PCGH: Valve about DirectX10 in the Source engine

In the Left 4 Dead interview part 2, Valve’s Doug Lombardi is talking about Direct X 10 in Left 4 Dead and in general with the Source engine.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screen...enshots_02.jpg

PCGH: And what is your personal opinion about the topic? Is DX10 the way to go and therefore the way of future graphics.

Doug Lombardi: Well I mean there is always that tradeoff between taking the time to adopt the engine to a new API, right. And for us we feel like there still things in DX9 that we can achieve without having to go through the pains of moving to DX 10. (…)So for us as a company and our game designs, we've looked at the tradeoff of the work to move to DX 10 and we have always kind of felt that there is not really enough there for us to delay whatever game we are working on by six to eight month just to say we've a DX10 game. The other thing that is worth mentioning too is to run DX10 natively under the API you have to have both the card and vista. If you google to the Steam hardware survey where we poll peoples machines on Steam you can see that right now there is only about thirteen percent of those people that have both, the DX 10 card and Vista. So you have to look at that as well and say is it worth to investing for thirteen percent of the audience.

Source (English):
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,64...4_Dead_part_2/

Quote:

---

If you google to the Steam hardware survey where we poll peoples machines on Steam you can see that right now there is only about thirteen percent of those people that have both, the DX 10 card and Vista. So you have to look at that as well and say is it worth to investing for thirteen percent of the audience.

---

Oi!...i'm one of those 13%, i'm DX10.1 ready...i demand a game to use it! :mad:

While I understand their point I can't help but feel that they're just too lazy to bother. They'll join the DX10 party when DX11 will be in clear sight by looks of things.

I think they will skip DX10, and move directly to DX11.

seems like chicken or the egg

they wont make DX10 games because noone has vista, and noone will buy vista cos they're arent any DX10 games lol

Side note: Steam hardware survey is full of bugs. It does not detect multi-GPU setups and desktop resolution correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Oi!...i'm one of those 13%, i'm DX10.1 ready...i demand a game to use it! :mad:

---

It's okay man, you can save money, stock your fridge full of beer :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $a1Ty

seems like chicken or the egg

they wont make DX10 games because noone has vista, and noone will buy vista cos they're arent any DX10 games lol

---

Well thats one reason, but I would say most people who don't want Vista have alot more reasons to dislike it then just not being able to play Dx10 games.

I think Valve makes a good point though, you can call them "lazy", but if its gonna cost a million bucks and cause a 6 month delay then I would say take your time, I really can't tell much of a difference and neither can most people. I see people complaining alot about the cost of new games, and Valve gets tons of :banana::banana::banana::banana: for being late on all their release dates, so I think alot of people are trying to have their cake and eat it too here. You can't have cheap games and short development schedules and also want them to upgrade the engine especially when it will only benefit a small minority of buyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrownTown

alot of people are trying to have their cake and eat it too

---

neadz moar portalz :D

IMO:
1.) Current Dx10 games are just Dx9 ports, or patches. Their extra
functionality was already/also available in Dx9. See Crysis: the Dx10-only
Very high settings could be unlocked with a hack, and it was running on
Dx9 hardware.
2.) Dx9 has not reached it's limits yet. Again Crysis: it has the best
graphics right now, and it runs on Dx9.
Dx9 has been around for some time now; but HDR only became popular
around 2006, when there was strong enough hardware for it. But the
much older, pre-Dx9 Morrowind already had similar (subtler and less
sophisticated) HDR-like effects! So probably the effects that currently
make dx10 "more" (like better fog, lightrays, etc.) could also be
implemented in Dx9.

So I sort of agree with Valve. Dx9 is not dead yet. Making games
natively/exclusively Dx10 would also mean that people will have to
change to Dx10 hw and Vista if they haven't done so up till now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $a1Ty

seems like chicken or the egg

they wont make DX10 games because noone has vista, and noone will buy vista cos they're arent any DX10 games lol

---

noone has vista and there arent any dx10 games....

wow.. lay off the chronic bro :rolleyes:

It makes sense from a business perspective. Doesn't mean I have to be happy with it :cool:

They are looking for the right decision those will bring more money. Valve won't to loose their players.

Personally I'd like to see full multicore support done before any DX10 support.

