PDA

View Full Version : Dx 11.1 ?



Crackatoah
11-19-2012, 12:54 PM
Who thinks this is actually going to be used? or how it will perform?

Or would our current DX 11 GPU's be able to use it?

I reckon BF4 will use DX 11.1

BlackOctagon
11-19-2012, 03:15 PM
There's always room for wild speculation, but in this case I'll be surprised if we see it properly utilised anytime soon. Heck, very few games out so far properly utilise even 11.0 (properly meaning, giving genuine graphic improvements without disproportionately crippling performance)

HyperMatrix
11-19-2012, 04:01 PM
I was under the impression that 11.1 is just very minor changes. Perhaps someone could elaborate or point to a good tech article on it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562(v=vs.85).aspx

nocturnal7x
11-19-2012, 04:06 PM
There are 2 issues with developers right now.

1. 99% of them are developing for consoles. These people either don't know what scaleability is or they are lazy.

2. Anyone developing for PC is afraid of alienating/offending people with lower spec computers. Should 32 bit exes still exist? No they should have disappeared 6 years ago. And DX11 should have been the lead platform for the last 2-3 years. Developers are afraid they will scare people with low spec computers if they produce a hi spec but even scaleable game.

As of right now we and our superior hardware are MOSTLY held back by consoles. We will see DX11.1 games with the release of the new consoles. This is lame BS but I fear is reality for the foreseeable future.

Crackatoah
11-19-2012, 04:33 PM
I think another big thing holding games back is the processor inside the PS3 which is meant to be extremely complicated and difficult to code for, obviously as well as being very dated much the like Xbox.

Devs are having to make games that will work the best possible with the consoles and the PS3's CPU.

Cant wait till the next gen of console because both are suppose to have an AMD CPU/ GPU so hopefully it will be allot easier for devs to make PC games better.

Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles.

I think some rich bugger should pay some devs to create an amazing engine and game solely for PC.

Cpt.Teacup
11-19-2012, 04:43 PM
Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles.

There's a few Kickstarter games working on that. Start Citizen for example.

Shadman
11-19-2012, 04:45 PM
I wish I was that rich bugger! I always have thoughts like this, to pour money into something that actually matters and will throw everyone else off.

Kinda like Google with their 700Mbps internet for $70/month eh?

Actually, Google is making a game, though for mobile. Its...interesting.

Sneaky
11-19-2012, 09:00 PM
Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles.

I think some rich bugger should pay some devs to create an amazing engine and game solely for PC.

Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this.
Idiots ..... this is the way ALL games should be developed!

BlackOctagon
11-20-2012, 01:55 AM
Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles.

+100

Although it didn't exactly push the graphical envelope, I remember reading that Eidos Montreal wanted to take particular care to optimise the PC version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I have no idea to what extent the engine was based on the needs of PC hardware versus consoles, but I do agree that (with the exception of the odd map) the PC version is quite seamless. I also thought they did a pretty good job with tessellation in this title. I just would have liked true/native 3D support as well as realtime rendered cinematics instead of those crappy pre-rendered 'movie style' cut scenes.

And...of course...much higher resolution textures. A beast GPU is not needed to deliver 60-120fps @ 1080p, even with all AA enabled.

HyperMatrix
11-20-2012, 03:08 AM
Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this.
Idiots ..... this is the way ALL games should be developed!

That's correct. However one thing they didn't do was build it as a native dx11 app if I remember correctly. It was a decision made after development had already been started. So if a game is built from the ground up as a dx11 app, it could do much better.

One thing I'm really hoping for is that things like unreal engine, cryengine, and unity engine start allowing for seamless console/pc game development where no compromise is required, since the engine is already designed to handle both ends of the spectrum. That way console gamers can get their crappy games, while the engine automatically turns it into a beautiful and demanding pc game for the rest of us. There is some hope there!

HyperMatrix
11-20-2012, 03:10 AM
And...of course...much higher resolution textures. A beast GPU is not needed to deliver 60-120fps @ 1080p, even with all AA enabled.

This. My oc'd 6970 ran pretty much everything fully maxed out at 1080p 60hz. Once you realize one of our monitors requires more gpu power than a triple monitor 60hz 1080p setup (3.56 monitors, to be exact) everything starts to make more sense. :P

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 03:17 AM
Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this.
Idiots ..... this is the way ALL games should be developed!
I wish I was wrong lol but sadly I'm not at all.... Crysis WAS the last game to do this.... (With graphical intentions)
BF3 was made as a multiplatform game..... It was made to be able to scale down and work with the 7 year old console, despite being made for PC, it was also made for the consoles.

If BF3 was exclusively made for the PC like Crysis was then it would for sure be allot better from a graphical/physics stance...... As it is its made to be the best it possibly can on PC while being able to scale down to the consoles, this still hldes the PC version back.

Cpt.Teacup
11-20-2012, 04:09 AM
This. My oc'd 6970 ran pretty much everything fully maxed out at 1080p 60hz. Once you realize one of our monitors requires more gpu power than a triple monitor 60hz 1080p setup (3.56 monitors, to be exact) everything starts to make more sense. :P

1.119744 GB/s vs 1.327104 GB/s. (Actually more due to blanking.)
Sorry for the OT but I just think it's interesting that our display cables transfer more data than the devices that store our data.

As for crappy consoles, there's a similar discussion about this in another thread, but I think that it's something we'll just have to wait out. Eventually consoles will start catching up to PC's with respect to processing power and enthusiast hardware manufacturers will have to start working harder to stay ahead. I think that will encourage game developers to use better technology and push their games to the limits. Right now we're kind of stagnating while we wait for newer industries to catch up.

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 04:45 AM
I wish I was wrong lol but sadly I'm not at all.... Crysis WAS the last game to do this.... (With graphical intentions)
BF3 was made as a multiplatform game..... It was made to be able to scale down and work with the 7 year old console, despite being made for PC, it was also made for the consoles.

