Microsoft DirectX11 Screenshots

[Monkeywoman]

Screen shot are one thing, but actual game play is another. i doubt we'll see games looking this good in the next 2 years.

source; http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=353789

[Mk]

Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana: the first 2 pic's look sooo REAL its freaky

[Shintai]

At 0.2FPS :p:

[Calmatory]

Just waiting for the Ray Tracing pics... :p:

[memolipd]

i dnt believe it for a second.

they look like extremely good renders.

just just cropped the line that says:

"render time = 1 hour 10 minutes"

I highly doubt u'll see a game with gfx as good as that and playable in the next 5/10 years.

dx10.1, how stupid do they think we are??

[Slovnaft]

optimism...

[Toysoldier]

They did the same thing when launching DX10 where they had this picture from Flight Sim looking very realistic. No one believed it then ;)

[Rammsteiner]

Looks very nice, but once again, those pics are more about trying to get the best gfx against all costs:rolleyes:

If I look at Crysis and Far Cry, there's certainly a possibility we'll see games like those pics sooner than you think since I wouldnt have thought that they would look like that.

We all know screenshots before actual game launch are often photoshopped etc, but once we get a game that almost looks like those already very nice pics we hardly notice that they look the same, but when the game looks like a lot uglier than the screenshots we all complain:p:

[Ozzfest05]

They did the same thing when launching DX10 where they had this picture from Flight Sim looking very realistic. No one believed it then ;)

exactly the same as DX10 promotion pics nothing close to that was released.

[N19h7m4r3]

If only we could expect something close to those pics in the near future :(

[Calmatory]

If only we could expect something close to those pics in the near future :(

I'd rather take current best graphics and halve the system requirements. ;)

[LordEC911]

They did the same thing when launching DX10 where they had this picture from Flight Sim looking very realistic. No one believed it then ;)


exactly the same as DX10 promotion pics nothing close to that was released.

The FlightSim pics you are talking about were an artist's concept of what it might look like.

[Monkey101]

Those pictures look better than real life :D

[jam2k]

Rofl

[clonez]

i expect graphis quality (in real time games) to be like that in 5 yrs max.
the last 2 years were crappy, not as much enhancement as should have been

i think the water is most impressive
water quality in games is still crappy (take crysis, water sux compared to this wonder; it looks like a ultra filtered swimming pool lol, and no real waves with froth)

that indirect lightning is certainly impressive, but nothing which is impossible today

[motopen1s]

The first 2 indeed look very impressive. Nothing out of reach if you ask me. I think within two years or so games can easily reach this type of graphics if not earlier.

Take Crysis with Extreme Quality (http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242) TOD modification - and it looks simply amazing. (Here is hoping next gen AMD/nVidia cards would run such settings with some AA flawlessly)

Today it seems like more work should be put into programming/coding (physics, multi-cpu support etc.) to actually make use out of the available tech.

Its always good however when you get same or better graphics/physics with less resources used. Thats definately some exciting development.

[Monkeywoman]

The first 2 indeed look very impressive. Nothing out of reach if you ask me. I think within two years or so games can easily reach this type of graphics if not earlier.

Take Crysis with Extreme Quality (http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242) TOD modification - and it looks simply amazing. (Here is hoping next gen AMD/nVidia cards would run such settings with some AA flawlessly)

Today it seems like more work should be put into programming/coding (physics, multi-cpu support etc.) to actually make use out of the available tech.

Its always good however when you get same or better graphics/physics with less resources used. Thats definately some exciting development.

i was just looking through the TOD mod screenies and WOW, the screen shots posted up top are available today; problem is graphics power.

we need graphics cards with atleast 2000 shaders at 800Mhz to get 70FPS gameplay at that type of image quality.

[deathman20]

Ha real yeah right. Once again I'll have to say, show us the actual demo that created that picture in real time, then I'll believe it.

[TedShred]

Hmmmn. I dunno.... in a way, I want my games to stay lookin' like games. I guess I wouldn't know without trying it, but at this point the idea of completely life-like surroundings (including the people you frag) kinda creeps me out a little. Man, after going through that rendering thread in the LC section, then seein' those screen shots - how soon is it going to be that we won't be able to believe a damn thing that we see?

[Katanai]

I dunno, they look good but I've seen better and they were not DX11 so I don't know if they are really relevant.

I must say though, the water in the first pic does look fine.

[Syn.]

lol, If you guys are that eager to see bit of DX11 then download latest DX SDK as it has 4 Projects showing different new features in DX11. You can even run it on your DX10 PC, just dont expect much responsiveness.

[motopen1s]

we need graphics cards with atleast 2000 shaders at 800Mhz to get 70FPS gameplay at that type of image quality.

Kind of. :) Well, I played Crysis with this config (the less demanding out of two that are in the bundle) and with overclocked 280gtx @1680x1050 I was enjoying smooth gameplay (no AA though; and with no TOD mod that jmanrob :up: is still working on). I havent seen that impressive combination of graphics/physics/perfomance to date. Thats what tweaking on all the fronts can get you to. :)

Warhead is dusting on the shelf untill this config comes for it.

Far Cry 2 is quite nice, but imho - not near as good in terms of physics (though have some nice effects, like spreading fire). I like the day cycle a lot too. Well, game experience should get better with new patches and drivers.

p.s. ready for DX11 madness :P

[ericware]

Those pictures look better than real life :D

Couldn't agree anymore

[Brother Esau]

why don't they deliver what was promised with DirectX 10 before trying to move forward to v11??? Typical Bull :banana::banana::banana::banana: absolutely no accountability for anything these days just more hype and B.S and no delivery! Funny thing is that everyone just lines up for this crap as if nothing ever happened take Vista for Example .....what a crock that was now more junk promises with Windows 7 at your expense that is:rolleyes:

[ToTTenTranz]

i dnt believe it for a second.

they look like extremely good renders.

just just cropped the line that says:

"render time = 1 hour 10 minutes"

I highly doubt u'll see a game with gfx as good as that and playable in the next 5/10 years.

dx10.1, how stupid do they think we are??



5/10 years?!

Let's see, 5 years ago we had this:
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/6979/unreal2screen001lv6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/unreal2screen001lv6.jpg/1/w800.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img356/unreal2screen001lv6.jpg/1/)
(Unreal II - 2003)

and now we have this:
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4992/screenshot13bq8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/screenshot13bq8.jpg/1/w800.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img392/screenshot13bq8.jpg/1/)
(FarCry 2 - 2008)

It won't take another 5 years to get to the 1st post pics' level. I'd say the next generation of home consoles will be able to do it in 1280*720 with 4xAA, and those are only 2-3 years away. PCs will do it before that timeframe. I bet that a pair of RV870s will do those in realtime.


And 10 years... no one knows where we'll be by that time... 10 years ago we were looking at this:
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6286/2817qxlba5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
(SiN - modified Quake 2 Engine 1998)


So I'd say 2 years timeframe (Q4 2010) is quite a possible timeframe for those graphics on mid-high end pcs.

[GAR]

Those pics are prolly BS, anyone remember the DX 10 screen shots MS posted, hahaha, turned out dx 10 looks just like dx 9.

[Sparky]

why don't they deliver what was promised with DirectX 10 before trying to move forward to v11??? Typical Bull :banana::banana::banana::banana: absolutely no accountability for anything these days just more hype and B.S and no delivery! Funny thing is that everyone just lines up for this crap as if nothing ever happened take Vista for Example .....what a crock that was now more junk promises with Windows 7 at your expense that is:rolleyes:

Yep you're right... which is why I and so many other people use it and like it :rolleyes:
At release it had some issues but it works pretty darn well now in my experience!

[Cybercat]

I hope it's only slightly less misleading than their DX10 shots!

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x154/737flier/directx10.jpg

[BulldogPO]

That stairway photo is unbelievable.

[deathman20]

Those pics are prolly BS, anyone remember the DX 10 screen shots MS posted, hahaha, turned out dx 10 looks just like dx 9.


Well it wasn't that even DX10 looked like DX9 to begin with it took them a really long time after it was mentioned and Vista was released to even bring DX10 content to the game, just to be disappointed of course with crap.

[ownage]

Fake M$ bullshiz

[xsbb]

I give it a few more generations of GPU

( greater than 3)

[kromosto]

At 0.2FPS :p:

:rofl: then dx11 crysis will be 0.02fps

[Slay0r]

Nice marketing.

[ownage]

Nice marketing.

Most of the technical guys probably think these screenshots are bullcrap, while all the business men think its wonderful and think they're company's HAVE to go along with this piece of unbelievable technology.

[XSAlliN]

exactly the same as DX10 promotion pics nothing close to that was released.

+1 for that. It's just FAKE Marketing. If they can do that with DX11 I bet they could do something - 98.99% similar with DX10.1. As far as the human eye can see DX9 vs DX10 games look 95% identical, or even 99% if they use same implementations. As was done with Crysis, on DX10 was a little better cause they intentionally locked some functions (by cvars). But that didn't full some people with some programing knowledge, which turn the looks of Crysis on DX9 99% identical with the one on DX10.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t103/ins868686/5.jpg

Maybe is possible even DX9, instead of DX 10.1. :)

======
Here other DX11 screen shots:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/11/D3D11_HDR_Tone_Mapping_01.jpg

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/11/D3D11_Multithreaded_Rendering_03.jpg
At least they got the ass right...

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/11/D3D11_HDR_Tone_Mapping_04.jpg

And there's more where that cam from... (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/?menu=browser&article_id=666137&page=1)

[Magic Chief]

It would be sweet if they used staircases like that in the Assassins Creed sequel. Hype machine has fooled once too many times though.

[Helmore]

Hmmmn. I dunno.... in a way, I want my games to stay lookin' like games. I guess I wouldn't know without trying it, but at this point the idea of completely life-like surroundings (including the people you frag) kinda creeps me out a little. Man, after going through that rendering thread in the LC section, then seein' those screen shots - how soon is it going to be that we won't be able to believe a damn thing that we see?

Like this? (http://www.xkcd.com/331/)

Guys ofcourse you can make really nice looking games with DX9, but DX10 and DX11 even more so have the potential to make even better looking games. It's just that to get a good looking game you have to spend a lot of time and thus money and the difference in development cost between DX10 and DX9 is apparently not worth it to even try to use DX10 to it's full potential. Let's say you have to spend 10 000 hours for a good looking DX9 game and to get the same effect on DX10 you would have to spend 8 000 hours if the developers know how to use it (just hypothetical figures). Unfortunately, this last part is not the case for DX10 and you will need some time to learn some of the new tricks that DX10 offers. This means that there is little incentive to use DX10 over DX9, this is even more so because there are simply more DX9 GPUs on the market than DX10.

All this is still simply talking about making either a DX9 or DX10 game that has comparable looks, but to make a better looking game you will still have to spend more time and thus money. So game developers have barely started to use DX10's full potential. Some other aspects of making a good looking game also has to do with this concept of 'diminishing returns', where an extra 10 000 hours of labor won't get you a twice as nice looking game.

BTW, I have not heard of any game that has made proper use of DX10's geometry shaders.

[Dragy2k]

lmfao ...woot ...DX. 11 just in time for windows 7 sales ........fgs M$ give us a break will ya ........just give us what we want not what we cant have !!

[Helmore]

lmfao ...woot ...DX. 11 just in time for windows 7 sales ........fgs M$ give us a break will ya ........just give us what we want not what we cant have !!

DX11 will probably be here before Windows 7, it will launch on Vista first, probably with the next service pack.

[TedShred]

Like this? (http://www.xkcd.com/331/)

:rofl:

[Particle]

One of the biggest gripes I've had with CG is the lack of texture quality. We need larger amounts of video memory to allow the developers to push higher amounts of texture data. That matters more than increasing poly counts, but probably goes hand in hand with lighting.

[therightway]

For all the eye candy that games have, it is still very fake once you start moving around the environment. your sense of immersion is ruined when you learn that your freedom of movement is restricted to walk, run, jump. We can do more things like crawl, roll, etc in real life. You find that doors cannot be opened or blasted even though you carry a rocket launcher as a weapon. You see leaves on a tree as static without movement. The ground feels flat with no texture.

I would give up alot in graphics quality if the physics is improved. Games are dynamic and physics becomes very important when you have movement.

[oohms]

Those pics aren't that detailed. You can render something that looks identical in DX9 and something that looks really close to identical in DX8.1. Also they dont look particularly high poly so on modern hardware you could render them in real time easily.

[slim142]

I would say those pics look amazing, but Im not going to be happy until I see it released.

Now we also have to keep in mind how will human models will loook like with dx11

[Omastar]

why don't they deliver what was promised with DirectX 10 before trying to move forward to v11??? Typical Bull :banana::banana::banana::banana: absolutely no accountability for anything these days just more hype and B.S and no delivery! Funny thing is that everyone just lines up for this crap as if nothing ever happened take Vista for Example .....what a crock that was now more junk promises with Windows 7 at your expense that is:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Forget to take your psychotropics today?

[clayton]

XBOX 720's graphics!!!

[[XC] gomeler]

People forget that a big part of moving from DX9 to DX10 was more efficient calls that would let GPUs render more objects with less processing power required. I don't really know what DX11 will bring to the game but I hope it's at least an improvement. Now.. that staircase image looks hot, it's all about the lighting!

[makaka]

i don't think that such picture quality will appear in the next 3 years at least for the 3 last pictures , Video card has to improve by 4 or 5 time in order to make 5 fps with such quality.
Currently even the most powerful video card has some serious problem running cryis warhead , so nothings to say about the last three pictures

[alexio]

gomeler;3438609']People forget that a big part of moving from DX9 to DX10 was more efficient calls that would let GPUs render more objects with less processing power required.
Exactly! DX9 is capable of pretty much anything we've seen done with DX10, either directly or in a slightly different matter. Yet, In most games DX10 doesn't improve and often decreases framerates.

The question now is wether the DX10 standard wasn't so great, or did the programmers screw up? And of course what benefits will DX11 bring to improve efficiency and/or assist better coding.

[Omastar]

Currently even the most powerful video card has some serious problem running cryis warhead , so nothings to say about the last three pictures

:confused:

[T_Flight]

I like the 3rd pic in the OP.

Ummm, should I take the red one? Or the Blue One? :D

[mikeyakame]

While I generally can't stand posting in threads where 90% of the posts are smack talking and incessant complaining I'll give this one a shot.

DirectX10 has for one thing shown it can make a difference, take memory usage for example. For a game rendering in DirectX9 total system memory usage is Game System Memory consumption + Game Video Memory consumption, why you might ask? Simply because DirectX9 requires a clone of video memory to be stored in system memory, which requires a lot of copying memory back and forth across the system bus which is hardly efficient and increases the chances of corrupt textures etc. Take a game running in DirectX10, Crysis is a great example, if the game is using say 700mb VRAM, then simply the system memory usage is 700mb less rendering in DX10 than its DX9 counterpart. For people who complain so much about Vista's heavy memory usage it seems ironic that you all call how great DirectX9 still is because it renders faster with less efficiency and yet consuming a heap more memory...It's ridiculously hypocritcal.

