 in a matter of hours. 10.1 is a superset. 11 is a superset of that: They're not separate code paths, as you seem to be stuck on. As I opined above, DX10 is not going to be used as a development platform - It's days (if you could call it that) as a development platform are already done. With SP2, all those Vista install are going to 11. Win 7 is hitting the ground with 11. That's why you dont' see any DX10 games: There's no point in developing anything new for it because it's already going away. If you have a DX10 something now, you move to 11 and be done with it.

Also, as pointed out: XP's days are finished. It's only a matter of the normal 3~5 year replacement cycle. You'd have to be an idiot to write new code for a market that's already dying. I fully understand you choose to not accept it. And I fully understand at this point that nothing anyone can say is going to convince you of it, so we're wasting our breath on you. But the only thing remaining is for Steve Ballmer to take DX9 out into the back yard and put a bullet in it's head.

It's going to be Vista's version of 9 for backwards compatibility, and DX11 going forward.
 


Nice post Great Ape! That picture summarizes the whole thread.

gamerk316=pwned :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom