Direct X is holding back innovation and performance on pc

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Rude_Bwoii
Rude_Bwoii

523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Rude_Bwoii
Member since 2011 • 523 Posts

Amd had a pretty frank talk with bit-tech here. We have seen the results of consolization on pc ports with crysis 2 being the latest example. A modern high end pc gpu has 10x the power of the 360. So why don't pc games look 10x better amd speaks on the topic.

It's funny,' says AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy. 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.'

'I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers,' he says, 'and I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all.'

Of course, there are many definite pros to using a standard 3D API. It's likely that your game will run on a wide range of hardware, and you'll get easy access to the latest shader technologies without having to muck around with scary low-level code. However, the performance overhead of DirectX, particularly on the PC architecture, is apparently becoming a frustrating concern for games developers speaking to AMD.

Wrapping it up in a software layer gives you safety and security,' says Huddy, 'but it unfortunately tends to rob you of quite a lot of the performance, and most importantly it robs you of the opportunity to innovate.'

Hold on, you might be thinking, weren't shaders supposed to enable developers to be more innovative with their graphics anyway? Indeed they were, and the ability to run programs directly on the graphics hardware certainly enables some flexibility, particularly once we got past the fixed-function shaders of DirectX 8. However, with the exception of a few quirky-looking indie titles, there's no denying that many PC games look very much like one another.

'The funny thing about introducing shaders into games in 2002,' says Huddy, 'was that we expected that to create more visual variety in games, but actually people typically used shaders in the most obvious way. That means that they've used shaders to converge visually, and lots of games have the same kind of look and feel to them these days on the PC. If we drop the API, then people really can render everything they can imagine, not what they can see – and we'll probably see more visual innovation in that kind of situation.'

You can read the rest on the link I provided your thoughts ??

Avatar image for alexside1
alexside1

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 alexside1
Member since 2006 • 4412 Posts
There has been 3 threads on this article already. There is a reason why direct x exist.
Avatar image for HaloinventedFPS
HaloinventedFPS

4738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 HaloinventedFPS
Member since 2010 • 4738 Posts

nah, DX and OpenGL are fine

its just consoles that are holding back PC

Avatar image for -Tretiak
-Tretiak

2416

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 -Tretiak
Member since 2007 • 2416 Posts

nah, DX and OpenGL are fine

its just consoles that are holding back PC

HaloinventedFPS

Was just about to post this.

Avatar image for i5750at4Ghz
i5750at4Ghz

5839

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 i5750at4Ghz
Member since 2010 • 5839 Posts

Getting rid of directx would get rid of the customization PC gamers love so much. Unless devs wanna spend 10 years making there games.

Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#6 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

Avatar image for Smoke89
Smoke89

3575

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 Smoke89
Member since 2003 • 3575 Posts

I have read numerous articles over the past months about devs wanting to get away from DX. I won't be surprised when DX begins being phased out, but I can only speculate blindly as to when it will actually happen. I'll have to find a few more links for ya... they talk about all the limitations and potential strategies to allow them to no longer use it.

Avatar image for i5750at4Ghz
i5750at4Ghz

5839

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 i5750at4Ghz
Member since 2010 • 5839 Posts

nah, DX and OpenGL are fine

its just consoles that are holding back PC

HaloinventedFPS
Consoles haven't done anything to PC gaming. Blame the publishers and developers. Consoles were around in the 90's as well, and the differences between the two platforms was even more extreme.
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#9 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

Maybe Direct X will evolve into something more flexible or we'll get a better alternative. I don't see DX/OpenGL disappearing or so.

Avatar image for alexside1
alexside1

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 alexside1
Member since 2006 • 4412 Posts

Maybe Direct X will evolve into something more flexible or we'll get a better alternative. I don't see DX/OpenGL disappearing or so.

KungfuKitten
It is evovling. Just not a speed that every expect.
Avatar image for nameless12345
nameless12345

15125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 nameless12345
Member since 2010 • 15125 Posts

Actually Windows on the whole is holding back performance on the PC. It's just a terrible, resource wasting OS :P

As for innovation - greedy publishers and unimaginative devs.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

Amd had a pretty frank talk with bit-tech here. We have seen the results of consolization on pc ports with crysis 2 being the latest example. A modern high end pc gpu has 10x the power of the 360. So why don't pc games look 10x better amd speaks on the topic.