DirectX11 so far from what I've seen will bring about programming interoperability across the board for all GPU's, a common programming language model called Compute Shader that all the GPU manufactures will be required to abide by if they want to sell DirectX11 enabled GPUs. So you ask what good does this do me? Well for one it means that instead of things being written for custom compilers and C derivatives such as CUDA which will only work on Nvidia cards, now once ported to Compute Shader Language the same app will work across the board on any DX11 certified card. This is a huge leap, and I applaud Microsoft for taking such strong action to force manufacturers to get their heads out of the sand and to start helping developers out instead of just making their lifes so much harder having to learn more and more languages and derivatives that will end up vanishing sooner or later.

[Swatrecon_]

looks like raytracing to me.

Raytraced:
http://hof.povray.org/images/800x600/pebbles.jpg

DX11:
http://we.pcinlife.com/attachments/forumid_206/20081118_8822ae8d0325163154344mhRXYJ6so9d.jpg

[Cybercat]

While I generally can't stand posting in threads where 90% of the posts are smack talking and incessant complaining I'll give this one a shot.

DirectX10 has for one thing shown it can make a difference, take memory usage for example. For a game rendering in DirectX9 total system memory usage is Game System Memory consumption + Game Video Memory consumption, why you might ask? Simply because DirectX9 requires a clone of video memory to be stored in system memory, which requires a lot of copying memory back and forth across the system bus which is hardly efficient and increases the chances of corrupt textures etc. Take a game running in DirectX10, Crysis is a great example, if the game is using say 700mb VRAM, then simply the system memory usage is 700mb less rendering in DX10 than its DX9 counterpart. For people who complain so much about Vista's heavy memory usage it seems ironic that you all call how great DirectX9 still is because it renders faster with less efficiency and yet consuming a heap more memory...It's ridiculously hypocritcal.

DirectX11 so far from what I've seen will bring about programming interoperability across the board for all GPU's, a common programming language model called Compute Shader that all the GPU manufactures will be required to abide by if they want to sell DirectX11 enabled GPUs. So you ask what good does this do me? Well for one it means that instead of things being written for custom compilers and C derivatives such as CUDA which will only work on Nvidia cards, now once ported to Compute Shader Language the same app will work across the board on any DX11 certified card. This is a huge leap, and I applaud Microsoft for taking such strong action to force manufacturers to get their heads out of the sand and to start helping developers out instead of just making their lifes so much harder having to learn more and more languages and derivatives that will end up vanishing sooner or later.Funny, DX10 always seemed less memory efficient than DX9. On my limited 320MB card, DX9 games were much better about keeping the memory usage in check than DX10 games that routinely overflowed the VRAM with data. The result is my framerate would cut out in half, or worse. I always attributed that with the unified memory architecture.

Also while the computer shader is a novel idea, from what I've heard it's by no means an end-all unified application programming model for GPUs. It's meant more to augment existing functionality like CUDA than replace it, namely within games.

[Nedjo]

4 words: real-time global illumination

[Bo_Fox]

Finally, the HDR lighting looks realistic!!! For long enough, HDR lighting/bloom has ruined the graphics of some games. DiRT had excessive HDR dynamics, Far Cry 1 had excessive bloom glare on character skins, etc..


For all the eye candy that games have, it is still very fake once you start moving around the environment. your sense of immersion is ruined when you learn that your freedom of movement is restricted to walk, run, jump. We can do more things like crawl, roll, etc in real life. You find that doors cannot be opened or blasted even though you carry a rocket launcher as a weapon. You see leaves on a tree as static without movement. The ground feels flat with no texture.

I would give up alot in graphics quality if the physics is improved. Games are dynamic and physics becomes very important when you have movement.

Roger that, man! It's pretty hard to do more complicated movements with just a keyboard/mouse. I have invented a concept that greatly encourages a far more intuitive and unlimited control interface. PhysX and the use of multiple CPU cores is certainly encouraging this also.

[Bo_Fox]

http://we.pcinlife.com/attachments/forumid_206/20081118_8822ae8d0325163154344mhRXYJ6so9d.jpg

Not bad, but the cement looks way too porous, eh? The stairs look fine to me, but it just doesnt look right on the left wall.

[Decami]

I hope it's only slightly less misleading than their DX10 shots!

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x154/737flier/directx10.jpg

to be honest that looks like crap, aside from...maybe...the water.

I dont know why you think that pic is misleading. That pretty much looks like it could be done in the source engine, aside from the water, and even the water just looks like a slightly more detailed/improved version of Crysis's water.


in all honesty, taht pic reminds me of that source game coming out, with better water. whats it called? Alan Wake...thats it.

Mountain looks like crap, trees look like crap, skybox is very noticeable and it even looks possible that the background is in the skybox. I would say DX10 turned out about like that pic. :banana::banana::banana::banana: DX9 could render that.

[Decami]

http://we.pcinlife.com/attachments/forumid_206/20081118_8822ae8d0325163154344mhRXYJ6so9d.jpg

Not bad, but the cement looks way too porous, eh? The stairs look fine to me, but it just doesnt look right on the left wall.

agreed, looks good though. To be honest. If you look real deep into these, you will see that your first glimpse is deceiving you, these are not all the complicated of renders, aside from the lighting and shadow, lighting and shadow are crazy awesome. If thats real time...wow.