Does DX10 give better graphics? Not really. So why to bother, when there are less than 20 % of "gamers" able to benefit of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Data_

They are looking for the right decision those will bring more money. Valve won't to loose their players.

---

They'd rather write a completely new engine from ground uo with DX10 + Multithreading than to start making Source multithreaded. So ditch the 4 yr old engine and bring us something new! :D

You know what as long as valve cranks out more games like HL2, TF2, Portals they can do what ever they want. Whats so great about the source engine is its scalability and its ability to still look very good on lower end machines. Valve is smart and they know right now Direct X 10 is just really marketing. Like someone else mentioned Direct X 9 still has plenty of legs left, and for businesses out their they will contiune to develop for the DX 9 because everyone has at least a DX 9 compliant card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vengance_01

You know what as long as valve cranks out more games like HL2, TF2, Portals they can do what ever they want. Whats so great about the source engine is its scalability and its ability to still look very good on lower end machines. Valve is smart and they know right now Direct X 10 is just really marketing. Like someone else mentioned Direct X 9 still has plenty of legs left, and for businesses out their they will contiune to develop for the DX 9 because everyone has at least a DX 9 compliant card.

---

Agreed. Besides, Source-based games run wll on DX7 cards aswell. No, you can't go much above 1024*768 and no, don't even dream about AA/AF, but seriously, how many of current "top engines" can be ran with DX7 cards? :D

I am not saying that it is really important to support DX7, but that way they gained that $20 from me. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Does DX10 give better graphics? Not really. So why to bother, when there are less than 20 % of "gamers" able to benefit of it?



They'd rather write a completely new engine from ground uo with DX10 + Multithreading than to start making Source multithreaded. So ditch the 4 yr old engine and bring us something new! :D

---

1: They've stated over and over their approach is to upgrade the engine gradually rather than writing new engines, and this has worked well so far.

2: Source is already multithreaded.

They'll drop DX7 support soon enough. I remember an interview they were saying maintaining compatibility with DX7 is the tough part. I feel when they finally drop support for that.. *after EP3 maybeh?* We can break away anew.

2009 is supposed to be the year of new valve stuff, strictly for the high end. Or so they say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuckyNV

Personally I'd like to see full multicore support done before any DX10 support.

---

Dunno, I think CS:S already has great DC support, especially for an engine
of that age... Besides, support for more cores than 2 is rare even in newer
engines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowman

1: They've stated over and over their approach is to upgrade the engine gradually rather than writing new engines, and this has worked well so far.

2: Source is already multithreaded.

---

Multitheraded in which games? At least CS:S can't get my dual core CPU over 60% load. Both cores max out at around 55/65 %. So yes, it is mutli threaded, but there is ALOT of improving on that field if they want to do it efficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruroni

They'll drop DX7 support soon enough. I remember an interview they were saying maintaining compatibility with DX7 is the tough part. I feel when they finally drop support for that.. *after EP3 maybeh?* We can break away anew.

2009 is supposed to be the year of new valve stuff, strictly for the high end. Or so they say.

---

I dont believe thats gonna happen. Valve has never made their product high end only. They always cater to the masses, meaning 300-500 dollar pc, which is by any standard is no high end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Multitheraded in which games? At least CS:S can't get my dual core CPU over 60% load. Both cores max out at around 55/65 %. So yes, it is mutli threaded, but there is ALOT of improving on that field if they want to do it efficiently.

---

What on earth does multithreading have to do with how much CPU load you have, virtually all games multithreaded or not never push your CPU to 100% loads constantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Oi!...i'm one of those 13%, i'm DX10.1 ready...i demand a game to use it! :mad:

---

ROTFLMFAO! :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Dunno, I think CS:S already has great DC support, especially for an engine
of that age... Besides, support for more cores than 2 is rare even in newer
engines.

---

no, only the newer Source engine introduced by EP2 has multicore support, the only other game using it is TF2. AFAIK neither game has it full enabled yet.

CSS/DODS have yet to transition to the newer engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruroni

They'll drop DX7 support soon enough. I remember an interview they were saying maintaining compatibility with DX7 is the tough part. I feel when they finally drop support for that.. *after EP3 maybeh?* We can break away anew.

2009 is supposed to be the year of new valve stuff, strictly for the high end. Or so they say.