It's funny,' says AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy. 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.'

'I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers,' he says, 'and I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all.'

Of course, there are many definite pros to using a standard 3D API. It's likely that your game will run on a wide range of hardware, and you'll get easy access to the latest shader technologies without having to muck around with scary low-level code. However, the performance overhead of DirectX, particularly on the PC architecture, is apparently becoming a frustrating concern for games developers speaking to AMD.

Wrapping it up in a software layer gives you safety and security,' says Huddy, 'but it unfortunately tends to rob you of quite a lot of the performance, and most importantly it robs you of the opportunity to innovate.'

Hold on, you might be thinking, weren't shaders supposed to enable developers to be more innovative with their graphics anyway? Indeed they were, and the ability to run programs directly on the graphics hardware certainly enables some flexibility, particularly once we got past the fixed-function shaders of DirectX 8. However, with the exception of a few quirky-looking indie titles, there's no denying that many PC games look very much like one another.

'The funny thing about introducing shaders into games in 2002,' says Huddy, 'was that we expected that to create more visual variety in games, but actually people typically used shaders in the most obvious way. That means that they've used shaders to converge visually, and lots of games have the same kind of look and feel to them these days on the PC. If we drop the API, then people really can render everything they can imagine, not what they can see – and we'll probably see more visual innovation in that kind of situation.'

You can read the rest on the link I provided your thoughts ??

Rude_Bwoii

http://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/229400101/amd-re-affirms-commitment-to-micrsofts-directx-api.htm

AMD Re-Affirms Commitment To Micrsoft's DirectX API

In an interview with CRN on Tuesday, however, Huddy said his comments had been taken out of context and exaggerated. Huddy and Neal Robison, senior director of ISV relations at AMD, said only high-end gaming developers may benefit from going around Microsoft's API.

"The [Bit-tech] interview started off being about Open GL, and the way APIs are developed," Huddy said. "Obviously there's pressure from Microsoft on hardware vendors to develop Direct X in a variety of ways. We spend a great deal of time getting feedback from game developers in the early phase of our hardware development, for products that are two or three years away from going to market."

Huddy cited developers including Dice, known for its successful Battlefield series, and Critech are among the minority of game developers who are looking to get around the API. "It's not something most developers want," he said. "If you held a vote among developers, they would go for Direct X or Open GL, because it's a great platform."

In particular, Robison touted Direct X's stability and the standardization it has brought to what was a highly-segmented industry. "We saw some of the chaos before Direct X coalesced the industry," Robison said. "In the past there were all kinds of APIs developers had to worry about."

...

Bit-Tech = fail.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#13 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Maybe Direct X will evolve into something more flexible or we'll get a better alternative. I don't see DX/OpenGL disappearing or so.

alexside1
It is evovling. Just not a speed that every expect.

Maybe we should travel to their offices and make them work harder!
Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

Yea let's just scrap DirectX then play games with our imagination.

Avatar image for garfield360uk
garfield360uk

20381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#15 garfield360uk
Member since 2006 • 20381 Posts
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

Yes this is an issue for the PC market. It is not like a console set up where the hardware does not change significantly (maybe the hard drive or no hard drive model on the Xbox 360 and internal changes like a different CPU type used but one of the same speed just a different core like the new Xbox 360 elite had to reduce heat etc). The PC market has major hardware changes such as different graphics cards, cpu's, memory, operating systems and the likes. Perhaps Direct X9 and Windows XP holds gaming on the PC back to a degree, but perhaps it is time to start pushing past Windows XP to really get Direct X10 and 11 into the majority of new releases. This was not a major issue when Direct X9 became the standard but for some reason Direct X10 and 11 have not become the standard and this is why there is a mixed bag when it comes to the present pc gaming market and what games are trying to achieve. It is nothing like the past where every 12 months or so a major technology change would render an older GPU out of date for new games, now older ATI and nVidia graphics cards can still run new games relativly well.
Avatar image for topgunmv
topgunmv