You know, its not hard for me to beleive these were rendered with DX11, god knows what fps and what not, but I believe them.

Also what some of you dont understand is....These photos are not released to show you how games will look with DX11. They ARE NOT saying "hey look, all games will look like this" NO. These are photos rendered with some pretty awesome hardware just showing you the CAPABILITIES of DX11. Obviously games have to be scaled to run on lower end comps and for teh game to run smooth and everything else that goes with game design. So obviously games wont look like this, these are reference renders showing, again, CAPABILITIES of DX11.

[MarlboroMan]

http://we.pcinlife.com/attachments/forumid_206/20081118_ce2715546f74d68f450bokyiWkAhxtWg.jpg

If this shot is rendered at 25+ fps its quite impressive. If its not, I've seen much much better shot rendered in OpenGL :rolleyes:

[Syn.]

I only got one word for you all.... FROBLINS (http://developer.amd.com/documentation/videos/pages/froblins.aspx)

[Cold Fussion]

5/10 years?!

Let's see, 5 years ago we had this:

(Unreal II - 2003)

and now we have this:
(FarCry 2 - 2008)

It won't take another 5 years to get to the 1st post pics' level. I'd say the next generation of home consoles will be able to do it in 1280*720 with 4xAA, and those are only 2-3 years away. PCs will do it before that timeframe. I bet that a pair of RV870s will do those in realtime.


And 10 years... no one knows where we'll be by that time... 10 years ago we were looking at this:

(SiN - modified Quake 2 Engine 1998)


So I'd say 2 years timeframe (Q4 2010) is quite a possible timeframe for those graphics on mid-high end pcs.

They wont. Those CGI renders take many hours to render and sometimes days. Look on cgtalk to see how long it takes them to render their high quality scenes and thats how long those will take. We are not going to have lighting in games that good for a good 5-10 years.


agreed, looks good though. To be honest. If you look real deep into these, you will see that your first glimpse is deceiving you, these are not all the complicated of renders, aside from the lighting and shadow, lighting and shadow are crazy awesome. If thats real time...wow.

You know, its not hard for me to beleive these were rendered with DX11, god knows what fps and what not, but I believe them.

Also what some of you dont understand is....These photos are not released to show you how games will look with DX11. They ARE NOT saying "hey look, all games will look like this" NO. These are photos rendered with some pretty awesome hardware just showing you the CAPABILITIES of DX11. Obviously games have to be scaled to run on lower end comps and for teh game to run smooth and everything else that goes with game design. So obviously games wont look like this, these are reference renders showing, again, CAPABILITIES of DX11.

What do you mean "its" capabilities? We have been able to produce renders like that for 10 years, why is that cgi render any more impressive?

[RazzleUltra]

They wont. Those CGI renders take many hours to render and sometimes days. Look on cgtalk to see how long it takes them to render their high quality scenes and thats how long those will take. We are not going to have lighting in games that good for a good 5-10 years.



What do you mean "its" capabilities? We have been able to produce renders like that for 10 years, why is that cgi render any more impressive?

Isn't the point though that renders are 'done right' which is why they take so long. The progres of game graphics has been about taking short cuts to make it look almost right, but render in a fraction of the time. I'm sure you could find ways to get pictures 99% as good looking as those in the OP but rendered much quicker just by taking some suitable short cuts.

[jasonelmore]

I would'nt say that you wont see games like this in the next 10 years.. that statement is bogus.. in 10 years let alone, 5 years, technology can rapidly expand and become way better.. i would say withing the next 3 years we'll have CPU's and GPU's that can play this fluidly.. CPU's will be powered by a hybrid of CPU's and GPU's on one chip or Massive parrallell GPU's all togather.. Intel is already working on a GPU/CPU chip that's going to release next year. Much like nehalem brought the memory controller onto the CPU, intel is bringing the PCI Express controller onto the CPU.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3461

[bonobo]

... showing you the CAPABILITIES of DX11. ...

As a game developer, i can't say that a better way ...

Msft offers an API with some capabilities, and game developers turns thoses capabilities into aspects and visuals.

I have seen so many crappy post talking about DirectX 9, 10, 11 by so many people that does not know how simply work the DirectX 9 / 10 / 11 rendering pipeline ...

You can't compare visual between those api, because this is a non-sense.
Yes you can obviously have almost the same visual using DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 ... but as i said Microsoft offers capabilities througth DirectX, not visual aspect. So you can aproximatively do the same visual, but not using the same CAPABILITIES. Today, i am able to program a game that look exactly the same as a DirectX 10 version only using software rendering. It will run at 1 fpy ( frame per year ) but i will look exactly the same. Visual not related to features. ( this is not really exact because features allow you some kind of effects to run smoothly so you obtain a collection of visual effect corresponding to the capabilities you have ... but those capabilities do not limit you).
For example : geometry shader. You can offer exactly the same visual aspect without using them. But they are much faster.

