Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Constance Red
NoobFleet
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:38:00 -
[1]
So as time goes by im wondering when we'll the DX10 version of EVE, and when we may see a 64bit version?
Any ideas?
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:41:00 -
[2]
When the overwhelmingly vast part of the playerbase dumps xp for win7. So basically in about 2 or 3 years from now.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:44:00 -
[3]
The day that EVE needs to allocate 4 GB of ram, we might see a 64bit version.
Don't count on it for the next 5 years.
|
Constance Red
NoobFleet
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:46:00 -
[4]
Originally by: LaVista Vista The day that EVE needs to allocate 4 GB of ram, we might see a 64bit version.
Don't count on it for the next 5 years.
Well, LaVista you know that way of thinking isn't logical, you're a more intelligent person that that.
If every developer purely developed 64bit applications because their 32bit version had outgrown the contraints of 32bit OS's, we wouldn't see many applications out there, yet, we do, so thankfully everyone doesnt think the way you do.
As for DX10, well i was told we were getting this years ago, so whats the deal with DX10?
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:51:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Constance Red As for DX10, well i was told we were getting this years ago, so whats the deal with DX10?
We don't have a seperate dx10 client because the overwhelming majority of eve users are on xp and stuck with dx9. CCP said it will no longer support multiple graphics clients to save on redundent development costs so until the playerbase can all play on a dx10 client it won't happen.
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:55:00 -
[6]
Popcorn. Check. Umbrella. Check.
Could get entertaining. Simple answer. When it becomes worth it for the client to be updated for those things. I'd agree with LaVista, 5 years maybe 4. If the dropping of Classic is anything to go by atleast.
Anyways, in before this turns into a XP vs. Vista/Win7 thread.
Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work. |
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 20:58:00 -
[7]
When 64bit and DX10 were discussed, this was when everyone expected amazing things from Vista!
Lets face it, Vista was utter crap, the uptake of the OS is one of the worst Microsoft have seen, infact I beleive reading that 75% if Eve players still use Windows XP.
Given the promise Win7 is showing, I think we will see a much greater uptake of this OS, thus more reasons for any game or program developers to push more into 64Bit and DX10 areas!
Tho rumor has it, many developers are holding out for DX11 ;)
|
Furrot
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:01:00 -
[8]
I hope CCP can get Transgaming to work on a 64 bit version of their piece of **** emulation technology so Snow Leopard users can take advantage as well. I started playing EVE because of the Mac client but I have to duel boot because you can't even use a browser while in EVE because of the overhead. My machine runs at 24 fps at medium settings in OSX and 50 fps maxed right out in Windows. The fact that XP can't even see all of the RAM I have installed makes it even more embarassing for Transgaming. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Constance Red
Originally by: LaVista Vista The day that EVE needs to allocate 4 GB of ram, we might see a 64bit version.
Don't count on it for the next 5 years.
Well, LaVista you know that way of thinking isn't logical, you're a more intelligent person that that.
If every developer purely developed 64bit applications because their 32bit version had outgrown the contraints of 32bit OS's, we wouldn't see many applications out there, yet, we do, so thankfully everyone doesnt think the way you do.
As for DX10, well i was told we were getting this years ago, so whats the deal with DX10?
The fact is that any 64bit copy of Windows will run 32bit applications. Everybody could upgrade to 64bits, and nothing would change.
The day that Microsoft is willing to end their history of having backwards compability, then you have a point. But for now, we have WoW64 that works very well.
The cost for CCP to produce a 64bit client is extremely high. They would have to get hold of 64bit libraries for things that they don't do themselves.
And that is to very little benefit. I have barely experienced an EVE client using up 1gb of RAM. I used 800mb once, but that was due to a memory leak.
The simple fact is that EVE has no need to allocate 4 GB of ram.
I'm a programmer. I'd love if everybody would just ship 64bit applications and ditch 32bit. But from a business perspective, it makes NO sense for now. The Windows platform is used in a way, due to Microsoft's precedence in always supporting decade old technology, where you would have to slightly stupid to completely move to a 64bit system.