10880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 topgunmv
Member since 2003 • 10880 Posts

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

Garfield360UK

Yes this is an issue for the PC market. It is not like a console set up where the hardware does not change significantly (maybe the hard drive or no hard drive model on the Xbox 360 and internal changes like a different CPU type used but one of the same speed just a different core like the new Xbox 360 elite had to reduce heat etc). The PC market has major hardware changes such as different graphics cards, cpu's, memory, operating systems and the likes. Perhaps Direct X9 and Windows XP holds gaming on the PC back to a degree, but perhaps it is time to start pushing past Windows XP to really get Direct X10 and 11 into the majority of new releases. This was not a major issue when Direct X9 became the standard but for some reason Direct X10 and 11 have not become the standard and this is why there is a mixed bag when it comes to the present pc gaming market and what games are trying to achieve. It is nothing like the past where every 12 months or so a major technology change would render an older GPU out of date for new games, now older ATI and nVidia graphics cards can still run new games relativly well.

Microsoft hamstrung dx10 by arbitrarily making it vista only. That coupled with vista sucking is what slowed dx10's adoption rate.

Avatar image for alexside1
alexside1

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 alexside1
Member since 2006 • 4412 Posts

[QUOTE="Garfield360UK"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

topgunmv

Yes this is an issue for the PC market. It is not like a console set up where the hardware does not change significantly (maybe the hard drive or no hard drive model on the Xbox 360 and internal changes like a different CPU type used but one of the same speed just a different core like the new Xbox 360 elite had to reduce heat etc). The PC market has major hardware changes such as different graphics cards, cpu's, memory, operating systems and the likes. Perhaps Direct X9 and Windows XP holds gaming on the PC back to a degree, but perhaps it is time to start pushing past Windows XP to really get Direct X10 and 11 into the majority of new releases. This was not a major issue when Direct X9 became the standard but for some reason Direct X10 and 11 have not become the standard and this is why there is a mixed bag when it comes to the present pc gaming market and what games are trying to achieve. It is nothing like the past where every 12 months or so a major technology change would render an older GPU out of date for new games, now older ATI and nVidia graphics cards can still run new games relativly well.

Microsoft hamstrung dx10 by arbitrarily making it vista only. That coupled with vista sucking is what slowed dx10's adoption rate.

[/QUOTE Dx10 framework itself can't be easily exported to xp.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Everything about M$s monopoly is holding back the industry. If the industry was open to more and better standards it would be thriving with better technologies but, as the market is, M$ basically sets the pace on innovation with their crap. Just look at how browsing has thrived and improved after M$ lost its IE monopoly, browsing technology became stangnated and crappy after M$ destroyed Netscape by bundling every Windows with IE. The same kind of evolution would happen with the rest of protocols and standards that M$ uses to monopolize.
Avatar image for garfield360uk
garfield360uk

20381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#19 garfield360uk
Member since 2006 • 20381 Posts

[QUOTE="Garfield360UK]Yes this is an issue for the PC market. It is not like a console set up where the hardware does not change significantly (maybe the hard drive or no hard drive model on the Xbox 360 and internal changes like a different CPU type used but one of the same speed just a different core like the new Xbox 360 elite had to reduce heat etc). The PC market has major hardware changes such as different graphics cards, cpu's, memory, operating systems and the likes. Perhaps Direct X9 and Windows XP holds gaming on the PC back to a degree, but perhaps it is time to start pushing past Windows XP to really get Direct X10 and 11 into the majority of new releases. This was not a major issue when Direct X9 became the standard but for some reason Direct X10 and 11 have not become the standard and this is why there is a mixed bag when it comes to the present pc gaming market and what games are trying to achieve. It is nothing like the past where every 12 months or so a major technology change would render an older GPU out of date for new games, now older ATI and nVidia graphics cards can still run new games relativly well.topgunmv

Microsoft hamstrung dx10 by arbitrarily making it vista only. That coupled with vista sucking is what slowed dx10's adoption rate.