If BF3 was exclusively made for the PC like Crysis was then it would for sure be allot better from a graphical/physics stance...... As it is its made to be the best it possibly can on PC while being able to scale down to the consoles, this still hldes the PC version back.
Not sure where you are getting your info from but the PC version of the Game was made first before any work even started on the console versions.
The Frostbite 2 engine was initially made for PC FIRST (that's what I said in my previous post). I never said it was made Exclusively for PC, I said that
the game was designed for the PC platform,it was then dumbed down for consoles.
So Crysis was NOT the last game that was (from the start) made for PC first ......

BlackOctagon
11-20-2012, 05:06 AM
1Eventually consoles will start catching up to PC's with respect to processing power and enthusiast hardware manufacturers will have to start working harder to stay ahead.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm. The next gen of consoles should certainly nudge things forward, but I never really see consoles catching up to PCs enough. Given that the best graphics cards alone sell for at least the price of an entire console, even on Console X's launch day I already expect the GPU to be low-to-mid range at best.

Unless we see consoles starting to sell for up to 1k or more, I doubt we'll be seeing truly amazing GPU performance out of these things. Still, would LOVE to be proven wrong

HyperMatrix
11-20-2012, 05:11 AM
They should just make consoles work in SLI. :P So you can have 1 Xbox 720 that runs at medium graphics, and attach a second one to run it at high graphics.

whitespider
11-20-2012, 05:17 AM
I still think cpu's ---- not gpu's are the primary thing holding us back.

-------------------------------------------------The divide----------------------------------Gpu's are here-----------
----------cpu's are here---------------------The divide----------------------------------------------------------------

If anything I just want the next gen console's to have completely kickass 5-8 core cpu's that don't use an entire core for the console's OS.

Graphics cards will continue the steady flow of progress, cpu's are making these tiny incremental changes and they feel the most stuck in time.

We need clockrate and cores, and optimization to back that up in games. If we have that. Gaming in general will be in a smoother place.

HyperMatrix
11-20-2012, 05:20 AM
I still think cpu's, not gpu's are the primary thing holding us back.

-------------------------------------------------The divide----------------------------------Gpu's are here-----------
----------cpu's are here---------------------The divide----------------------------------------------------------------

If anything I just want the next gen console's to have completely kickass 5-8 core cpu's that don't use an entire core for the console's OS.

Graphics cards will continue the steady flow of progress, cpu's are making these tiny incremental changes and they feel the most stuck in time.

We need clockrate and cores, and optimization to back that up in games. If we have that. Gaming in general will be in a smoother place.


Mind if I blame lazy programmers for a moment? Let's put it this way....a single core 15ghz processor would get more performance for gaming than a 5ghz 6 core processor which can provide 30ghz of processing power. Part of the reason there have been no great improvements in this area...is the PS3. Even with its 7 cores, no one wanted to learn how to use it because they wanted their games to be compatible more with Xbox and PC's as opposed to being optimized solely for the PS3.

What I'm saying is...even when additional cores are being used, they are being used poorly, and in lazy ways. We have enough raw computational power. But you never see that translate into better gaming performance.

whitespider
11-20-2012, 06:08 AM
Mind if I blame lazy programmers for a moment? Let's put it this way....a single core 15ghz processor would get more performance for gaming than a 5ghz 6 core processor which can provide 30ghz of processing power. Part of the reason there have been no great improvements in this area...is the PS3. Even with its 7 cores, no one wanted to learn how to use it because they wanted their games to be compatible more with Xbox and PC's as opposed to being optimized solely for the PS3.

What I'm saying is...even when additional cores are being used, they are being used poorly, and in lazy ways. We have enough raw computational power. But you never see that translate into better gaming performance.

That's it. The programming plays a huge role.

Sidenote: I have been playing assassins creed 3. The game runs in the town sections at 42fps to 48fps with txaa, and with everything turned down - 45-80fps. Suddenly I had to know. Alt tabbing back to process lasso (similar to task manager) I saw that each core was 95% useage. I can't think of another game that used that % of cpu without causing major stuttering.

In theory, the game could benefit from a cpu 4 times more powerful.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2896/70150016.jpg

First game I have seen that compares to a 3d render - except the 3d render makes the pc unusable. The game has a low - although extremely consistent - framerate while using this much cpu.

HyperMatrix
11-20-2012, 06:48 AM
Hmm...so I shouldn't expect to get 120fps with the game? I'm not going to bother playing it at 40fps. Been meaning to pick it up but haven't done so yet.

whitespider
11-20-2012, 06:59 AM
Hmm...so I shouldn't expect to get 120fps with the game? I'm not going to bother playing it at 40fps. Been meaning to pick it up but haven't done so yet.

Nope. And as much as I would like that for this game - I think the game actually represents a stride forward in cpu utilization. There is no other game that comes close. Now, is that because the game is extremely dense and actually makes use of that extra geometry, or is it just badly programmed features that take too many cycles? No idea.

To be fair, most games don't offer a flat 120fps. Still - even at maximum settings the framerate is low. It's an extremely consistent framerate. It does not start to break at below 60fps like a lot of games do. It handles shifts really well. It's as smooth of a framerate will get at a low fps. And unless we see a miracle patch - which is unlikely - then that's something you either tolerate - or don't.

Ps. if you lower the draw distance and shadow distance to 'normal', and absolutely don't run txaa (it drops the fps to 45fps and uses LESS gpu on a sli system) - the fps will be more in line with 45 to 110fps, on average about 50-70fps. Depending on where you look. And as I said, frame shifts are fine in this game. So it's as smooth as it's going to get at any given framerate.

If you drop down the draw distance, the cpu usage stays the same (95%) you just get a better framerate, at the cost of a lot of pop in. Which kind of helps the theory that it's just an extremely demanding game. Rather than a poorly optimized one. Or it's just both. I can't back anything up completely without getting a programmer to disassemble the code and for them to give me their verdict. Which is not going to happen.

