DX9 in 2014 :-))) Ridiculous

[jctrnacty]

Ok , i dont have a problem with 777 and BoS, but one thing that is looking really strange is use of DX 9 in 2014 year.

 

I am sure that engine devs know that DX11 is back DX 9 compatible so there shouldnt be problem to develop DX11 engine which should work without problem on DX9 gr. cards.

 

In this case its looking really strange to use DX9 engine in time when there will be haswell processors and 80 procent of gr. cards will use DX11.

 

Maybe they should stick to DX 8 and 1 core processors.

 

I am saying that because all sim players know that this genre is the most hardware demanding so all of them build very powerfull PCs if they think it seriously with flight sims.

 

I really dont get it DX9 2 years later. Strange

Edited December 14, 2012 by jctrnacty

[=69.GIAP=Shvak]

I also feel that to release a game in 2014 that is not directX 11 compliant is a major shoot myself in the foot moment. I cannot believe that the RoF developers have not yet begun porting their product into directx 11. They have two years to do it. Let's face it would anyone buy a direct x 8 game now??????

When you are planning ahead, surely you do not offer a product so far ahead of time so behind in system specifications.

That is the onlything that has me baffled. If the RoF engine is the right one, then why not  improve it?

[FlaviusNavius]

They said they'd release it in DX9, and then make it DX11 compatible if the project proved a success. Besides which, they have a year to change their decision if they feel like it would be better. 

[Sim]

The Loft is supposed to answer some question (today?). He is the producer and knows the technical stuff that's happening on the team better than Jason, so I am sure we will get the reasons for DX9 from him.

 

Besides, I can code a DirectX 11 game that looks worse than DirectX 9 game. So I don't think you really understand what you are asking for.

[Freycinet]

"Ridiculous" in your thread title is really unnecessarily aggressive. How about not greeting the developers, in the forum they put at your disposal, with an attack like that? - Can they be allowed to actually start development before you call them ridiculous?

 

- Or maybe a certain group of people just want to carry on the developer-"fan" base relationship from the banana forums, SimHQ and other places...? - "Let's see how we can annoy the developers as much as possible"... Sad.  

[DD_bongodriver]

If the banana forum taught us one thing it's apparently all criticism is constructive no matter how harsh, in fact it's essential and ensures the quality of a product to secure it's place in the future, and if you don't like to hear the criticism you are nothing but a sycophantic fanboy who will ultimately doom this title......or something like that.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bongodriver

[bzc3lk]

"Ridiculous" in your thread title is really unnecessarily aggressive. How about not greeting the developers, in the forum they put at your disposal, with an attack like that? - Can they be allowed to actually start development before you call them ridiculous?

 

- Or maybe a certain group of people just want to carry on the developer-"fan" base relationship from the banana forums, SimHQ and other places...? - "Let's see how we can annoy the developers as much as possible"... Sad.  

 

  Couldn't agree more!

 

  A little more homework needed before we go off on a "Ridiculous" diatribe attack of the developers.

 

"Yes, we are thinking of what will be the next step. We have done evolutionary development with our Digital Nature Engine. This laid the basis for the project architecture. Our programmers are already making plans to use DX11 to create graphics and the possibility of 64-bit systems using large amounts of memory. This course will give us the opportunity to make the next technological step, and even more surprising graphics and depth of physical modeling."

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Albert Zhiltzov ???

Edited December 14, 2012 by bzc3lk

[jctrnacty]

"Ridiculous" in your thread title is really unnecessarily aggressive. How about not greeting the developers, in the forum they put at your disposal, with an attack like that? - Can they be allowed to actually start development before you call them ridiculous?

 

- Or maybe a certain group of people just want to carry on the developer-"fan" base relationship from the banana forums, SimHQ and other places...? - "Let's see how we can annoy the developers as much as possible"... Sad.  

 

You take it too much personally fanboi.

 

I am here tu support them as you can read on this topic post 4 http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?showtopic=122

 

Use DX9 in 2014 is like to get on market in 2014 with super great TV with CRT and 15 inches.

Edited December 14, 2012 by jctrnacty

[Freycinet]

Ok, now I'm a fanboi.... You're basically just in this forum to throw insults around?

[SJ_Butcher]

Ok , i dont have a problem with 777 and BoS, but one thing that is looking really strange is use of DX 9 in 2014 year.

 

I am sure that engine devs know that DX11 is back DX 9 compatible so there shouldnt be problem to develop DX11 engine which should work without problem on DX9 gr. cards.

