Valve grabs DirectX11 :O

[stoopdapoop]

I think... you're missing... everything.

[MrTwoVideoCards]

Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to support technology that soon, with such low DX11 user-capable rates. I'd expect games b the end of this year will make more of a shift to DX 11. For instance BF3.

Also title of the thread is misleading. I am not sure if you meant valve is using Directx11 or....

[Gary]

[...]with such low DX11 user-capable rates.[...]

Ha, by the time EP3 comes out, DX11 will be ancient and DX15 will be all the rage.

[joe_rogers_11155]

you heard it here first...Portal 2: Episode 3 will be using DX-15. Also, there's STILL no word on DOTA 2: Episode 3.

[MayheM]

Mr. Two, though I see what you mean it is also silly to hold off on taking advantage of new technology that can improve your games a ton. Most people these days at least have DX9 and in the past games have supported older versions. So why would it be such a big deal to support DX9 through DX11? Those who want and can afford the latest video cards can experience the game at it's best, while others can still enjoy the game if they do not want or can not afford the latest card. I find it silly to not plan for the future. The world does not stand still and to expect it to is foolish.

[poisonic]

i taught valve only wanted to stay on DX9C. and did not want to use newer functions due M$ policy...
and ofcourse backwards compatibility is important for valve and that is why love the source engine
i think a smart programmer could get the same result as seen in DX10 and DX11.
but keep in mind openGL is still alive also the doom III also used openGL correct me if im wrong

[Mr. Happy]

I've heard OpenGL is making a big come back since it's the phone/mac standard maybe it will make a PC comeback?

[Gary]

M$ hates OpenGL, so windows has shit support for it.

[cheesemoo0]

M$ hates OpenGL, so windows has shit support for it.

Uh. Your graphics card vendor is responsible for that.

[zombie@computer]

M$ hates OpenGL, so windows has shit support for it.

Bullshit.
The reason dx is more popular is the same as the reason microsoft office is more popular than openoffice. Target machines (windows) all support it, options are vast, huge investments possible due to popularity so stability, speed and more options are possible, integration with most popular IDE's, etc. Support by the OS isn't a factor.

[Gary]

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you ... ot-DirectX

The network effects and stuff like FUD is what I'm talking about.

[Surfa]

Except for that article is now outdated and takes a very biased approach to the whole situation.

[Carbon14]

According to some comments on FP there is some tesselation related console commands in portal 2? I think we might see a big leap in source, perhaps to go with EP3?

[Unreal_Me]

32-bit systems need to die
DirectX 9 needs to die
The general consumer need to stop being a bitch and jump forward already

I should probably find a better topic for this rant, but it will live here for now:

I feel the only thing holding back another major hardware generation is how hard it is for artists to keep up with graphical improvements, and that the additions to new technologies like DX11 just don't quite look new enough to warrant a big jump. That might be due to how new it is, and nobody has really shown off the true potential of DX11.

I feel like there's some barrier holding back the next console generation, be it technological or economic. Either way, it's starting to have an effect on PC gaming. I really don't see why we should be stuck on DirectX 9, when we've now hit 11. I don't understand how games are being developed for both DX9 and DX11. Why is the gaming community dragging their feet on this one. Is directX 10 so scary to develop for? So expensive to upgrade to? Too underwhelming?

I feel stuck in the middle with a DX10 card, almost stepped over entirely. I feel developers have, or will have to work hard to cram a gorgeous game into the confines of the Xbox 360, or even PS3 architectures. Or worse still, cave in and design to their standards.

Crytek admitted such hardships, complaining about 512MB of ram in an era where 8GB is (becomming) well within reason. Having to develop for both DX9 and 11 leaves no room for 10
DICE seems to be ramming this barrier head on with BF3 looking as sexy it does. A game for the hardware enthusiasts that live to see an amazing new benchmark, but still a game well worth playing.
Unreal 3 and CryEngine 3 both seem to extending the one foot out, attempting to lead other developers forward. But still, that back foot is locked in place by current gen consoles.


I'm not saying what comes out now looks bad, only that it could look so much better, so much faster.
(Oh damn, this ended up being bigger than I expected. I should probably start a new thread for this. Or at least look to see if one exists already >.>)

[DonPunch]

Most games that are developed for DX11 (or any DX for that matter) are scalable, so that is not a viable argument.

The geneal consumer can't afford a new $300 graphics card to play a game on either, but the same could be said a few years back when a dx10.1 card was $200 or more, now they are like $50.

You seem to forget that it takes years to develop a game, not to mention an engine, so the games we see out today, are a product of at least 2 year old technology.