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 07:09 AM
Not sure where you are getting your info from but the PC version of the Game was made first before any work even started on the console versions.
The Frostbite 2 engine was initially made for PC FIRST (that's what I said in my previous post). I never said it was made Exclusively for PC, I said that
the game was designed for the PC platform,it was then dumbed down for consoles.
So Crysis was NOT the last game that was (from the start) made for PC first ......

I'm sorry I don't think you understand, Crysis was the last graphics pushing game/engine made just for the PC to be the best possible. BF3 and the Frostbite 2 engine was not, and was made for the PC the best possible AT THE SAME TIME as being able to scale down and work well on the console, which holds the PC back because devs including DICE will only make 1 version of the game/engine which works on all current platforms. BF3 and the frostbite 2 engine was NOT just made the best it can be for the PC without any consideration for the console, that would be suicide because it simple would not work on the 7 year old consoles and the money for DICE/EA is in the consoles. The game would also be extremely demanding and need multiple high end graphics card to get anywhere near 60 fps, as well as having much more complex physics and higher res textures and just better all round graphics. The only people who are interested in this is us enthusiasts, but we are the minority and there is no money in doing that.

So please don't be niev and take a statement from a marketer from EA DICE trying to keep everyone happy because its people like that the reason why we won't get a propper graphics pushing revolutionary PC game. Because if your happy that BF3 is that the devs will keep giving it to us....when in reality they can do allot better, but not because there's no money in it and enthusiasts are a tiny percentage of their customers.

Its an hell of allot better than a console port, but its certainly not solely a pc game/engine from the ground up like Cry sis was, its multiplatfrom, it just has the ability to make a game better for the PC and able to port it to the console instead of the other way round.

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 07:13 AM
Mind if I blame lazy programmers for a moment? Let's put it this way....a single core 15ghz processor would get more performance for gaming than a 5ghz 6 core processor which can provide 30ghz of processing power. Part of the reason there have been no great improvements in this area...is the PS3. Even with its 7 cores, no one wanted to learn how to use it because they wanted their games to be compatible more with Xbox and PC's as opposed to being optimized solely for the PS3.

What I'm saying is...even when additional cores are being used, they are being used poorly, and in lazy ways. We have enough raw computational power. But you never see that translate into better gaming performance.
This.

Like I said, what's holding us back including games like BF3 is games and engns s being made to be tables to work on the consoles, that is it, we have the hardware, we just don't have the market share for people to bother to programme and make engines for it properly.

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 07:17 AM
They should just make consoles work in SLI. :P So you can have 1 Xbox 720 that runs at medium graphics, and attach a second one to run it at high graphics.

They won't do that because devs spend allot of time and money optimizing the games and squeezing every last bit of performance to get it working the best possible and rock solid stable, its easier to do this with one set up of hardware you know inside out, it would give them allot more work if they had to optimize and test it 2 times over for the different configurations.

whitespider
11-20-2012, 07:21 AM
Maximum settings (except for TXAA), HDAO is not active during snow weather. Only during daytime or nightime non-snow parts of the game.
As you can see this is sparsely populated. And thus we get 80+fps.
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3653/ac3sp20121121001113868.jpg

Inside the city itself. This is me turning around, and riding my horse for 8 seconds in the other direction.
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/707/ac3sp20121121001232983.jpg

And finally, a few seconds further into the heart of the city. Even at this framerate, it's far more playable than you would usually imagine. No idea why. Even smooth games like just cause 2 play less smoothy than this at the same framerate.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5574/ac3sp20121121001254491.jpg



This entire time - the cpu usage was locked and unchanging at 95% of each cpu core.

I have been in some scenes so far where there was 95 people onscreen, all with cloth dynamics (not hardware physx). And it was running at 50-60fps. I believe overlooking some populated areas on a rooftop can showcase a few hundred people. Most of which still have cloth physics even when they are lod-2 or lod-3 level. It can't be captured in screenshots, however it does make the world feel pretty animated and alive.

I'll post some more screenshots when HDAO kicks back in, it looks really great that way. They should have kept it enabled during snow.

Also, regarding sli. You can't see the useage in the screenshots, because when you run precision X with K-mode it shows each gpu as 0%.

The game is not properly optmized for sli yet. It uses a lot of both gpu's, it just don't not have gains linked to that useage. A single gtx 670 only gives me 20% less performance across the framerate spectrum. And max setting + txaa is exactly the same performance on a gtx 670, as SLI gtx 670's. Which means that it's negative scaling TXAA. And only TXAA. Unlike black ops 2, there is no sli profile that gives scaling to txaa. I hope the nvidia driver team stops playing world of warcraft and actually fixed this. Because it looks absolutely amazing with txaa.

Other things of note:

Tessellation on horse footprints in the snow (creates craters) and npc's, volumetric sunlight (not godrays, actual volumetric sunlight), volumetric fog, snow, and rain effects. 1:1 world reflections on surfaces, brokeh depth of field, subsurface scattering and extremely potent hdao in certain sections of the game. Tesselation also on flags, ships, houses, horses. No tesslation for bricks. Tesslation on water and waves to extreme effect. Close ups and cutscenes often run at 45fps, because the tesslation is increased for these scenes, creating extremely detailed features on the faces. Eye reflections are a little overdone. Each object has from 2 to 14 levels of detail that morph rather than pop.

On low view distance, things materialize however. Making horses and people often pixelate into existence 2 feet in front of you.

Also, bugs.

In the frontier (the open wilderness), horse footprints flicker and geometry like giant triangles appear out of nowhere. Some shadows also flicker. It seems to be related to SLI. I'll test and see if it's the same on a single gpu.

It could just be my cpu overheating due to 95% useage. Or it could be a nvidia/developers bug.