It's being done for things like Exchange. But business applications have been running on 64bit architecture for quite a while.
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:04:00 -
[10]
Edited by: illford baker on 01/11/2009 21:05:47
Originally by: Zeba We don't have a seperate dx10 client because the overwhelming majority of eve users are on xp
gotta correct you there, as you can see from this dev blog XP users are starting to become the minority. notice that windows 7 is at 8.8% before it even came out! i would like to see a new chart now that it is out. so i think separate DX10 client can be justified. (how about DX11, it is on vista and 7, backwards creatable with DX10 card minus hardware tessellation, but hardware tessellation would make it look awesome.)
|
|
Constance Red
NoobFleet
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:04:00 -
[11]
Snake, DX11 is already out, i have 64bit W7 Ultimate and its preinstalled.
So seeing as Microsoft no longer supports XP, and hasn't for a long time now, is there any word on future development to take advantage of the new OS's and technology.
I know i would prefer to see increased performance on DX10 and 64bit systems than new features and shiney new graphics.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Constance Red
So seeing as Microsoft no longer supports XP, and hasn't for a long time now
I know i would prefer to see increased performance on DX10 and 64bit systems than new features and shiney new graphics.
First of all, mainstream XP support was dropped barely 7 months ago. However Microsoft still supports XP for certain not-so-niche markets, using XP(Netbook market especially).
Dx10 and Dx11 will give you better performance, sure. But it requires you to rework your engine to make use of the new features.
64bit will not give you increased performance in EVE. EVE isn't a memory intensive application.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:15:00 -
[13]
Originally by: illford baker
Originally by: Zeba We don't have a seperate dx10 client because the overwhelming majority of eve users are on xp
gotta correct you there, as you can see from this dev blog XP users are starting to become the minority. notice that windows 7 is at 8.8% before it even came out! i would like to see a new chart now that it is out. so i think separate DX10 client can be justified. (how about DX11, it is on vista and 7, backwards creatable with DX10 card minus hardware tessellation, but hardware tessellation would make it look awesome.)
Ah a newer chart. Well the info I was going on had xp at about 75% and now its down to about 50% so it would be interesting to see what the latest numbers are running at. I myself will probably be going win7 as soon as the first service pack comes out and m$ has a chance to plug up all the security holes only the hackers currently know about. Now when that xp user base percentage gets to under 5% then you will see a newer client come out be it dx10 or 11 as ccp can't just arbitrarily shut out a signigicant segment of the subscibers just to let some of the moar tech savvy get the extra bells and whistles their rigs and os can support.
|
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:15:00 -
[14]
ITT; OP learned some new words and is eager to show the world that he did. ----------- ADM-I |
SpaceSavage
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Constance Red
So seeing as Microsoft no longer supports XP, and hasn't for a long time now
I know i would prefer to see increased performance on DX10 and 64bit systems than new features and shiney new graphics.
First of all, mainstream XP support was dropped barely 7 months ago. However Microsoft still supports XP for certain not-so-niche markets, using XP(Netbook market especially).
Dx10 and Dx11 will give you better performance, sure. But it requires you to rework your engine to make use of the new features.
64bit will not give you increased performance in EVE. EVE isn't a memory intensive application.
I understand what you're saying, stand alone the EVE Client doesn't really need that much memory, but with the game evolving how it is nowadays, with people running 2, 3 or even 4 clients on one machine using multiple monitors its certainly a thought.
Don't get me wrong, i don't have memory issues, my RAM is DDR3 and is nice and fast, and the spec of my PC is good. But wouldn't you like... more?
As for XP being discontinued in terms of support, Microsoft announced something like 2 years before that it'd be discontinued (well they follow a pattern of supporting an OS for a number of years anyway, almost like clockwork).