---

Source already dropped DX7 with EP2. Multi-core support on EP2 engine is only party active right now. You have to change mat_queue_mode 2 (default is -1 I think) and you also have to change all the r_threaded commands in console to 1. The issue with these commands is that they often cause crashes right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linchpin

While I understand their point I can't help but feel that they're just too lazy to bother. They'll join the DX10 party when DX11 will be in clear sight by looks of things.

---

That's not a bad strategy, Valve's games were never really about cutting edge graphics anyways. By the time DX11 releases, almost everyone should be on Vista and have an DX10 compatible card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdrifter

That's not a bad strategy, Valve's games were never really about cutting edge graphics anyways. By the time DX11 releases, almost everyone should be on Vista and have an DX10 compatible card.

---

It's certainly great from the financial perspective as well as targeting a very large audience but I just wonder what it would be like if Valve tried to combine their great gameplay with cutting edge graphics but I suppose that's asking a lot since most pretty games are rather forgettable gameplay wise nowadays.

The non-Orange Box source games aren't multi-threaded. Any core fluctuation you see is Windows trying to manage things. I hate when people refer to the uber "TASK MANAGER" for their multi-thread information.

Makes solid sense, if only 13% of their customers could make use of it, why make EVERYONE wait 6-8 months? IMO DX10 stuff hasn't looked that much better (if at all) anyways.

I'm sure Valve will use DX10, their focus seems to be on making a quality product and so far they have yet to disappoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nuker_

I think they will skip DX10, and move directly to DX11.

---

Like Vista to Windows 7.

don't be too hurried, DX11 and windows 7 will surely be released in 2047 :rolleyes:
remember the number of years vista was late, for a so-called "transition OS between XP and 7" so let 7 take its time to come
I wouldn't expect 7 to be released at least before 2010 or 2011

i don't know where you take all this multithreaded things from. Last time I've been playing EP2 it only utilized one core

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linchpin

What on earth does multithreading have to do with how much CPU load you have, virtually all games multithreaded or not never push your CPU to 100% loads constantly.

---

100 % loads constantly? I can bid $100 for the fact that CS:S has NEVER loaded even one core of my CPU to 100 % ingame.

So what if the game is multi threaded when it can't take max out from the CPU?

Let's say that one core is 100 % efficient. Then 2 cores is max. 200 % eficcient. Then 4 cores is 400 % eficcient etc.

Now, if CS:S can get some 60-65 % out from a dual core CPU, it means that they can max 120-130 % from 200 %. So, 20-30 % efficiency due to this "multi threading".

...then let's consider the fact that Source engine is heavily CPU dependet, yet they still are able to get sub 30% efficiency out from their "multi threading".. I call it a joke. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

i don't know where you take all this multithreaded things from. Last time I've been playing EP2 it only utilized one core

---

this is because you are correct, NO SOURCE BASED GAMES ARE MULTICORE ENABLED YET.

The newer Source engine used by EP2/TF2 does contain multicore support but its disabled, you can enable parts of it as mentioned in an earlier post, but prepare for crashing.

We'll see Valve introducing multicore support for server clients first.

Calmatory, that 120% or whatever you're seeing is something else local to your computer, some sort of program or whatever, CSS is not multicore enabled, there is no other way of saying this.

Also as a general signpost - multithreaded is not the same as multicore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuckyNV

this is because you are correct, NO SOURCE BASED GAMES ARE MULTICORE ENABLED YET.

The newer Source engine used by EP2/TF2 does contain multicore support but its disabled, you can enable parts of it as mentioned in an earlier post, but prepare for crashing.

We'll see Valve introducing multicore support for server clients first.

Calmatory, that 120% or whatever you're seeing is something else local to your computer, some sort of program or whatever, CSS is not multicore enabled, there is no other way of saying this.

Also as a general signpost - multithreaded is not the same as multicore.

---

Might be true though, but what is going to eat 10% of CPU for both cores when the only program running is CS:S, and before that CPU usage is in 0-1% when idling?

it IS CS:S what takes the CPU, I am sure about it. Wheter or not it is the actual engine, i dont know, but the CS:S IS taking it. Besides, after installing AMD Dual core optimizer my VST and ingame FPS quite much doubled. From 60 to well over 120, so it is multi threaded indeed, but it doesn't really use both cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auchkoenig

I dont believe thats gonna happen. Valve has never made their product high end only. They always cater to the masses, meaning 300-500 dollar pc, which is by any standard is no high end.