 

In this case its looking really strange to use DX9 engine in time when there will be haswell processors and 80 procent of gr. cards will use DX11.

 

Maybe they should stick to DX 8 and 1 core processors.

 

I am saying that because all sim players know that this genre is the most hardware demanding so all of them build very powerfull PCs if they think it seriously with flight sims.

 

I really dont get it DX9 2 years later. Strange

 

Have you any idead about programming and coding? if not move ahead and don't post more useless threads, Do you know something about Dx11? Do you know what brings?

 

Dx11 provide support for sophisticated shading and texturing techniques such as tessellation.

 

there are very few improvements after dx10-dx11 over dx9, so why in the hell the devs should invest resources in something not worth it? it is not a real priority now.... maybe in the future, but they need our support now, and with this type of useless threads you are not helping.

 

This is addressed to all: before make this kinds of threads please research a little more, then come back and think twice before create a new a thread...

 

By the way we will not have the same quality image as we currently can see in ROF, the devs are changing a few things about the engine. So do not despair!!!!

[DD_bongodriver]

Yeah....throw in your support!!! we've all seen what happens to software that doesn't get the communities support.

[FlatSpinMan]

Jeez

This is so rude! I can't believe the title and some posts. There's just no need for such aggressive comments. Even people who might agree with your points would be turned off by your manner.

[Opitz]

Ok , i dont have a problem with 777 and BoS, but one thing that is looking really strange is use of DX 9 in 2014 year.

 

I am sure that engine devs know that DX11 is back DX 9 compatible so there shouldnt be problem to develop DX11 engine which should work without problem on DX9 gr. cards.

 

In this case its looking really strange to use DX9 engine in time when there will be haswell processors and 80 procent of gr. cards will use DX11.

 

Maybe they should stick to DX 8 and 1 core processors.

 

I am saying that because all sim players know that this genre is the most hardware demanding so all of them build very powerfull PCs if they think it seriously with flight sims.

 

I really dont get it DX9 2 years later. Strange

 

 

Hey dude! And please explain to all of us how DX11 will make a aircombat sim game better??? 

Edited December 14, 2012 by Opitz

[slm]

Agree with Opitz. My problems with CoD were NEVER about 1c using older version of DirectX.

Gfx quality was fine, but crashes, stutter etc. prevented playing some game versions.

[Guest deleted@1562]

As the team wants to reuse their DN engine, which works with DX9 and plan a (stable) release in Q1/2014 I don't expect them to recode the DN engine for DX11 support. And I think Jason stated they wouldn't rewrite the engine to use DX11 - and he is right; it would be madness in my opinion.

[DD_bongodriver]

Exactly, the last thing we need with an upcoming title is ambition, if we start allowing ourselves to get carried away with the tide of technlogy who knows where the madness will end.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bongodriver

[AdlerAngriff]

I personally have no clue about programming. I think got a bit too involved in the DX9 issue. If it looks good I don't care what's in the mix. I am sure there is a lot of other programing jargon involved in making the future sim. Let's just wait until they finish. I don't care if I am eating rat meat if it tastes good.

 

Although yeah what would be great, without any sarcasm, is that someone explains here how dx actually works and what is the cost/benefit of transfering from DX9 to DX11.

[150GCT_Veltro]

"Ridiculous" in your thread title is really unnecessarily aggressive. How about not greeting the developers, in the forum they put at your disposal, with an attack like that? - Can they be allowed to actually start development before you call them ridiculous?

 

- Or maybe a certain group of people just want to carry on the developer-"fan" base relationship from the banana forums, SimHQ and other places...? - "Let's see how we can annoy the developers as much as possible"... Sad.  

 

They are still with their mind to CoD, a total mess in DX10.

I agree that would be better a DX11 game but......the engine doesn't look bad at all, and flight sims are not like BF3 or CoD (the other one). You guys want DX11, clickable cockpits ecc. ecc.....what about a working NEW WW2 Flight Sim?

 

The engine in the next two years will be improved. If we can't live wihout DX11 we can move to FPS or games like War Thunder (that looks really great).

 

However, if this one is how the new engine can looks....i think is good enough for us (ex IL2 players).

Edited December 14, 2012 by Veltro

[addman]

Exactly, the last thing we need with an upcoming title is ambition, if we start allowing ourselves to get carried away with the tide of technlogy who knows where the madness will end.

 

6-7 years of development and a botched released of half-finished software?

[DD_bongodriver]

6-7 years of development and a botched released of half-finished software?