I'd be interested to see some stats on OS usage nowadays, i'd be willing to bet that Vista/7 make up individually larger chunks of the OS useage pie that XP. _______________
|
Lork Niffle
Gallente External Hard Drive
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:17:00 -
[16]
Expect to see any kind of general jump from 32-64bit until about 2014 and that continues with DX10. Why 2014? that is when paid support for WinXP drops and many business will have little choice but to move on since they can no longer get support for XP.
The only issues with both DX10 and 64bit is that the EVE client will look no better in DX10 or DX11 since we have had plenty of time to use DX9 and can do everything DX10 can show in DX9. It is mearly performance advantages it creates. Tesselation won't do much yet until developers get well dug into using it. 64bit will only allow for EVE to use more than 4GB of RAM and it is looking that if system become more optimized as they are heading many users will never need more than 8GB of RAM since Bus and HD speeds will increase enough to allow paging to cover the rest. ------------------------------------- Don't click the links or even the forum topics. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:19:00 -
[17]
This will happen when microsoft doesnt release a version of windows that doesnt suck.
BTW windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:20:00 -
[18]
Edited by: illford baker on 01/11/2009 21:24:47
Originally by: Zeba I myself will probably be going win7 as soon as the first service pack comes out and m$ has a chance to plug up all the security holes only the hackers currently know about.
there probably wont be as many security holes, as they had an open beta with millions of participants. i don't think that's an issue. Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
BTW windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
blasphemy, 7 is hundreds of times better than vista. there are many new features, i couldn't imagine going back go vista or XP.
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:20:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Khemul Zula on 01/11/2009 21:20:48 Do keep in mind that unless CCP goes back to the old ways and supports multiple clients, XP use will have to be much less then a 45+% minority before the client changes.
Hell, eliminating a 10% minority would probably hurt a bit.
Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: SpaceSavage
I understand what you're saying, stand alone the EVE Client doesn't really need that much memory, but with the game evolving how it is nowadays, with people running 2, 3 or even 4 clients on one machine using multiple monitors its certainly a thought.
The limitation with 32bit is that each *process* can allocate 32bits of ram. If you are running on a 64bit system with over 9000GB of ram, you could run as many EVE clients as you want.
Quote: Don't get me wrong, i don't have memory issues, my RAM is DDR3 and is nice and fast, and the spec of my PC is good. But wouldn't you like... more?
Yeah, sure. My 8GB isn't enough.
Quote: As for XP being discontinued in terms of support, Microsoft announced something like 2 years before that it'd be discontinued (well they follow a pattern of supporting an OS for a number of years anyway, almost like clockwork).
Let me once again point out that Microsoft still supports XP to a fair degree. If you bought a desktop machine with XP, OEM copy(Has no support) or anything like that, you won't get support. If you bought a support license, a netbook with XP or the like, Microsoft will still support it. Microsoft also has 24 months of support for service packs.
Mainstream XP support was dropped 14. April, 2009.
|
|
DS S
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:26:00 -
[21]
I think instead of working on x64 and dx 10&11, i think they should work with the multiclient function. I personally used 5-6 clients at a time, but if i can get away with using 2 cleints at the same time with my dual monitors with 1 cleint on each scrren using fullscreen, without havving to tab or anything, i think it would be more benificial to more people then going with x64 and dxc10.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:28:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Windows 7 is just Vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Vista is just Windows 2003 in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Windows 20003 is just Windows 2000 in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Seriously, what is your point?
|
Lork Niffle
Gallente External Hard Drive
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:28:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Lork Niffle on 01/11/2009 21:30:05
Originally by: DS S f i can get away with using 2 cleints at the same time with my dual monitors with 1 cleint on each scrren using fullscreen, without havving to tab or anything, .
That's actually a DirectX issue. It has issues rendering both fullscreen 3D applications and 2D desktop items. You'll have to speak to Microsoft about that, running multiple fullscreen applications.
EVEMon though has a function to 'maximise' EVE as if it's fullscreen but without the minimising issues.