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 08:21 AM
I'm sorry I don't think you understand, Crysis was the last graphics pushing game/engine made just for the PC to be the best possible. BF3 and the Frostbite 2 engine was not, and was made for the PC the best possible AT THE SAME TIME as being able to scale down and work well on the console, which holds the PC back because devs including DICE will only make 1 version of the game/engine which works on all current platforms. BF3 and the frostbite 2 engine was NOT just made the best it can be for the PC without any consideration for the console, that would be suicide because it simple would not work on the 7 year old consoles and the money for DICE/EA is in the consoles. The game would also be extremely demanding and need multiple high end graphics card to get anywhere near 60 fps, as well as having much more complex physics and higher res textures and just better all round graphics. The only people who are interested in this is us enthusiasts, but we are the minority and there is no money in doing that.

So please don't be niev and take a statement from a marketer from EA DICE trying to keep everyone happy because its people like that the reason why we won't get a propper graphics pushing revolutionary PC game. Because if your happy that BF3 is that the devs will keep giving it to us....when in reality they can do allot better, but not because there's no money in it and enthusiasts are a tiny percentage of their customers.

Its an hell of allot better than a console port, but its certainly not solely a pc game/engine from the ground up like Cry sis was, its multiplatfrom, it just has the ability to make a game better for the PC and able to port it to the console instead of the other way round.
Still haven't heard you say where you got your information from ;)
Niev? I got my information from an interview with the developers not just one, it was an interview with the main team members (not just a fluff piece) ... I watched it several times.
Get some solid evidence of what you are saying and i may take notice, until then, I'll take what the devs say over your opinion any day ;)

whitespider
11-20-2012, 08:34 AM
Personally, I don't care if a game was built for pc or not. I care about what I actually get as an end result. It being built ground up as a pc game does not guarantee anything.

What I want is console focused developers to give their A-game for pc, So you are bringing this game to pc, think about the performance benefits - not making the .exe dx11 compatible. And a number of games have actually been pretty respectful of their ports over the past two years.

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 09:09 AM
Still haven't heard you say where you got your information from ;)
Niev? I got my information from an interview with the developers not just one, it was an interview with the main team members (not just a fluff piece) ... I watched it several times.
Get some solid evidence of what you are saying and i may take notice, until then, I'll take what the devs say over your opinion any day ;)
Like I said if you take everything for fact from DICE/EA marketing who are well known to tell the truth and nothing but the truth :/ then go ahead and be neive.
And if you don't understand how the FB2 engine and BF3 aren't taking full advantage of our PCs (like crysis 1 did) and are held back by having to be able to run on 7 year old hardware then your being silly, open your eyes and think man, you don't need facts when its right out in front of you.
The devs of the game aren't going to come out and say; `We have made the game and engine the best it can be on PC while still being able to scale the engine and game down to run on the 7 year old consoles with strange configurations , which means that we could do allot better in terms of the engine and graphical effects/physics if the game was just for PC, but its not and we get 90% of our revenue from the consoles`
They are going to tell you and the console player what they want to hear and keep everyone happy.

Like I said, Crysis was the last graphical intensive, evolutional PC game to push the boundary ad use PCs as much as it can, BF3 is certainly not and anyone with a brain knows that, again as I said BF3/FB2 was designed to be the best it can on PC while being able to run well on consoles, and in turn not using our PC hardware like it could have if it was designed just for the PC.

Its allot better than a console port, but its not a great feat in using our hardware and nothing compared to what Crysis was at the time, in fact has comparable graphics technically...... Stop and think, its common sense and there is no argument about it, everyone with half a brain knows this...

BlackOctagon
11-20-2012, 09:28 AM
Let's not forget that while Crysis did indeed push the envelope graphics wise, this was only one reason it brought rigs to their knees. The other reason was rather poor optimisation, which is why we still struggle to push beyond a 60fps minimum on a single GPU. Years later.

The game pushed PC graphics forward, no doubt. But the 'but can it run Crysis?' obsessions surrounding that game resulted less from the graphics themselves and more from PCs' inability to run the game smoothly on very high settings. It's almost as if Crytek was rewarded for their imperfect optimisation efforts, with a cult following

whitespider
11-20-2012, 09:41 AM
Let's not forget that while Crysis did indeed push the envelope graphics wise, this was only one reason it brought rigs to their knees. The other reason was rather poor optimisation, which is why we still struggle to push beyond a 60fps minimum on a single GPU. Years later.

The game pushed PC graphics forward, no doubt. But the 'but can it run Crysis?' obsessions surrounding that game resulted less from the graphics themselves and more from PCs' inability to run the game smoothly on very high settings. It's almost as if Crytek was rewarded for their imperfect optimisation efforts, with a cult following

I agree with that. I think kids these days say THIS.

Was it ahead of it's time in terms of features, absolutely. Was it completely and utterly unoptimized, absolutely.

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 10:42 AM
Like I said if you take everything for fact from DICE/EA marketing who are well known to tell the truth and nothing but the truth :/ then go ahead and be neive.
And if you don't understand how the FB2 engine and BF3 aren't taking full advantage of our PCs (like crysis 1 did) and are held back by having to be able to run on 7 year old hardware then your being silly, open your eyes and think man, you don't need facts when its right out in front of you.
The devs of the game aren't going to come out and say; `We have made the game and engine the best it can be on PC while still being able to scale the engine and game down to run on the 7 year old consoles with strange configurations , which means that we could do allot better in terms of the engine and graphical effects/physics if the game was just for PC, but its not and we get 90% of our revenue from the consoles`
They are going to tell you and the console player what they want to hear and keep everyone happy.

Like I said, Crysis was the last graphical intensive, evolutional PC game to push the boundary ad use PCs as much as it can, BF3 is certainly not and anyone with a brain knows that, again as I said BF3/FB2 was designed to be the best it can on PC while being able to run well on consoles, and in turn not using our PC hardware like it could have if it was designed just for the PC.

Its allot better than a console port, but its not a great feat in using our hardware and nothing compared to what Crysis was at the time, in fact has comparable graphics technically...... Stop and think, its common sense and there is no argument about it, everyone with half a brain knows this...
Still after asking three times you have no proof to back up your claims ..... your long winded posts have no merit but going along with the flock,
your thoughts on Crysis show this ...... as BlackOctagon and whitespider have shown.
You are talking as though you have inside information about the development of BF3 ... clearly you don't.
No offense but after reading your views on MoHW I am more inclined to take your opinions (that's what they are) with a grain of salt.
Until you can show something to back up what you have claimed, I'll continue to be someone with less than half a brain as you so put.