[MrHydes]

Those pics are prolly BS, anyone remember the DX 10 screen shots MS posted, hahaha, turned out dx 10 looks just like dx 9.

that's because the big goodie in DX10 is that is suposed to be easier

for programmers to develop, in my opinion DX11 still isn't going to be

much difference unless they do really can managed tesselation and parallel data

wisely.

but the real thing is ray tracing definitely :up:

[renzokuken]

Just waiting for the Ray Tracing pics... :p:

Amen to that. Ray Tracing ftw. This is why Ray Tracing is the future: (green line is Ray Tracing, red line Rasterization)

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/506/logvslin.jpg


Also, is it just me, or does anyone else think DX10 was an epic fail? There are bugger all games that support DX10, and the ones that do actually perform worse in DX10 mode (with the exception of games based on the Dunia engine and only at specific settings). I remember reading of improved graphics quality at massively improved performance before DX10 was released, and what we got was slightly improved (if at all) image quality at rofl performance.

[STaRGaZeR]

As a game developer, i can't say that a better way ...

Msft offers an API with some capabilities, and game developers turns thoses capabilities into aspects and visuals.

I have seen so many crappy post talking about DirectX 9, 10, 11 by so many people that does not know how simply work the DirectX 9 / 10 / 11 rendering pipeline ...

You can't compare visual between those api, because this is non-sense.
Yes you can obviously have almost the same visual using DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 ... but as i said Microsoft offers capabilities througth DirectX, not visual aspect. So you can aproximatively do the same visual, but not using the same CAPABILITIES. Today, i am able to program a game that look exactly the same as a DirectX 10 version only using software rendering. It will run at 1 fpy ( frame per year ) but i will look exactly the same. Visual not related to features. ( this is not really exact because features allow you some kind of effects to run smoothly so you obtain a collection of visual effect corresponding to the capabilities you have ... but those capabilities do not limit you).
For example : geometry shader. You can offer exactly the same visual aspect without using them. But they are much faster.

Thank god somebody uses his brain a little. I couldn't have explained myself better. Almost 100% of this thread post's are just stupid. DXxx, by itself, doesn't mean better image quality, illumination or whatever.

OMFG DX10 looks the same as DX9!!!11!one!!. What were you specting? :rolleyes:

[knissel]

One thing that I think all these company's are greatly lacking in is optimization. They keep cranking out more and more hardware with very little software / driver improvements. IMO its alllllll in the drivers...

[Kingcarcas]

^^ That's what i assumed but i'm no programmer....

[Nanometer]

exactly the same as DX10 promotion pics nothing close to that was released.

sadly, that could not be more true

[Glow9]

I dunno why they even bother, I mean really we're gonna buy the games no matter what its not like anyone gonna be like WOOOOOoooooooo! guess what I got DX11 *high fives* now lets go look at a high res pic of water! Marketing is just kinda dumb without any real games to show it off if you ask me.

[Diverge]

DX11 will probably be here before Windows 7, it will launch on Vista first, probably with the next service pack.

DX11 is already in the windows 7 alpha and beta's.

Who knows if it's finished or not though, since there aren't any programs that use it yet.


http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3637/dx11ez2.th.png (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dx11ez2.png)

[naokaji]

Pc game graphics wont improve too much anymore in the near future, remember, most games are made to run on consoles as well and you can't upgrade those, so there are limits to how good graphics will get and only once xbox 3 and ps4 come out and we get ports of games for those graphics will improve again.

[flopper]

While I generally can't stand posting in threads where 90% of the posts are smack talking and incessant complaining I'll give this one a shot.

DirectX10 has for one thing shown it can make a difference, take memory usage for example. For a game rendering in DirectX9 total system memory usage is Game System Memory consumption + Game Video Memory consumption, why you might ask? Simply because DirectX9 requires a clone of video memory to be stored in system memory, which requires a lot of copying memory back and forth across the system bus which is hardly efficient and increases the chances of corrupt textures etc. Take a game running in DirectX10, Crysis is a great example, if the game is using say 700mb VRAM, then simply the system memory usage is 700mb less rendering in DX10 than its DX9 counterpart.

DirectX11 so far from what I've seen will bring about programming interoperability across the board for all GPU's, a common programming language model called Compute Shader that all the GPU manufactures will be required to abide by if they want to sell DirectX11 enabled GPUs.

I guess the game has to be ground up designed for dx10 or 11 to be faster in its implemention, right?
I play company of heroes, and I take a hit when enabling dx10.
As one of the promotions with dx10 and now 11 is to have a better visual quality using the new api designs and also are able to run it faster.
CoH is a dx9 game and added dx10 functionality upon it.

Btw, graphical quality is one thing but how we interact with the world is also another.
How is dx11 going to allow developers to do that in a more useful fashion?
And, since cuda now is promoted by Nvidia for physics, isnt that meaning that dx11 are loosing its point? Unless dx11 allows similiar feats of physics?

[Psykocyber]

How is dx11 going to allow developers to do that in a more useful fashion?
And, since cuda now is promoted by Nvidia for physics, isnt that meaning that dx11 are loosing its point? Unless dx11 allows similiar feats of physics?The compute shader is something like CUDA. A method for all programs to use the GPU's calculation power for something besides graphics. Like the program Badaboom, but with DX11, Badaboom would work for all DX11 cards, not just Nvidias. Physics will also be possible. "CUDA for all cards"

[Kuroimaho]

Looks great, I hope I can play those with my new Windows 7 capable notebook...