 

Exactly, this is why they should really just revamp old titles and get them out the door quick, creating new engines is expensive and difficult, better use on thats already paid for itself and polish it up a bit.

[addman]

Exactly, this is why they should really just revamp old titles and get them out the door quick, creating new engines is expensive and difficult, better use on thats already paid for itself and polish it up a bit.

I'll agree with that, I'm really just aching for some new content in the WWII era so what 777 is planning on doing seems fine to me. I really wish there where some add-on theatres/planes for CloD to buy before and I was kind of stoked for BoM with eastern front setting and some fun Russian gear to fly around in but alas that wasn't to be. Just glad 777 picked up the pieces and that we are actually going to get a continuation of the il-2 series. I like the RoF graphics, I'll take them over IL-2 1946 any day of the week.

[DD_bongodriver]

Now that we all know how pretty DX9 can be it seems surprising we aren't getting a revamped original IL2, that must have paid for itself 10 times over, it reeks of pure profit and who in their right minds could ever whine about original IL2, just tweak the code so all 3rd party mods become incompatible and start churning out new content to sell.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

There were a lot of complaints about CoD not being DX11 on the CoD forum, some people even seemed to base their very existence on it,so I'm sure the same people will be along shortly to talk about it.

[DD_bongodriver]

Don't be silly, appart from AA, landscape colour, aircraft weathering, shadows, particle effects, smoke, tracers etc nobody ever made much emphasis on how the game should look, graphics were totally irrelevant.

[FlatSpinMan]

Bongo mate, look, if you don't like what's coming then just forget about it. We're only chatting about games after all. Go and do something else.

For myself, I could never run CloD well (my PC was the weak link, not the game), but from all sources it sounded like it had many problems until this latest patch (how's that for shit timing?). RoF initially didn't do well either but was a long way ahead of Il2 visually, and after being taken over by 777 it seemed to come along very well in other areas too, namely offline content (IMO). My PC was underspec for that too (I aim to remedy this tomorrow!) but it actually ran not too badly. Even on my understrength PC it was clearly some way ahead of IL2 in terms of visuals. I don't think this point can be dismissed. It's great for a next gen game to come out, but if hardly anybody can get it to run well right from the start (okay, takng 777's intervention as the start cos that's when things started happening)then it is hard-pushed, especially in our little corner of the market.

 

Having said that, IL2 is still the game I play the most just because I like building campaigns and Il2 had an FMB with which I am familiar and that includes just about everything in the entire conflict. But if BOS delivers the goods then I'd be happy to shift away from Il2 for something more suited to today's industry standard graphics. I love Il2 modded but it is definitely shaded by RoF or CloD (as it should be given its age). 

Don't be silly, appart from AA, landscape colour, aircraft weathering, shadows, particle effects, smoke, tracers etc nobody ever made much emphasis on how the game should look, graphics were totally irrelevant.

I LOVE this.Good one.

[LoneRanger]

Have you any idead about programming and coding? if not move ahead and don't post more useless threads, Do you know something about Dx11? Do you know what brings?

 

Dx11 provide support for sophisticated shading and texturing techniques such as tessellation.

 

there are very few improvements after dx10-dx11 over dx9, so why in the hell the devs should invest resources in something not worth it? it is not a real priority now.... maybe in the future, but they need our support now, and with this type of useless threads you are not helping.

 

This is addressed to all: before make this kinds of threads please research a little more, then come back and think twice before create a new a thread...

 

By the way we will not have the same quality image as we currently can see in ROF, the devs are changing a few things about the engine. So do not despair!!!!

 

Yeah, right.

 

Why share tasks on several cores for a simple game like a... flightsim?

 

Or improve rendering for e.g. smoke or.... clouds... with 4.0 Shaders?

 

Silly me. Loggs off to reinstall Win3.11.

 

 

"Microsoft unveiled DirectX 11 at the Gamefest 08 event in Seattle, with the major scheduled features including GPGPU support, and Direct3D11 with tessellation support and improved multi-threading support to assist video game developers in developing games that better utilize multi-core processors."

Edited December 14, 2012 by Bricks

[Krupi]

I have to say dx9 in 2014 is face palm worthy....-

[MadTommy]

The DX features have little to no relevance on the quality of the product.

 

DX9 can look great, people just just get hung up on having the latest tech and biggest number normally with little or no understanding to what difference it makes.

 

Look at the water on your goggles effect in RoF, DX9 and the best effect of this i have seen.  In fact no other flight sim that i am aware of has such an effect.  It looks amazing.

