The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!

First, as others pointed out, if this (horns polygons) were the only example of Dx11 benefits this DX11 bashing would be right. And second these polygons benefits on their own don't give much but alltogether it is enriching the view, enhancing the atmosphere. No one is countng polygons while playing but subconciously you will probably enjoy the more details.
You could even escalate it and bring out old dos games like Ultima 3 (especially the 3D dungeons) and on comparison to DX11 say "I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay" 😀

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!

The higher detail isn't all that noticeable, but the better lighting on them is, at least to me.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!

Especially when you're swearing about how f'ing slow the game is and how loud the fan on your video card gets when DX11 features are turned on. 😉

The first generation of cards to support a new technology always run slower and hotter than later generations, which is the point I was trying to make earlier concerning heat. I'd rather wait until the technology matures a bit and there are cards more capable that don't get really hot and lag when the action gets intense. I'd also rather wait until the game designers get the hang of the new tech and can start really exploiting it in creative ways that they usually can't early in the development cycle.

sliderider wrote:

http://techgage.com/article/lost_planet_2_dx9_vs_dx11/

Look at some of the screenshots and tell me that you clearly see a major increase in graphics quality in DX11 over DX9. The biggest difference I see between the two is that DX 11 is 30 or more fps slower than DX9 and the DX9 screenshots don't really look any worse.

For an extra 30+ fps I'd rather live with the DX9 graphics. DX11 isn't worth the massive performance hit IMO. I've also seen videos of Dirt 2 run in DX9 and DX11 modes side by side with the only noticeable difference being the fps numbers being a lot higher in DX9 mode.

DX11 doesn't suck.

Console ports suck.

Dominus wrote:

First, as others pointed out, if this (horns polygons) were the only example of Dx11 benefits this DX11 bashing would be right. […]
Show full quote

The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!

First, as others pointed out, if this (horns polygons) were the only example of Dx11 benefits this DX11 bashing would be right. And second these polygons benefits on their own don't give much but alltogether it is enriching the view, enhancing the atmosphere. No one is countng polygons while playing but subconciously you will probably enjoy the more details.
You could even escalate it and bring out old dos games like Ultima 3 (especially the 3D dungeons) and on comparison to DX11 say "I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay" 😀

Now THAT's what I call high res graphics! 🤣

Let me ask you, then. If that scene were to be played out in real life and two of those beasts suddenly appeared, do you really think you'd notice the subleties of the DX11 monster over the DX9 one or would you be too busy running for your life? Most players would be too busy fighting to spot most of the differences and I really don't think the player using DX9 mode is going to complain about the gameplay experience for not using DX11.

I really don't understand the stance of "it's good enough, let's just stop here". Voodoo2 used to be good enough too.

Why is D3D9 is so great? Because you're accustomed to the fakey wax plastic graphics of current day gaming? You don't want better lighting and shadowing, more realistic texturing, higher detail models, or even MSAA with deferred renderers ?

D3D10 and 11 are both capable of being much more efficient at the same tasks as D3D9, and they obviously can go to the next level too. A problem in recent times with D3D10 is that game companies would write their game for D3D9 and then quick add D3D10 support. You don't get any of the latter's benefits that way.

The problem right now is the consoles. They both lack the feature set of even DX10 and the performance to do much more than a Radeon X1800 or GeForce 7800. 5 year old hardware. And for many of the big games today they do most of the sales volume because modern day consoles are poor man's PCs. So there will be no progress until they are replaced.

With many advances in a technological field, the earlier advances are more noticable then the advances thereafter. Not always, but usually it is like that. Also depends on how much is spend on it.

gerwin wrote:

With many advances in a technological field, the earlier advances are more noticable then the advances thereafter. Not always, but usually it is like that.

That's true but I think more of the problem is that almost all games are still being designed with 5 year old hardware in mind. That wasn't really the case before the PS3 and Xbox 360 took over the gaming market.

swaaye wrote:

gerwin wrote:

With many advances in a technological field, the earlier advances are more noticable then the advances thereafter. Not always, but usually it is like that.

That's true but I think more of the problem is that almost all games are still being designed with 5 year old hardware in mind. That wasn't really the case before the PS3 and Xbox 360 took over the gaming market.

Or games like Far Cry, Crysis etc that were designed for hardware that came 2-3 years later 😁

Crysis 2 will be interesting. The engine has changed into a deferred renderer which should mean much improved lighting because it allows for much more detail in that area. The original Crysis is what they call a forward renderer, which is the more conventional way to go.

But I played the original two games on my 8800GTX fine. You didn't really want to run it on DX9 hardware though because it's just too slow. Crysis still looks better than almost any other game, particularly if you explore some of the configuration file rework mods out there.
http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=17780

I think that Just Cause 2 has finally matched it perhaps. That game is jaw dropping really.

swaaye wrote:

Crysis 2 will be interesting. The engine has changed into a deferred renderer which should mean much improved lighting because it allows for much more detail in that area. The original Crysis is what they call a forward renderer, which is the more conventional way to go.

But I played the original two games on my 8800GTX fine. You didn't really want to run it on DX9 hardware though because it's just too slow. Crysis still looks better than almost any other game.

Yeah, Crysis 2 will be interesting and Half Life 2 😀

Crysis was sluggish sometimes when I had my GF 8800GT SLi setup with everything set to high, 4x aa @ 1680x1050 (22inch display)
But when I got my GF GTX 280 things changed and with the GTX 480 I can finally max everything out 😀 @ 1920x1080

Both Crysis games still amaze me too with it's gfx..they made these games last like they did with Far Cry

sliderider wrote:

Dominus wrote:

First, as others pointed out, if this (horns polygons) were the only example of Dx11 benefits this DX11 bashing would be right. […]
Show full quote

The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!