My views are based on what I heard ... from the horses mouth so to speak, so enough already ;)

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 12:12 PM
Sneaky... you have no argument here.

All I said was this;


I think another big thing holding games back is the processor inside the PS3 which is meant to be extremely complicated and difficult to code for, obviously as well as being very dated much the like Xbox.

Devs are having to make games that will work the best possible with the consoles and the PS3's CPU.

Cant wait till the next gen of console because both are suppose to have an AMD CPU/ GPU so hopefully it will be allot easier for devs to make PC games better.

Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles.

I think some rich bugger should pay some devs to create an amazing engine and game solely for PC.

To which you replied;


Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this.
Idiots ..... this is the way ALL games should be developed!

You dont make any sense... its a fact I am not wrong and its a fact you are clearly as I said earlier confused or something. You are arguing against something you simply cant argue against...... and I never even said BF3 WASN'T ported to the consoles from the PC infact I have said it MULTIPLE TIMES. I wasnt wrong in any way shape or form and there is already 'proof to back up my claims'.....

"Imagine if a dev actually made an engine and game JUST for the PC now...... if you look back at Crysis which was the last game to do this, you could only imagine what we could already have now, but all the engines and games are optimized for the consoles."

Crysis WAS the last game and engine made JUST for the PC....... (with intention to get the most out of hardware/graphics)
All todays graphic intensive engines INCLUDING BF3 ARE optimized for consoles.............. BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE CONSOLES, you cant make a game run on a console well without an engine that is optimized for it.........

How am I wrong? you are arguing about nothing.....


Its as I said, BF3 is ported from the PC to the console instead of the other way round, but it still means the engine has been made and optimized for consoles or it simply WOULD NOT WORK ON THEM.....
The engine and game we have on the PC is the same as the consoles just with more eye candy and hi res, even the physics are the same (notice debris just fall through the floor, or windows being smashed is just pretty poor by what todays standard could be, tanks, cars, and planes all have pretty basic physics, these are just a few example)

Seriously it feels like Im talking to a clueless kid.

And yes, Crysis 1 was poorly optimized compared to todays standards, just like the graphics cards around at the time were poorly optimized compared to todays standards....... but it was atleast 4 years ahead of its time, becuase it was made just for pc to get the most out of it. Which BF3 is not.


Seriously.... you need to read peoples posts properly and understand them before getting confused and arguing with them about what ever is in your head.

whitespider
11-20-2012, 12:24 PM
Either way, purely on a tech level (because none of these games are the definition of innovation and awe). Battlefield 3 was progressive. Crysis was progressive. Hell, the witcher 2 was progressive - as well as being a good game. If someone decides to make a game exclusively for pc, that pushes everything. Great, I think that's fantastic. If someone on the other hand makes a pc game that pushes everything, and also releases it for consoles. Great.

Any progress is good progress.

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 12:48 PM
Indeed, I wasn't even arguing about that.

I just said something on the topic... and Sneaky decided to say I was somehow wrong about something I never even said and start a random argument about whatever he was thinking in his head... God knows lol

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 03:15 PM
LMAO!
Actually it is you who needs to read ..... all I said was:
"Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this."
Which is correct, just look at Hypermatrix's reply to this.
Then you acted like your honor was insulted and proceeded to carry on with BS, then just now you turn around
and say pretty much exactly what I initially said:

Its as I said, BF3 is ported from the PC to the console instead of the other way round
Are you feeling ok?
You must have dropped your marbles :eek:

Actually, feel free to carry on like you have been, it is getting to the point of being amusing lol

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 04:00 PM
LMAO!
Actually it is you who needs to read ..... all I said was:
"Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)
I remember seeing an interview with the devs and they specifically stated this."
Which is correct, just look at Hypermatrix's reply to this.
Then you acted like your honor was insulted and proceeded to carry on with BS, then just now you turn around
and say pretty much exactly what I initially said:

Are you feeling ok?
You must have dropped your marbles :eek:

Actually, feel free to carry on like you have been, it is getting to the point of being amusing lol

Your still not making any sense; "Actually you are wrong there, BF3 WAS made for PC first, it was then ported to XBOX/PS3. ;)"

The above didn't even apply to what I said, so how was I wrong? and about what? I never said anything about BF3 being ported from the PC to the consoles :s you just came up with that and said I was wrong :s

No one can be this stupid lol.... I take it your just trolling.

Cpt.Teacup
11-20-2012, 04:02 PM
Take it outside, girls.

Hey Hyper, still looking for that facepalm emote. :p

whitespider
11-20-2012, 04:33 PM
TXAA, powered by vBulletin in what year was the first computer invented, powered by vBulletin tessellation

Crackatoah
11-20-2012, 04:35 PM
lol

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 06:54 PM
Have we gotten to the point where you need therapy yet? :D
No trolling needed bud ... you got worked up all on your own.
I think I found one of your marbles :p

BTW, you still don't get it 760

Shadman
11-20-2012, 07:44 PM
Flaaaaame war!

We don't get these on ocn :cool:

Sneaky
11-20-2012, 07:54 PM
Didn't you know? wonderful stuff happens at the site that shall not be named ;):p

BlackOctagon
11-21-2012, 12:25 AM
Zzzzzzzzz...

Edit: If this thread is going from discussion to flame war y'all better step up and start hurling some real insults. 'Cos compared to the eternal AMD/NVIDIA wars that plague other forums, you guys are still being half chivalrous ;)

HyperMatrix
11-21-2012, 02:43 AM
That's it. The programming plays a huge role.

Sidenote: I have been playing assassins creed 3. The game runs in the town sections at 42fps to 48fps with txaa, and with everything turned down - 45-80fps. Suddenly I had to know. Alt tabbing back to process lasso (similar to task manager) I saw that each core was 95% useage. I can't think of another game that used that % of cpu without causing major stuttering.