[Krupi]

 

I agree but it's still ridiculous I am gobsmacked at loft post about cockpits, it really does feel like a HUGE step back from COD and the usual rabid fanbois are ignorant to what is going on here. I really hope I am wrong but until today I was quietly optimistic but after what loft has stated that optimism has been wiped away.

Edited December 14, 2012 by JG52Krupi

[DD_bongodriver]

Exactly, I remember my old Matrox graphics card with Voodoo II 3dfx expansion card, the graphics were mind blowing, if I never saw anything subsequent to that I would still be mind blown and happy about it today, always the same thing, somebody comes along and puts a bigger number on and immediately you think you must have it because it goes to 11.

come to think of it I was happy before the Voodoo card........Damn....

[MadTommy]

At least i get the feeling they are being honest and straight up.. I'd much prefer the bar set a bit low and they put out a polished product than aim for the stars and fall on their faces.  That's what i feel Maddox games did in the CloD development over 8 years.

[LoneRanger]

The DX features have little to no relevance on the quality of the product.

 

DX9 can look great, people just just get hung up on having the latest tech and biggest number normally with little or no understanding to what difference it makes.

 

Look at the water on your goggles effect in RoF, DX9 and the best effect of this i have seen.  In fact no other flight sim that i am aware of has such an effect.  It looks amazing.

 

That's the problem! It's not about the looks.

In most games, you see little to no difference at all!

So players tend to say: No difference, back to DX9.

 

But on the long run, it's about how effects, particles and textures are calculated and what hardware-features are supported.

About how an engine can fee up rendering-power for additional features and calculations.

And how it's easier to implement these things into an engine.

Same is true for input and device-support. And even more for sound!

[gavagai]

All of this Dx11 hubbub shows that Microsoft's marketing team is very skilled.  Can anyone intelligently tell me what difference it would make for a combat flight sim?  Will it look cooler when the bad guy is hiding in the shadows?

Edited December 14, 2012 by gavagai

[SJ_Butcher]

Yeah, right.

 

Why share tasks on several cores for a simple game like a... flightsim?

 

Or improve rendering for e.g. smoke or.... clouds... with 4.0 Shaders?

 

Silly me. Loggs off to reinstall Win3.11.

 

 

"Microsoft unveiled DirectX 11 at the Gamefest 08 event in Seattle, with the major scheduled features including GPGPU support, and Direct3D11 with tessellation support and improved multi-threading support to assist video game developers in developing games that better utilize multi-core processors."

 

 

emmm you can still run a game with dx9 with multiple core, so where is your point?

[Zmaj76]

I agree but it's still ridiculous I am gobsmacked at loft post about cockpits, it really does feel like a HUGE step back from COD and the usual rabid fanbois are ignorant to what is going on here. I really hope I am wrong but until today I was quietly optimistic but after what loft has stated that optimism has been wiped away.

Then all you need to do is to find a dedicated team of 60 ppl (which you will fund from your billionare account), an experts in all areas needed for an hardcore sim, 6 years of free time to develop a properly optimised DX11 sim with all the kandies and ti*s with content we want and we will be happy dudes..

Edited December 14, 2012 by Tvrdi

[LoneRanger]

emmm you can still run a game with dx9 with multiple core, so where is your point?

 

Uhm, I'll quote my quote again: "...improved multi-threading support..."

[Krupi]

Then all you need to do is to find a dedicated team of 60 ppl (which you will fund from your billionare account), an experts in all areas needed for an hardcore sim, 6 years of free time to develop a properly optimised DX11 sim with all the kandies and ti*s with content we want and we will be happy dudes..

 

Please explain how Oleg and Ilya were able to do it with less!

[LoneRanger]

All of this Dx11 hubbub shows that Microsoft's marketing team is very skilled.  Can anyone intelligently tell me what difference it would make for a combat flight sim?  Will it look cooler when the bad guy is hiding in the shadows?

 

If it's all about marketing, then it won't help explaining, I guess.

[=IRFC=Huetz]

Please explain how Oleg and Ilya were able to do it with less!

 

They weren't, that's why you're here, remember?

[LoneRanger]

I guess the real problem here is rather, that

 

some people hear "If it doesn't have DX9 it's garbage as RoF is now." and tick out.

 

While the other crowd says "Why not make it DX11 in 1+ years of development and make it the best possible flightsim out there."

 

 

That's the tone all over this board.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Bricks