[Shintai]

I guess the game has to be ground up designed for dx10 or 11 to be faster in its implemention, right?
I play company of heroes, and I take a hit when enabling dx10.
As one of the promotions with dx10 and now 11 is to have a better visual quality using the new api designs and also are able to run it faster.
CoH is a dx9 game and added dx10 functionality upon it.


No, but with DirectX10 etc the devs usually add alittle bit more. Hence the performance loss. In a pure DX9 vs DX10 on Vista. DX10 would win with about 5-10%. Or about 0-5% over XP DX9.

[flopper]

No, but with DirectX10 etc the devs usually add alittle bit more. Hence the performance loss. In a pure DX9 vs DX10 on Vista. DX10 would win with about 5-10%. Or about 0-5% over XP DX9.

so, if the game was recoded for dx10, Vista then would show a significant addition for gamers.
and yea, I figure they add more visual enhancements, its just that, mostly its not noticable enough to justifiy to take the hit.

[Katzenschleuder]

Amen to that. Ray Tracing ftw. This is why Ray Tracing is the future: (green line is Ray Tracing, red line Rasterization)

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/506/logvslin.jpgThis graph is irrelevant for most purposes of 3D rendering.
Even most scenes in movies are rendered using rasterizers because raytracing/raycasting has many drawbacks.

[Vinas]

I remember seeing that last pic before on a Crysis review.

[Chruschef]

i thought the "improvements" implemented in all DX upgrades, where to the speed/efficiency of rendering; not quality. "improved shaders" really just meant they divided up the shader into a new category, so that this task would be more efficient than before; or was i mislead? DX1 could have possibly rendered an image like this, just those drivers on that era of hardware could have taken a week(or more..:shrug:).

[Shintai]

i thought the "improvements" implemented in all DX upgrades, where to the speed/efficiency of rendering; not quality. "improved shaders" really just meant they divided up the shader into a new category, so that this task would be more efficient than before; or was i mislead? DX1 could have possibly rendered an image like this, just those drivers on that era of hardware could have taken a week(or more..:shrug:).

No is the short answer. DirectX upgardes have always been more about new options/features than speed.

[Natalia]

I always wonder who was the worst mascot for DX10:

NVIDIA / ATI - Bad Drivers or Hardware
Microsoft - Bad implementation of DX10
Game Companies - Making DX9 engines and pinning the tail on the donkey, i.e. DX10 'extras'

[RejZoR]

None of that. Well, maybe the third option the most... It was related to Vista itself and stupid ppl spreading massive false informations.
And since DX10 was limited to Vista, bad Vista sales caused low DX10 userbase, meaning developers were not all that interested investing their time and workforce into something just few will actually use. And those that did, made a very bad implementation of DX10 (just so they could say they support DX10) causing DX10 games actually run worse than DX9 while still look pretty much the same, where in fact it should actually run faster and have better shading effects at the same time.
That Unigine Tropics demo is an excellent example of good DX9 vs DX10 code. Just look at the palm leaves reflecting in the water at first island close in scene.
With DX9 it's way too green and plastic looking where with DX10 green reflection in water looks totally realistic and natural.
Everything else is pretty much the same though. Except performance which was higher in DX10 mode by 15fps if i remember correctly.

I'm 100% sure DX10 would evolve faster if Vista would be selling better. Microsoft did a great job with Vista and i like it far more than i did WinXP at release.
Ppl think new OS should have more features, more visuals and more of everything and still be faster and smaller than lest version.
Well, that kinda doesn't go with any logic... you can't stuff more things into a car than you have space in it and you also can't expect it to drive faster with more stuff loaded.
Same with OS. But ppl almost made an uprising when MS increased hardware requirements. Heh. Stupid clueless ppl... you can't run latest software on prehistoric hardware forever. You have to invest into new hardware eventually. Yes, even for OS. Besides, you get superb low budget systems in retail for 350 eur that can run Vista and anything on it without any problems. And yet, ppl still complain. All i can say is lol.

Besides i still think we rush DirectX versions way too fast.
If every 2 year DirectX releases were ok back in DX6 or DX7, that doesn't really apply for today anymore. Visuals are much more complex than they were back then.
And because of that you can't expect programmers to fully "exploit" the full potential of DX10 tech. So they implement existing stuff using DX10. And in the end visuals look pretty much the same. But if they'd have lets say 4 years timeframe, i'm sure few software devs would come up with some cool DX10 only effects that cost less performance than on DX9 and still look better. But now, why should they bother, next version of DX will come out soon anyway, just wait for that.

[KoHaN69]

One of the biggest gripes I've had with CG is the lack of texture quality. We need larger amounts of video memory to allow the developers to push higher amounts of texture data. That matters more than increasing poly counts, but probably goes hand in hand with lighting.


We dont need more memory, we need better programmers.
"artists" are lazy and think higher resolution will solve their problems.

Procedural texturing is the only future games have.

[billdavis]

sorry but i think if you think dx11 will run the first post pictures you are retarded

[Katzenschleuder]

We dont need more memory, we need better programmers.
"artists" are lazy and think higher resolution will solve their problems.

