Microsoft DirectX11 Screenshots

[Omastar]

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

[T_Flight]

I like the 3rd pic in the OP.

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

[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:


DX11:

[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]

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!

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. DX9 could render that.

[Decami]

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]

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

[Syn.]

I only got one word for you all.... FROBLINS

[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?

[XS_Rich]

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...oc.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

[renzokuken]

Just waiting for the Ray Tracing pics...

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




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?

[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.

[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.