Question to CDPR

+
Question to CDPR

Will TW2 get DX11 love?And if so its impossible/possbile before Xbox360 release?
 
Reod said:
Will TW2 get DX11 love?And if so its impossible/possbile before Xbox360 release?
Ya, I'm not 100% convinced that this game really needs it - most of the graphical benefits of DX11 are very well simulated with the RED engine, except for the tessellation, but I can live without that. I know there are a lot more benefits to DX11, but honestly I think it'd just cause more headaches than not.

What features of DX11 do you miss the most? Is there anything about the current graphics that disappoint you? Just curious.
 
I REALLY don't understand this mentality. Why make the devs spend more money and hours on a game that looks OUTSTANDING to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC enthusiast myself but people put WAY to much emphasis on graphics. The 360 will look worse than the PC version, anyways.
 
BlaiddGwyn said:
What features of DX11 do you miss the most? Is there anything about the current graphics that disappoint you? Just curious.

I have a DX10 graphics card so I can't even benefit if they do add DX11 (at least not until I upgrade which won't be for quite some time). Having said that, I would expect better performance if they used DX11. For example, there's got to be a more efficient way to do antialiasing than ubersampling, so I think hypothetically with DX11 the game would look as good as it does now but would run faster. However if I actually had a PC that could run DX11 games then it would probably run TW2 much faster than my current PC anyway, so I'm not too bothered by it if TW2 remains purely a DX9 game.
 
WardDragon said:
...so I think hypothetically with DX11 the game would look as good as it does now but would run faster.
Dunno about that - but I only have tested DX11 once. In DA2. Nope, not faster, went from normal FPS to less than 1 FPS. Probably a bad example, but I know no other.
 
DelightfulMcCoy said:
Dunno about that - but I only have tested DX11 once. In DA2. Nope, not faster, went from normal FPS to less than 1 FPS. Probably a bad example, but I know no other.

Yeah, that's a bad example. I heard DA2 implemented DX11 very badly. Based on what I've read of DX11 though, I'm under the impression that it's supposed to be a more efficient way of doing many of the things that resourceful developers can already do with DX9. CDPR is clearly very good at using DX9 to get the graphics they want, which is why I think the only possible benefit of using DX11 would be faster performance (but that would only work for PC's capable of running DX11, which are the faster PC's anyway, so I understand why CDPR chose to only use DX9).
 
DX11 is in theory more efficient, but in practice it is easy to write DX11 code that is much worse than DX9 code.

Tessellation, which is DX11's marquee feature, is probably the best place to find an example. It's expensive for the GPU to process (though still a lot cheaper than software tessellation), but it's also tempting to use it with an undisciplined LOD strategy that produces a lot of subpixel polys. Bad examples like Unigine Heaven just encourage this kind of coding. And all it ends up doing is forcing the GPU to work much harder for no improvement in image quality.
 
WardDragon said:
I have a DX10 graphics card so I can't even benefit if they do add DX11 (at least not until I upgrade which won't be for quite some time). Having said that, I would expect better performance if they used DX11. For example, there's got to be a more efficient way to do antialiasing than ubersampling, so I think hypothetically with DX11 the game would look as good as it does now but would run faster. However if I actually had a PC that could run DX11 games then it would probably run TW2 much faster than my current PC anyway, so I'm not too bothered by it if TW2 remains purely a DX9 game.
This might trail off in the wrong topic, but I actually welcome that developers are still stuck in the DX9 mentality, because look at the amazing graphics they have managed to squeeze out of it - truth be told, when I played Doom3, I was sure that DX9 had reached its zenith, and that it could not look any better. Now granted, Doom3 still has some pretty cool graphics, I mean, some things about it can still stand on their own, but if you look at the effects (not just the graphics) that DX9 is still giving us, well, I'm happy - because even a decent graphics card can now play current games in their full glory. If developers were all on the DX11 bandwagon, my GTX460 would be a low-end card (performance wise), but as it is now, it's an xacto-knife with DX9, and DX10 games. Forget about ubersampling for now, it's not a good or efficient code, and it absolutely does not make any difference visually - and yes, argue it all you want - you and I both know that if you were given a blind test and asked to choose between which has uber on and off, you would only be guessing at best. Yes, I am very much aware of the uber on/off screenshot comparisons, but if you put anything side by side you can deduce variances, but show them alone, and your brain won't spot a pixel of a difference unless you have hawk eyes and an implacable visual memory. So the point is that ubersampling is simply not worth the effort!
 
BlaiddGwyn said:
Ya, I'm not 100% convinced that this game really needs it - most of the graphical benefits of DX11 are very well simulated with the RED engine, except for the tessellation, but I can live without that. I know there are a lot more benefits to DX11, but honestly I think it'd just cause more headaches than not.

What features of DX11 do you miss the most? Is there anything about the current graphics that disappoint you? Just curious.


Yes, tessellation is the "main" feature for DX11. The DX11 has other great effects like lightning, shading, etc. etc.
I can live too without tessellation, but i think CDP and other game developers, like Crytek, have emulated some decent amount of effects from DX11 to DX9. Tessellation i think, is the only feature that can't be emulated.