Procedural texturing is the only future games have.Or could it be that you have no idea what you are talking about?

[AuDioFreaK39]

It almost seems like the OS utilizes my graphics card to process certain things. I can hear my GPU capacitors squealing away at certain points of program installations. Perhaps this is DirectX 11's compute platform doing its job? :confused:

I don't see how else to explain the significant performance boost. If my capacitors are making squealing noises during installations, there has to be some GPU work involved.

[Shintai]

It almost seems like the OS utilizes my graphics card to process certain things. I can hear my GPU capacitors squealing away at certain points of program installations. Perhaps this is DirectX 11's compute platform doing its job? :confused:

I don't see how else to explain the significant performance boost. If my capacitors are making squealing noises during installations, there has to be some GPU work involved.

Uhm...no..also you got no DX11 hardware. Maybe you can post your thoughts to fud tho :p:

And I doubt your capacitors can squel. They usually only know 1 sound and thats popf.

[El Greco]

amazing pics but i rather see a real time video...

[flopper]

And since DX10 was limited to Vista, bad Vista sales caused low DX10 userbase, meaning developers were not all that interested investing their time and workforce into something just few will actually use..

If there would be a smart developer, yes I know but we can always hope, they make a stunning fps multiplayer game, in Dx10 or now11, so people wouldnt complain due to the game everyone wants to have can only be played using dx10/11, so they bundle it with some hardware, making a deal there, dang, I need some programmers to make my game ;)

This will allow a transfer of hardware upgrade and more people buying your game due to the only game good and grounded in dx10/11.

I would look for people who want to buy the future games, and not look at current old machines people use to make the game.
If its good enough, people upgrade.

[AuDioFreaK39]

Uhm...no..also you got no DX11 hardware. Maybe you can post your thoughts to fud tho :p:

And I doubt your capacitors can squel. They usually only know 1 sound and thats popf.

My GTX 280 capacitors have been squealing under load since June 17th...yes, they squeal and yes this is a common problem with earlier cards. Nonetheless, this is also how I can detect the level of GPU load if there are no visual indicators presented.

[Shintai]

My GTX 280 capacitors have been squealing under load since June 17th...yes, they squeal and yes this is a common problem with earlier cards. Nonetheless, this is also how I can detect the level of GPU load if there are no visual indicators presented.

I´m sure you mean coils....you can add some glue so they dont vibrate.

[saaya]

yes, those squeeling coils are quite annoying... if you use a case its ok, but for an open setup its annoying :(

tottentanz is right, graphics are improving very quickly...
but regarding those dx11 shots... this kind of detail can already be redered in dx9 with todays cards at acceptable fps... sure, it might be les detail actually, but the looks will be 99% the same...

in my experience the only tech demos that REALLY give a glimpse of future rendering quality have been from game developers themselves. the Q3 preview, UT3 preview and far cry previews have all been very impressive and turned out to be spot on. and they were all demoed 2-4 years before the games actually came out... so thats the most reliable outlook into the future. if you really want to know what games will look like in 5 years, go and check out game developers tech demos :)

[Decami]

yes, those squeeling coils are quite annoying... if you use a case its ok, but for an open setup its annoying :(

tottentanz is right, graphics are improving very quickly...
but regarding those dx11 shots... this kind of detail can already be redered in dx9 with todays cards at acceptable fps... sure, it might be les detail actually, but the looks will be 99% the same...

in my experience the only tech demos that REALLY give a glimpse of future rendering quality have been from game developers themselves. the Q3 preview, UT3 preview and far cry previews have all been very impressive and turned out to be spot on. and they were all demoed 2-4 years before the games actually came out... so thats the most reliable outlook into the future. if you really want to know what games will look like in 5 years, go and check out game developers tech demos :)

amen, said for the third time in this thread. Game developers have the most control over visual improvement, things like DX are important in that role, but play no huge part in visual improvement. Game engines and visual design is all controlled by the develoeprs themselves, what tehy think they can add at an acceptable performance. Things like DX help this, but your not gonna see some massive improvement in visuals just cause a game was directly shifted to DX11 from whatever.

Visual improvement and graphics are completely controlled by the game developers themselves!!!

As I said before, these screens are showing the CAPABILITIES of DX11.

You guys are thinking of it as, ZOMG, DX11 eye candy, it doesnt work like that.

Also it is not un common and not un intended to take a performance hit under DX10, or whatever DX. The reason for this is game developers add in "extra" visuals because of the upgrade, some may not seem to see these "extras" but they are there, and compared to running these in DX9, DX10 is an improvement, not a massive one, but is one.

Some games represent this very well...company of heroes for example.

and some games dont, mainly because of poor marketing, Crysis, for example.

In short, DX upgrades add better rendering CAPABILITES, so game developers can squeeze in better detail, or visuals. Depending on the DX upgrade, this can be minimal, or not.

Game developers have the means to make the most realistic craziest game you can ever see, both in animation and visuals, the problem lies in coming up with software and hardware that can move that at acceptable speeds

[Natalia]

I still wait to see any company make a pure DX10 engine before we can get excited about anyone making a pure DX11 engine.