First, as others pointed out, if this (horns polygons) were the only example of Dx11 benefits this DX11 bashing would be right. And second these polygons benefits on their own don't give much but alltogether it is enriching the view, enhancing the atmosphere. No one is countng polygons while playing but subconciously you will probably enjoy the more details.
You could even escalate it and bring out old dos games like Ultima 3 (especially the 3D dungeons) and on comparison to DX11 say "I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay" 😀
(snipped the graphic in the quote)

Now THAT's what I call high res graphics! 🤣

Let me ask you, then. If that scene were to be played out in real life and two of those beasts suddenly appeared, do you really think you'd notice the subleties of the DX11 monster over the DX9 one or would you be too busy running for your life? Most players would be too busy fighting to spot most of the differences and I really don't think the player using DX9 mode is going to complain about the gameplay experience for not using DX11.

You missed my point. Gameplay has nothing to do with how the game looks, DX11 does not change gameplay nor will a player with DX9 complain about gameplay.
DX11 enriches the world created, tries to make it more real. If I were to meet such monsters in real life and everything would look very blocky I'd not run for my life but instantly recognize I'm dreaming 😀

swaaye wrote:

Crysis 2 will be interesting. The engine has changed into a deferred renderer which should mean much improved lighting because i […]
Show full quote

Crysis 2 will be interesting. The engine has changed into a deferred renderer which should mean much improved lighting because it allows for much more detail in that area. The original Crysis is what they call a forward renderer, which is the more conventional way to go.

But I played the original two games on my 8800GTX fine. You didn't really want to run it on DX9 hardware though because it's just too slow. Crysis still looks better than almost any other game, particularly if you explore some of the configuration file rework mods out there.
http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=17780

I think that Just Cause 2 has finally matched it perhaps. That game is jaw dropping really.

I've seen a video of Crysis running on a Radeon X800 and it still doesn't look too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA-ZYDALSQ8 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O-2RIKCy6E Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5aciJKj6Ho Part 3

You guys should check out "Metro 2033" for the PC 😉

That game will make the latest and greatest hardware break down and cry! It makes any Radeon 5xxx crossfire or Nvidia GTX4xx SLI setup come to a crawl using the highest graphical settings 😳

sliderider wrote:

I've seen a video of Crysis running on a Radeon X800 and it still doesn't look too bad. […]
Show full quote

I've seen a video of Crysis running on a Radeon X800 and it still doesn't look too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA-ZYDALSQ8 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O-2RIKCy6E Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5aciJKj6Ho Part 3

really? you draw conclusions from this ultra-low quality vid? 😊

PowerPie5000 wrote:

You guys should check out "Metro 2033" for the PC 😉

That game will make the latest and greatest hardware break down and cry! It makes any Radeon 5xxx crossfire or Nvidia GTX4xx SLI setup come to a crawl using the highest graphical settings 😳

Currently running it...have almost finished the game
This game really shows I need to upgrade my mobo, cpu + RAM 😳

Amigaz wrote:

PowerPie5000 wrote:

You guys should check out "Metro 2033" for the PC 😉

That game will make the latest and greatest hardware break down and cry! It makes any Radeon 5xxx crossfire or Nvidia GTX4xx SLI setup come to a crawl using the highest graphical settings 😳

Currently running it...have almost finished the game
This game really shows I need to upgrade my mobo, cpu + RAM 😳

I'm getting it for my Xbox 360 as it will run nice and smooth and still look great in 1080P on my large HD TV 😁

I was dissapointed with the framerates when running Metro 2033 on my Core i7 940 setup with 2 x Radeon 5850's in crossfire and 6gb triple channel DDR3 RAM 😳

I'm now waiting for AMD's "Bulldozer" CPU and their Radeon 6xxx series GPU 😎

You guys should also try out ARMA 2. Great game, amazing graphics and draw distances, but it will OWN your system. I mean if you dare try the highest settings it will fucking kill it. Just try. Selfish game!

Amigaz wrote:

But now I'm looking to upgrade to an i7 rig instead or try and overclock my Phenom II X4 setup instead but it's just DDR2 stuff 😜

I personally think the Core i7 platform is not worth the money for a gaming rig. I regret spending loads on my i7 940 setup as my friends Phenom II systems are just as good and even better in some benchmarks (without costing a fortune!).

Apparently Intel are already planning on abandoning the 1366 socket with the new "X68" chipset 😒

Amigaz wrote:

If it weren't that I can't stand using gamepads for FPS games I'd get a console anyday for my gaming needs

Thats what i thought at first but now i'm mostly online gaming with my XBox 360... Playing "Battlefield: Bad Company 2" with a controller has become quite easy 😀

Times really are changing as most of my mates play online using consoles these days... the reason why i mostly get games for my 360 instead of my PC.

keropi wrote:

sliderider wrote:

I've seen a video of Crysis running on a Radeon X800 and it still doesn't look too bad. […]
Show full quote

I've seen a video of Crysis running on a Radeon X800 and it still doesn't look too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA-ZYDALSQ8 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O-2RIKCy6E Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5aciJKj6Ho Part 3

really? you draw conclusions from this ultra-low quality vid? 😊

Most Youtube vids are low quality.