In theory, the game could benefit from a cpu 4 times more powerful.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2896/70150016.jpg

First game I have seen that compares to a 3d render - except the 3d render makes the pc unusable. The game has a low - although extremely consistent - framerate while using this much cpu.

Hmm...weird. I just played the game and my CPU hovers around 30% and tops out at 40% usage. I'm not far into it. I'm only on the ship at the start now. But the 100's of NPC's in the theatre in the first mission should have put some strain on the CPU. GPU's around 60% usage, CPU around 30-40%. FPS limited to 60-90. 150+ in the animus. Looks amazingly smooth in there. :P

Also...have I mentioned how much I like DX11 textures/fabrics/lighting? So pretty...and yes you're right that despite the lower FPS, the game is worth playing. Just seeing hundreds of NPC's at once in the movie theater had me in awe as I haven't seen that in other games before. Looking forward to playing through it.

Cpt.Teacup
11-21-2012, 02:48 AM
FPS limited to 60-90. 150+ in the animus.

Wait, so there's different framerate limits in and out of the animus? That's really weird.

HyperMatrix
11-21-2012, 02:55 AM
Wait, so there's different framerate limits in and out of the animus? That's really weird.


Not limits. Just optimization/cpu usage choking framerate. The Animus has nothing in it, so there's not much work being done. So you get great performance. Add in some NPC's and structures and it falls apart. I think they just optimized the engine around 60fps, which it does well. 120hz gaming is still a total niche.

Cpt.Teacup
11-21-2012, 03:18 AM
Not limits. Just optimization/cpu usage choking framerate. The Animus has nothing in it, so there's not much work being done. So you get great performance. Add in some NPC's and structures and it falls apart. I think they just optimized the engine around 60fps, which it does well. 120hz gaming is still a total niche.

Oh, I thought you meant in reality versus the simulation. I only played AC2 so I forgot that they were doing that abstract animus thing too.

winterhell
11-21-2012, 03:51 AM
Thats too bad on the AC 3. Have you tried with a 6 core Intel cpu ?
As for the DirectX 11.1 - there is actually nothing benefitial in it for the gamers. Its only stuff that help the developers make the game easier/faster.
I'm more excited about 1 OpenGL extension that is added with the GeForce GTX 600 series- bindless textures. Now THAT is something that can improve performance and so on. Much less commands sent over to the gpu. Also makes it possible to do Super Deferred Rendering by placing further down the pipeline the actual texturing stuff, and requiring less badwidth and memory space.

HyperMatrix
11-21-2012, 04:30 AM
I have not tried it with a 6-core CPU but it should be an improvement as per this chart. Although, this chart is about AMD cpu's and doesn't cover things like HyperThreading.

761

whitespider
11-21-2012, 05:09 AM
Hmm...weird. I just played the game and my CPU hovers around 30% and tops out at 40% usage. I'm not far into it. I'm only on the ship at the start now. But the 100's of NPC's in the theatre in the first mission should have put some strain on the CPU. GPU's around 60% usage, CPU around 30-40%. FPS limited to 60-90. 150+ in the animus. Looks amazingly smooth in there. :P

Also...have I mentioned how much I like DX11 textures/fabrics/lighting? So pretty...and yes you're right that despite the lower FPS, the game is worth playing. Just seeing hundreds of NPC's at once in the movie theater had me in awe as I haven't seen that in other games before. Looking forward to playing through it.

There are a few possible reasons for this, in order of likelihood.

1. When it opens up into an open world game, it loads in a lot more open ended systems. So the cpu use goes up.
2. I have disabled cpu core parking. Which is a feature of process lasso. Windows has a system that parks cpu cores when the useage is at a certain level. Then resume them when it goes up. The problem is that the there is latency involved in parking and resuming them, and that leads to lower cpu usage.

As for the framerate consistency, yeah. It's pretty good. Go to my documents >>Assassin3.ini >>

[Graphics_DX11]
DisplayWidth=2560
DisplayHeight=1440
RefreshRate=131
VSync=0

And make sure these settings are set like this (except refresh rate, put that on whatever level you want obviously). Then go into the game's profile via inspector and force vsync off. Then, when you enter the game. Alt tab out of it. Then back into it.
Guarantee your performance will boost a whole bunch and the lower framerate sections of the game will seem a lot smoother.

Also, I think control panel AF looks better. Force that. And don't enable txaa. It's broken and murders frame perception in the current profile.

Also, when you get to the snowy sections of the game, you will encounter a bug that you won't be able to tolerate. Snow imprints glitch. On a single gpu it's not a problem. With sli enabled, any footprint flickers and the entire geometry where the footprint is - will "sli flicker".

So if you are trudging through the snow, anywhere you walk will start flickering about 2 square metres around you. The game quickly leaves the snow, however I know it will return. And i'll have to put up with that again.

There are no imprints on pathways and roads and cities. So it does not happen there.

I just can't be bothered making a nvidia account to post the bug. I probably should. Because there are probably 194,000 other people not doing anything about it either.

Shadman
11-21-2012, 05:18 AM
Want me to do any tests with my 3930k?

BlackOctagon
11-21-2012, 12:04 PM
Guys, do you actually enjoy AC3? Played the series obsessively but found Revelations really disappointing. Never finished it and kinda have on the series, especially after switching to Skyrim

Crackatoah
11-21-2012, 12:40 PM
I liked the first one on the PS2, but haven't liked any of the others since, I don't feel like they have added much individual/innovative things to the game, just made it more like gta and added boring things IMO, although others have different taste and like it.

whitespider
11-21-2012, 12:46 PM
Guys, do you actually enjoy AC3? Played the series obsessively but found Revelations really disappointing. Never finished it and kinda have on the series, especially after switching to Skyrim

I am about 5 hours in, and this one has a pulse. I really appreciated the sprawling nature of previous games however they never really 'clicked' enough for me to just want to inhabit the worlds. Assassins creed 3 has a metascore of 85 or so. I believe. Which puts it on in between brotherhood and revelations in terms of critical feedback. Personally - this one is clicking with me. The emotions are pure, the combat feels better, and the new graphics engine makes me feel like I am playing a second generation console.