---

An interview this past October.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...7422&Itemid=61

Quote:

---

GN: We’re going to start seeing it now. We’re going to be releasing multicore versions of Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat and Half-Life 2 after we ship The Orange Box. The challenge is going to be going forward. Right now we just have to deal with an order of magnitude of difference between DirectX 9 and DirectX 7 in terms of fill-rate and number of polygons. That’s a set of scaling issues that we’ve managed to adapt to. Soon we will have to answer the question of how do you design a game experience that could go from ten characters on screen to 1,000 characters on the screen. And how do you turn that into something worth purchasing? Is having 100 persons on the screen really ten times as fun as having just ten people on the screen?

In 2008 and 2009 we’re going to do stuff that’s optimised for the new high-end that doesn’t scale down, and use Steam to reach those customers, so we can start to learn what to do with 1,000 smart creatures on the screen at once. Then hopefully we can backfill and do more scaleable experiences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuckyNV

no, only the newer Source engine introduced by EP2 has multicore support, the only other game using it is TF2. AFAIK neither game has it full enabled yet.

CSS/DODS have yet to transition to the newer engine.

---

Interesting, css unpatched since 2005 was using both cores to around the
same values when I first tried it on a DC system. It was also showing a great
performance improvement by going to DC from SC at compute-intensive parts
(many ai players). I think this counts as multi-core support, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

100 % loads constantly? I can bid $100 for the fact that CS:S has NEVER loaded even one core of my CPU to 100 % ingame.

So what if the game is multi threaded when it can't take max out from the CPU?

---

Have you ever thought that CS:S is an old game and it doesn't need 5GHz C2D? Of course it won't use or need all the power of good modern processors.

Roger that. COD4 was great. Crysis can almost do all of it in DX9 via tweaks. I like how they want to release good games rather than wait another 6-8 months just for DX10. Right now, I'm craving really good quality games, not just some tech show-off's because there were not many A-quality titles last year.

They could just jump to DX10.1. Who wants to play Bioshock in DX10 if it refuses to let us use AA with DX10 at all???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Might be true though, but what is going to eat 10% of CPU for both cores when the only program running is CS:S, and before that CPU usage is in 0-1% when idling?

it IS CS:S what takes the CPU, I am sure about it. Wheter or not it is the actual engine, i dont know, but the CS:S IS taking it. Besides, after installing AMD Dual core optimizer my VST and ingame FPS quite much doubled. From 60 to well over 120, so it is multi threaded indeed, but it doesn't really use both cores.

---

Idling is different then what a program is running. CSS is not multi threaded, that is fact. What you are seeing is other processes behind the scenes working to keep the game running, such as sound services, graphic drivers and other things. Normally during idle, none of these things are doing anything. Open up task manager, set it to display all tasks from all users. Then set the affinity of each task to CPU1. Then start up CSS, and set the affinity to CPU0, then start playing. You will notice that CPU1 will start getting useage spikes, while you are physically limiting CSS to one core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

neadz moar portalz :D

IMO:
1.) Current Dx10 games are just Dx9 ports, or patches. Their extra
functionality was already/also available in Dx9. See Crysis: the Dx10-only
Very high settings could be unlocked with a hack, and it was running on
Dx9 hardware.
2.) Dx9 has not reached it's limits yet. Again Crysis: it has the best
graphics right now, and it runs on Dx9.
Dx9 has been around for some time now; but HDR only became popular
around 2006, when there was strong enough hardware for it. But the
much older, pre-Dx9 Morrowind already had similar (subtler and less
sophisticated) HDR-like effects! So probably the effects that currently
make dx10 "more" (like better fog, lightrays, etc.) could also be
implemented in Dx9.

So I sort of agree with Valve. Dx9 is not dead yet. Making games
natively/exclusively Dx10 would also mean that people will have to
change to Dx10 hw and Vista if they haven't done so up till now.

---

Exactly. Sure, it is kind of saddening that Valve will not try to be on the forefront of technology, but then again, take another look at the points that Frank M brought up.

Until I see a game where DX10 is utilized as a tool, and not imlemented as an afterthought, only then will I demand it from any developer.