True, however Direct X9 was Windows XP only (I think) and whilst that was a pain to begin with, over time it causes people to upgrade. This is the current issue with the PC market is the hardware is starting to slow down in speed advantages and the software is starting to not take full advantage of what is on offer. I mean there are so few Vista and Windows 7 only games, one of which looks fantastic (Just Cause 2) and benefited from being a Direct X10 and above only game.
Avatar image for vashkey
vashkey

33781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 135

User Lists: 25

#20 vashkey
Member since 2005 • 33781 Posts
Gamers hold back the PC.
Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

True, however Direct X9 was Windows XP only (I think) and whilst that was a pain to begin with, over time it causes people to upgrade. This is the current issue with the PC market is the hardware is starting to slow down in speed advantages and the software is starting to not take full advantage of what is on offer. I mean there are so few Vista and Windows 7 only games, one of which looks fantastic (Just Cause 2) and benefited from being a Direct X10 and above only game.Garfield360UK

Xbox 360 uses DX9 soooo I think you're exaggerating a bit when you say DX10 only.

Avatar image for PS2_ROCKS
PS2_ROCKS

4679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 PS2_ROCKS
Member since 2003 • 4679 Posts

Every time I read about this my brain turns to mush. DirectX is there so the game can communicate with everyone's incredibly unique graphics cards. It's what allows us to play generations of games on generations of graphics cards. You take that out and what do we do? Buy a single monotonous graphics card that every developer is now writing games specifically for? Or am I missing something? Can developers magically write games bypassing an API and still make it run on all these various video cards everyone has?

Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts
Every time I read about this my brain turns to mush. DirectX is there so the game can communicate with everyone's incredibly unique graphics cards. It's what allows us to play generations of games on generations of graphics cards. You take that out and what do we do? Buy a single monotonous graphics card that every developer is now writing games specifically for? Or am I missing? Can developers magically write games bypassing an API and still make it run on all these various video cards everyone has? PS2_ROCKS
It's a highly faulted idealistic view. For it to work, ATI and NVIDIA would have to create 1 or 2 video cards for a long cycle (like console generations). Even then you will still have tons of RAM, OS, Memory, and CPU combinations to account for.
Avatar image for garfield360uk
garfield360uk

20381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#24 garfield360uk
Member since 2006 • 20381 Posts

[QUOTE="Garfield360UK"]True, however Direct X9 was Windows XP only (I think) and whilst that was a pain to begin with, over time it causes people to upgrade. This is the current issue with the PC market is the hardware is starting to slow down in speed advantages and the software is starting to not take full advantage of what is on offer. I mean there are so few Vista and Windows 7 only games, one of which looks fantastic (Just Cause 2) and benefited from being a Direct X10 and above only game.Mystic-G

Xbox 360 uses DX9 soooo I think you're exaggerating a bit when you say DX10 only.

I have not played the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 version of Just Cause 2. However the PC version impressed me a lot in terms of draw distance and sharpness as well as how it looked good and bright with contrasting colour schemes. Like I say thought I have not played the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 version so maybe they are similar.
Avatar image for painguy1
painguy1

8686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 painguy1
Member since 2007 • 8686 Posts

old news is old... also that would be a disaster. Imagine devs having to program for every GPU architecture.

Avatar image for IvanElk
IvanElk

3798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#26 IvanElk
Member since 2008 • 3798 Posts

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

Wasdie
Lul by far the best post in this thread. Yes, there is a point to directX, and no it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

old news is old... also that would be a disaster. Imagine devs having to program for every GPU architecture.

painguy1
PC gaming would actually die. *gasp* Don't tell the console fanboys!! They'll support it then claiming PC graphics are holding back consoles. lol
Avatar image for Captain__Tripps
Captain__Tripps

4523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Captain__Tripps
Member since 2006 • 4523 Posts
[QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"]Every time I read about this my brain turns to mush. DirectX is there so the game can communicate with everyone's incredibly unique graphics cards. It's what allows us to play generations of games on generations of graphics cards. You take that out and what do we do? Buy a single monotonous graphics card that every developer is now writing games specifically for? Or am I missing? Can developers magically write games bypassing an API and still make it run on all these various video cards everyone has? Mystic-G
It's a highly faulted idealistic view. For it to work, ATI and NVIDIA would have to create 1 or 2 video cards for a long cycle (like console generations). Even then you will still have tons of RAM, OS, Memory, and CPU combinations to account for.