It's still totally assassins creed, it's just more pure. Refined. And it has a little more heart and character. And that goes a long way.

HyperMatrix
11-21-2012, 07:59 PM
I'm only an hour into the game but I'm liking it. Story and narrative give it a different feel. The dx11 graphics engine brings it to life. Definitely looking forward to playing more of it.

And shadman, what kind of fps are you getting in the game?

BlackOctagon
11-21-2012, 11:48 PM
Hmmm, may actually check this one out then. Thanks for the replies

Shadman
11-22-2012, 12:45 AM
I'm only an hour into the game but I'm liking it. Story and narrative give it a different feel. The dx11 graphics engine brings it to life. Definitely looking forward to playing more of it.

And shadman, what kind of fps are you getting in the game?

I was actually asking if someone wanted me to get any scores cause I've never played any assassins creed. I'll probably not be able to get any stats til tomorrow though.

HyperMatrix
11-22-2012, 04:12 AM
Regarding assassin's creed 3, I'm getting substantially better FPS now after using the latest Nvidia drivers. Don't think I did anything else. But I mean I'm getting between 50%-150% better framerate depending on where I am. Now I can completely enjoy this game. :)

winterhell
11-26-2012, 04:02 PM
Does AC3 play nice with SLI or is it still CPU bottlenecked

whitespider
11-26-2012, 08:31 PM
Does AC3 play nice with SLI or is it still CPU bottlenecked

Still 65% cpu bottlenecked. It has higher framerates where it can. Some people report worse framerates than a single gpu while in sli. I have not found this to be true @ 2560x1440 @ 130hz

There is a flickering issue with the default sli profile, that makes snow footprints flicker in the snow areas of the game. This can be solved by changing AFR to AFR2. AFR2 does not seem to seriously impact framerates, and scaling is still better than single gpu.

Txaa enabled = scaling worse than a single gpu. Highest AA below txaa = better scaling than single gpu.

Wixely Holmes
11-27-2012, 04:15 AM
DX 11.1 is Win8 only, The only way I will give them any money is if they build in a way to remove metro. Hacks don't count, I don't appreciate a company making users work for them without pay.

So as far as I can see, 11.1 wont take off. It was invented purely to lock out Win7 and increase Win8 sales just like when DX10 locked out XP from Vista. It didnt stop people getting Halo 2 working on XP with DirectX10, even after MS said it wasn't possible.

Gaben and others know this and are trying to go the Linux route, he wants the majority of the Steam catalog running on linux in a few years.
Personally, If the majority games ran on linux - I'd never use windows, and if services like Netflix weren't happy about that then I can do without them.

On the topic of your AC3 performance, is it because whitespider is using CPU Physics instead of Physx?

whitespider
11-27-2012, 05:12 AM
DX 11.1 is Win8 only, The only way I will give them any money is if they build in a way to remove metro. Hacks don't count, I don't appreciate a company making users work for them without pay.

On the topic of your AC3 performance, is it because whitespider is using CPU Physics instead of Physx?

Nope. The game does not use hardware physx. It's cpu limited for everyone. Town sections particularly.

Towns without txaa - sli -, max ingame settings = 39-132 fps. Avr 52fps Gpu usage 74.5%
Wilderness without txaa - sli - max ingame settings = 38-132fps. Avr 74fps. Gpu usage 91.9%
Towns with txaa - sli -, max ingame settings = 33-51 fps. Avr 45fps Gpu usage 58.1%
Wilderness with txaa - sli - max ingame settings = 32-51fps. Avr 44fps - Gpu usage 58.4%

Txaa sli scaling is broken. The moment I turn it on, gpu usage goes 'down'. Not up.

Crackatoah
11-27-2012, 05:45 AM
DX 11.1 is Win8 only, The only way I will give them any money is if they build in a way to remove metro. Hacks don't count, I don't appreciate a company making users work for them without pay.

So as far as I can see, 11.1 wont take off. It was invented purely to lock out Win7 and increase Win8 sales just like when DX10 locked out XP from Vista. It didnt stop people getting Halo 2 working on XP with DirectX10, even after MS said it wasn't possible.

Gaben and others know this and are trying to go the Linux route, he wants the majority of the Steam catalog running on linux in a few years.
Personally, If the majority games ran on linux - I'd never use windows, and if services like Netflix weren't happy about that then I can do without them.

On the topic of your AC3 performance, is it because whitespider is using CPU Physics instead of Physx?

Its been confirmed that Microsoft are updating DX 11.1 to withdows 7

Shadman
11-27-2012, 06:01 AM
Its been confirmed that Microsoft are updating DX 11.1 to withdows 7

You know, you really should back up your statements with evidence. Thats really why everyone calls you out on what you say.
Now, I've seen the article too, and I believe it said only some aspects of DX11.1 would come to Windows 7 though.

Crackatoah
11-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Sorry I'm at work on a tablet (usually am when on the forum) so its awkward to copy and paste, all you have to do is search Google, many sites have an article on it.

Wouldn't say everyone calls me out for what I say though? Only know 1 person to do that :P

But yes I do recall it not being the full DX 11.1 package, but I heard somewhere that win 7 will have everything it needs for games.

Shadman
11-27-2012, 06:52 AM
I have a tablet. Its not awkward.

And I didn't mean every single person, more of a 'everyone who gets in disputes with you' is mostly because of that.

And no, that was for the Kepler cards not supporting DX 11.1 except the gaming libraries. Here. (http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/11/21/nvidia-doesnt-fully-support-directx-111-with-kepler-gpus2c-bute280a6.aspx)

Also, about Windows 7 support, here (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Service-Pack-1-Windows-7-DirectX-11.1-Runtime-Chuck-Walbourn,19135.html).

All done from my crappy first-get iPad.

