View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 528
# 27
09-30-2012, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by zenzenarimasen View Post
I'm sorry, but upgrading the engine will not make the game look better. You upgrade the engine and all you're going to get are the same graphics. Why? Because you didn't upgrade the f*k'n assets, that's why. The game can be spruced up on DX9 alone.

Even if they updated to DX11, what then? The most you'd get DX11's better handling of textures, thus giving you a faster frame rate. Suppose they added assets that take advantage of tessellation. What good is that? Oh look my dinky little ship that's so tiny on my screen because it's a tactical disadvantage to zoom in on it is all tesselated. Nobody can tell the difference because when zoomed out like that it's all curvy without tesselation anyway. It's not like extra detail added in by tesselation can even be seen at those zoom levels.

With ship combat often taking place at the edge of firing range, you can't even see the extra detail from improved assets on other craft either. You can't really get in close enough to look at your avatar or anyone else's for tessellation to make much of a noticeable difference.

What good are geometry shaders for this game? There's no procedural graphics generation, and the game isn't designed in a fashion that it would benefit from such a thing.

What good is DirectX 11 for this game except the added performance on compatible cards?

Yes I'm aware that there's already a DirectX 11 mode. Are you aware that it makes certain polygons in interiors look totally black and screws with the lighting just as it has for the year and a half that it's been there?
you need to look up everything dx11 can do...fps improvements in several areas, lighting and shadows for one, volumetric fog, etc. it's not just tessellation and texture handling, nor even just shaders. though all those have big improvements in how they're handled and what can be done with them.

in raw rendering dx11 easily outperforms dx9 with dynamic lights and shadows. ye, you can ramp up texture rez in either, but that isn't the bottleneck. that comes from how dx9 does light, shadow, specular, reflections, moving light sources, ambient light, caustic lighting effects. so much has to have a faked work around to even appear in dx9.

and people wonder why so many dx9 games tend to load the cpu as much or more than the gpu >.>

in short, it would make the game look better, just moving the engine up to dx11 capabilities. getting a completely new say cryengine 3 or unreal 3 with those capabilities built in...dx11 and 64 bit capable...the game could have much more detail, less stuff vanishing (like torps) and run faster.

dx9 needs to be taken off life support. all game devs need to let it die. only reason it's being held onto so dearly is consoles...and the mistaken assumption that a majority of pc's are still running winxp and vista.

while statistics (bleh) say both are still out there in numbers (xp/vista) what those statistics don't show is are those mostly aren't gamers machines still running that old crap. this last bit is more towards any devs that might peruse this thread. gamers tend to stay current with tech. business and people who don't game don't bother. so survey's and website stats of OS's visited tends to get skewed.