Maybe they could create an instruction set that is understood by all their graphic cards... But that is basically directx then. I don't really think the guy who said that was technically oriented, you really couldn't have a pc gaming world as it is today, without some sort of directx like technology. You had that in the DOS days and the DOS days sucked, that was the whole reason MS created dx in the first place, to get devs. off DOS.
Avatar image for SaltyMeatballs
SaltyMeatballs

25165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#29 SaltyMeatballs
Member since 2009 • 25165 Posts
That would be a... direct fail :P
Avatar image for PS2_ROCKS
PS2_ROCKS

4679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 PS2_ROCKS
Member since 2003 • 4679 Posts

It should be more like DirectX where X = Nvidia or ATI. An API to each major graphics card manufacturer means devs basically have to code the game twice but the gamer ends up getting excellent performance on either an ATI or nvidia card. Or the devs could pick only 1 API meaning the entire PC gaming industry is split and everyone needs to own a graphics card from each company in order to run anything properly.

Avatar image for topgunmv
topgunmv

10880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 topgunmv
Member since 2003 • 10880 Posts

It should be more like DirectX where X = Nvidia or ATI. An API to each major graphics card manufacturer means devs basically have to code the game twice but the gamer ends up getting excellent performance on either an ATI or nvidia card. Or the devs could pick only 1 API meaning the entire PC gaming industry is split and everyone needs to own a graphics card from each company in order to run anything properly.

PS2_ROCKS

Reminds me of vodoo's glide drivers. *Glares at diablo2*

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts
Now, I don't know exactly how directx works, but, does it have to run in real time? Could it just translate the data it would normally effect during, say an install, instead of while the game is running? Then the computer wouldn't have to waste time translating stuff through direct x... ?
Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
ChubbyGuy40

26442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 ChubbyGuy40
Member since 2007 • 26442 Posts

Now, I don't know exactly how directx works, but, does it have to run in real time? Could it just translate the data it would normally effect during, say an install, instead of while the game is running? Then the computer wouldn't have to waste time translating stuff through direct x... ?Inconsistancy

Coding it to run direct-to-metal like consoles would be highly inefficient as theres far too many different factors that work...differenly. DirectX and OpenGL are there to make coding for hardware that much easier. DirectX is not holding developers back. No one wants to push forward. Developers didn't see DirectX 10 as a huge jump over DX9 (Which was partially true, plus it was Vista only and Vista blows chunks) but DirectX 11 is what DX10 should've been, along with a few new features and far more optimization. Developers are finally starting to see the benefits of DX11 and moving over to the new API as a whole. We haven't seen what it can really do because its still in its infancy stages.

Also another article for those who missed it.

AMD: DirectX comments taken way out of proportion.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]Now, I don't know exactly how directx works, but, does it have to run in real time? Could it just translate the data it would normally effect during, say an install, instead of while the game is running? Then the computer wouldn't have to waste time translating stuff through direct x... ?ChubbyGuy40

Coding it to run direct-to-metal like consoles would be highly inefficient as theres far too many different factors that work...differenly. DirectX and OpenGL are there to make coding for hardware that much easier. DirectX is not holding developers back. No one wants to push forward. Developers didn't see DirectX 10 as a huge jump over DX9 (Which was partially true, plus it was Vista only and Vista blows chunks) but DirectX 11 is what DX10 should've been, along with a few new features and far more optimization. Developers are finally starting to see the benefits of DX11 and moving over to the new API as a whole. We haven't seen what it can really do because its still in its infancy stages.

Also another article for those who missed it.

AMD: DirectX comments taken way out of proportion.

I'm not saying the devs should code directly for the hardware... I'm saying using it during the install to deal with the data there, rather than having to run and translate in real time while the game is running. Like a baked light vs a real light.

Or, is directx having to run dynamically all the time, where sometimes the same data has to go to completely different places, or is there any data that could be streamlined away from directx' realtime since it's always used in the same way?

Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
ChubbyGuy40

26442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 ChubbyGuy40
Member since 2007 • 26442 Posts

I'm not saying the devs should code directly for the hardware... I'm saying using it during the install to deal with the data there, rather than having to run and translate in real time while the game is running. Like a baked light vs a real light.Inconsistancy

I'm no programmer so I don't have a full grasp on all of this so bare with me :P Wouldn't using pre-baked assets force the game to be extremely scripted and linear?

Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

It should be more like DirectX where X = Nvidia or ATI. An API to each major graphics card manufacturer means devs basically have to code the game twice but the gamer ends up getting excellent performance on either an ATI or nvidia card. Or the devs could pick only 1 API meaning the entire PC gaming industry is split and everyone needs to own a graphics card from each company in order to run anything properly.

PS2_ROCKS
More work for developers on PC will only deter them from porting their games.
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] I'm not saying the devs should code directly for the hardware... I'm saying using it during the install to deal with the data there, rather than having to run and translate in real time while the game is running. Like a baked light vs a real light.ChubbyGuy40

I'm no programmer so I don't have a full grasp on all of this so bare with me :P Wouldn't using pre-baked assets force the game to be extremely scripted and linear?

See, I dunno about something like directx, sure in a texture that means it can't be displayed in a different way. but are these programs using directx in a different way where they'd need to be done in real time?

Like you can decrease loadtimes in some games by decompressing the files, they'll still work 100% correctly, you just end up removing the decompression cycle from the loading, so it's faster.

So the cycle of games could be, app > os > hardware, instead of app > dx > os > dx > hardware. Kinda using direct x as a procedural program like terrain gen. 'cept output being files, not a terrain.
Avatar image for teuf_
Teuf_

30805

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Teuf_
Member since 2004 • 30805 Posts

Now, I don't know exactly how directx works, but, does it have to run in real time? Could it just translate the data it would normally effect during, say an install, instead of while the game is running? Then the computer wouldn't have to waste time translating stuff through direct x... ?Inconsistancy


The problem is that the driver doesn't just translate DirectX commands to the native format used by the GPU, it also manages resource allocation and synchronization (since those are specific to the GPU). And you can't do that stuff ahead of time...it has to be to done at runtime.

Avatar image for subrosian
subrosian

14232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#39 subrosian
Member since 2005 • 14232 Posts

Asking a game studio to develop its own engines, shaders, et cetera for every game it produces is like asking every business to build its own power plant. Why? Why is centralized structure a bad thing? "The developers are lazy". No. The developers don't want to make games that cost $250 each.

That's the reality of the situation. DirectX isn't "holding the industry back", the cost of going with hardware-specific implementations in a world with a variety of hardware is... though I'm sure Intel or AMD would be happy to give you a "solution", make their platform the industry-standard and code specifically for it.

Avatar image for subrosian
subrosian

14232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#40 subrosian
Member since 2005 • 14232 Posts

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

Wasdie
These guys have some pretty huge financial reasons to want Microsoft out of the picture and hardware-specific development. After all if "insert popular MMO here" runs at 60 fps on an Intel solution, but runs at 25 fps on a hardware-cost similar AMD solution, which one are gamers going to pick? Now add that we're generally talking about mobile hardware being the battlefront here, where cheap-o integrated solutions and the new "GPCPU" are the talk of the town. - Oh yeah, we know exactly what they want.
Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ok, we'll start developing games for sepcific graphic cards. That's an improvement.

:?

subrosian
These guys have some pretty huge financial reasons to want Microsoft out of the picture and hardware-specific development. After all if "insert popular MMO here" runs at 60 fps on an Intel solution, but runs at 25 fps on a hardware-cost similar AMD solution, which one are gamers going to pick? Now add that we're generally talking about mobile hardware being the battlefront here, where cheap-o integrated solutions and the new "GPCPU" are the talk of the town. - Oh yeah, we know exactly what they want.

Well unless there's a PRACTICAL solution to all of this that doesn't destroy PC gaming, I would say DirectX is extremely necessary to keep around. It's nothing more than a ideology with no actual solution worth trying.