LE: And regarding DA2, that game was a abomination with DX11, they didn't know to implement DX11 proper there.
And regarding Tessellation, there isn't yet a game (not benchmark) that the producers put a high amount of tessellation in their product, there is "one" Metro 2033, that has a medium amount of Tessellation in it, and you saw what demanding is for the graphics card, even the powerful ones. So, if a game developer puts a high amount of Tessellation in a game, and the Tessellation is combined with textures, lightning, shading,AI, DOF, parallax mapping with samples, AA, AF, POM etc. Will not exist a video card that will able to render that specific game on high settings with a decent framerate.
So both video cards and game developers need 1-2 more years to "understand" DX11 and know how to optimize it, and video cards need 2 more generations to render a casual DX11 game (+ effects, lightning, etc) just like a DX9 game.
:)

OFF: I'm not Carmack :p , it's just my opinion for the near future industry of hardware and gaming, for the PC. The consoles are a much easy and non-sophisticated world, eg: buy console->buy game->install game->play game.
 
All i can say if CDPR will add in future DX11 it will be just another great goodie in graphical options, no regrets with that, so i don't mind if they are spending time with that...
 
DelightfulMcCoy said:
Dunno about that - but I only have tested DX11 once. In DA2. Nope, not faster, went from normal FPS to less than 1 FPS. Probably a bad example, but I know no other.
Yeah, DA2 is a really bad example. I remember the highest graphics settings (I think related to DX11) were even severely bugged on initial release, and that's why the FPS sank like a rock. They had to fix it with a patch - how it escaped QA and still made it into the first release is unforgivable, though. Yet another example of how certain game companies really screw us over by selling unfinished products. The game didn't even look very good with those fancy DX11 effects, anyway... Just something they threw together in a vain attempt to please the PC players who have time and time again lamented the fact that they're always stuck playing lazy ports of pure console games.

Before I stopped playing it, sometime last year, I used to spend many hours of the day with The Lord of the Rings Online. A great MMO through and through, if you're into Tolkien, even if they've started losing their edge with some of the latest content updates. Anyway, they had implemented support for DX11 a while earlier, and despite a few bugs during the first few weeks (before further updates), it did make things look very nice; mainly the shadows, lighting, and water textures were vastly improved. LOTRO was originally a DX9 game, though, with basic support for DX10, so it made sense to upgrade in this way.

With The Witcher 2, as many have already pointed out, there's really no need for it. The game looks stunning as it is, and mimics many of the benefits of DX11 extremely well, already. Haphazardly including it, just because, would probably achieve nothing of interest. The theory that it would improve performance, I can't really comment on - I have no idea how that would work in practice.
 
@ Blaidd Gwyn: I have to ask, have you actually looked ingame at ubersampling turned off and then on? That really is the only way to actually see the difference, and yes, the difference is glaringly obvious. Textures and edges look crisper and shadows don't have the pixelated edges that they have without ubersampling. Skin also looks way better. Screenshots and youtube videos are really no good at showing the difference. You don't need a side-by-side comparison to spot the difference if you look ingame.

On the subject of this thread, I'd love to see DirectX 11 as an option. Graphically, there isn't much to improve upon, however I think it could potentially speed up fps for those who have DX11 cards...perhaps even making ubersampling an option for more players.
 
BlaiddGwyn said:
Forget about ubersampling for now, it's not a good or efficient code, and it absolutely does not make any difference visually - and yes, argue it all you want - you and I both know that if you were given a blind test and asked to choose between which has uber on and off, you would only be guessing at best. Yes, I am very much aware of the uber on/off screenshot comparisons, but if you put anything side by side you can deduce variances, but show them alone, and your brain won't spot a pixel of a difference unless you have hawk eyes and an implacable visual memory. So the point is that ubersampling is simply not worth the effort!

Yeah, I agree. The screenshots look very similar to me. I've read posts saying that the difference is more noticeable in motion, but my PC isn't good enough to turn ubersampling on so I've never tried it :p I read somewhere that ubersampling was necessary because DX9 couldn't do regular antialiasing at the same time as another feature that CDPR used, so I figured if DX11 was implemented then maybe instead of ubersampling the game could have regular antialiasing settings (2X, 4X, 8X, etc.) and anisotropic filtering settings as well so we could further customize the graphics versus performance. But I don't really notice any jaggies anyway, so I'm fine with the game as it is right now :D

BlaiddGwyn said:
With The Witcher 2, as many have already pointed out, there's really no need for it. The game looks stunning as it is, and mimics many of the benefits of DX11 extremely well, already. Haphazardly including it, just because, would probably achieve nothing of interest. The theory that it would improve performance, I can't really comment on - I have no idea how that would work in practice.

Exactly :) I think proper DX11 should improve performance based on how things are supposed to work, but who knows for sure? TW2 is already very good, so it's probably not worth the time and effort of messing around with DX11 to find out if it's better. I'd rather they spend that time making more content :D
 
Top Bottom