Crackatoah
11-27-2012, 08:17 AM
OK thanks :)

Maybe I should get an IPad then. 7 inch android is awkward for me, my finger spans to letters on the keyboard haha.


2* lol sloppy prediction again

HyperMatrix
11-27-2012, 09:30 AM
Calm down, children. There's no need to fight over a dx11 revision that is not even going to be used or have a real effect for us consumers. Regarding dx11.1, however, Microsoft has been having a hard time deciding what to do. At first they said no dx 11.1 support for win7. Then they said ok ok,,,we'll do dx 11.1 support for windows 7. Then someone decided that wasn't such a great idea and they said "some" aspects of dx11.1 will make their way to windows 7, but the full experience still requires that you upgrade to windows 8.

So....considering windows 8 adoption rate is slow (I believe entirely due to the removal of the start button), one of 2 things will happen. More dx11.1 compatibility for win7 will be added. Or...the more likely outcome is that developers will simply ignore dx11.1 for the next little while and therefor no one benefits from it. If next gen consoles come out with dx11.1, that will be another factor to consider as well.

But all in all...no need to fight. I'd hate for the site to turn into an episode of the kardashians. Or any other retarded show intended to rot the brains of anyone who watches it. Also like the view or Fox News.

P.s. crackatoah, yes you should get an ipad. :) they are pretty awesome. Pretty fucking awesome.

BlackOctagon
11-27-2012, 09:51 AM
Are THAT many games truly using (I mean genuinely 'smartly') using features beyond DX9/10 anyway? If not then it is indeed premature to get very worked up in 2012 about the next iteration of DX11

whitespider
11-27-2012, 09:53 AM
Are THAT many games truly using (I mean genuinely 'smartly') using features beyond DX9/10 anyway? If not then it is indeed premature to get very worked up in 2012 about the next iteration of DX11

I must have direct x11.1. I need the bump shaders. I NEED THE BUMP SHADERS. I'LL KILL ANYONE WHO GETS IN THE WAY OF MY %UCKING B-U-M-P S-H-A-D-E-R-S

BlackOctagon
11-27-2012, 09:57 AM
Then start by killing Bethesda. Isn't Skyrim only DX9?

whitespider
11-27-2012, 10:01 AM
Then start by killing Bethesda. Isn't Skyrim only DX9?

Yep. That uses specular and normal mapping. No bump shaders. It's bump-shader-less.

(ps. shhhh.. I don't actually know what a bump shader is)

Crackatoah
11-27-2012, 10:29 AM
Yup, not many games use the advantages of DX 11 as it is :(

It will soon change with the new consoles, but then 2-6 years down the line we will be in the same position again lol.

BlackOctagon
11-27-2012, 11:39 AM
(ps. shhhh.. I don't actually know what a bump shader is)

Lol, neither do I. Has paedophilic undertones, though

medo145
11-27-2012, 12:38 PM
Arkham City was quite enjoyable and I believe that was DX11.

Crackatoah
11-27-2012, 01:31 PM
Arkham City was quite enjoyable and I believe that was DX11.

DX 11 was borked for me, did they fix it in the end?

whitespider
11-27-2012, 06:13 PM
DX 11 was borked for me, did they fix it in the end?

Arkham city had broken performence in dx11 for the majority of it's release time. However, there are things you can do to improve it.

1. Get the game of the year edition game. It gives you no framerate boost, however it eliminates stutter by 5-15%

2. Run the screen at a high hz (120 or above), and uncap the framerate via the INI file in my documents. This makes the stutter less noticable. Unreal engine game's (and varients) tend to prefer higher refresh rates for smoothing out a framerate, regardless of the actual framerate. Running a high hz 'brushes over' microstutter, and normal loading stutter. VERY well.

3. Keep the dx11 features on, lower the draw distance from extreme to high. This eliminates stutter 30-70%

4. Lower the tessellation. The engine has issues with loading in those extremely tessellated trees into memory during gliding sequences.

medo145
11-27-2012, 07:14 PM
Can't say I noticed too many slowdowns and that was with 2 gtx460 cards. Initially it was pretty jumpy, but then I set physx to be handled by the cpu and it ran pretty smoothly. Maybe I just didn't notice the stutter, because the game was so good.

whitespider
11-27-2012, 08:00 PM
Can't say I noticed too many slowdowns and that was with 2 gtx460 cards. Initially it was pretty jumpy, but then I set physx to be handled by the cpu and it ran pretty smoothly. Maybe I just didn't notice the stutter, because the game was so good.

I notice everything.

HyperMatrix
11-28-2012, 02:49 AM
Then start by killing Bethesda. Isn't Skyrim only DX9?

Skyrim uses "some" dx11 elements with a software update that was released. But definitely minimal.

whitespider
11-28-2012, 03:05 AM
Skyrim uses "some" dx11 elements with a software update that was released. But definitely minimal.

Surely it needs the dx11 api to pull the elements? It's totally dx9 according to afterburner/precision x.

HyperMatrix
11-28-2012, 03:19 AM
Surely it needs the dx11 api to pull the elements? It's totally dx9 according to afterburner/precision x.

Sorry should have clarified minimal dx11 available through mods, from what I had read. I never tried it myself, however. But I heard it includes dx11 lighting and even some tesselation.

whitespider
11-28-2012, 05:36 AM
Sorry should have clarified minimal dx11 available through mods, from what I had read. I never tried it myself, however. But I heard it includes dx11 lighting and even some tesselation.

I am a bit of a skyrim nut. So I'm going to have to call you on that one. There is nothing about skyrim that uses dx11.

It was originally going to use some dx11 code for optimization, however that code can't be used/implemented because they never switched the API. No mods for skyrim use dx11, or dx11 code as far as I am aware. There is a distant possibility they might upgrade the skyrim exe to dx11. However I really doubt it.

BlackOctagon
11-28-2012, 06:42 AM
Maybe Hyper's referring to that Project Parralax mod, which is sometimes confused as implementing a sort of tessellation for the game?