Also about Win7 being very simialr to Vista. Did you not see when Microsoft built it from the ground up? The transfer from Vista to XP was not to say the least smooth. I think it would have really of been worse for Microsoft to redesign their OS again and have another 'Vista' fiasco. They have although certianly improved it enough, Win7 , to warrent a full price OS. ------------------------------------- Don't click the links or even the forum topics. |
Kravick Drasani
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
BTW windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Most people already know this. However with Win7 Microsoft cut out most of the useless bloat that caused Vista to suck so bad in the first place. Vista as a core OS wasn't bad, it just contained so much bloat that it was an inoperable piece of **** for most people. Cut the bloat and now it works wonderfully. -
Originally by: Rilwar If you want to nag on warp speed, how about the question of "Why does my Crow manage to go 9.5AU/s for 2 seconds during a 9AU jump?"
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Windows 7 is just Vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Vista is just Windows 2003 in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Windows 20003 is just Windows 2000 in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Seriously, what is your point?
all of those is not just some features fixed, they are all introducing new features,and better preformance (not counting vista), thats my point.
|
Constance Red
NoobFleet
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:33:00 -
[26]
The fact that W7 is just a better version of Vista isn't really an arguement, why would that be a bad thing? lol
Anyway... back on topic, speculation about DX10 etc.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: illford baker
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk windows 7 is just vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Windows 7 is just Vista in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Vista is just Windows 2003 in a new shiny package with some features fixed. Windows 20003 is just Windows 2000 in a new shiny package with some features fixed.
Seriously, what is your point?
all of those is not just some features fixed, they are all introducing new features,and better preformance (not counting vista), thats my point.
That's not true.
In my experience, Vista ran better than XP. Why? Because Vista made away with some of the older bottlenecks. For instance, a totally reworked driver-model that made Vista orders of magnitude more stable than XP ever was, against the most common issues(Like drivers dying randomly).
I realize that Vista wasn't perfect. And in some scenarios it stank pretty badly. But you have these things for every single new version of Windows.
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:40:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Constance Red The fact that W7 is just a better version of Vista isn't really an arguement, why would that be a bad thing? lol
Anyway... back on topic, speculation about DX10 etc.
good idea. if they are gonna do DX10 they might as well do DX11, supporting multiple clients is justified now that DX11 OSes have become the majority, and we like to look at pretty things. there have been several threads about DX10 and that means people want it. balls in your court CCP!
|
Lork Niffle
Gallente External Hard Drive
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:41:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Constance Red speculation about DX10 etc.
When DX10 came out you were able to do amazing things. Much more realistic lighting shadows etc.
You now see the exact same in DX9, why? Well we have experience. Why bother retraining to use a new system when you can just pour money in plowing through the brick walls of the current. Certainly easier to manange than having to retrain. It is now worthless to use DX10 unless you eventually want to take advantage of procedural qualities with tesselation in DX11 (which is actually quite awesome btw). Don;'t expect any leap anywhere until either Vista/Win7 has 40% and up of Gaming systems or 2014 when XP support finally ends and every business would have to move into DX10 and Vista/Win7. ------------------------------------- Don't click the links or even the forum topics. |
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 21:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Lork Niffle Don;'t expect any leap anywhere until either Vista/Win7 has 40% and up of Gaming systems .
i will, again, point out this dev blog vista/7 does have 40%+
|
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:11:00 -
[31]
Originally by: illford baker
Originally by: Lork Niffle Don;'t expect any leap anywhere until either Vista/Win7 has 40% and up of Gaming systems .
i will, again, point out this dev blog vista/7 does have 40%+
Yep, i do believe that we are reaching the 'tipping point' where that excuse is wearing thin. Now would be a good time for them to split the client again imo, they are going to be ending up using DX11 (read more specifically tesselation, compute shader) eventually so its hardly like development time will be truly wasted. Players could market this game for them in DX11 'ultra-beaut mode' which would draw some graphic junkies in and probably prompt a few dinosaurs here to upgrade for the extra candy.
Cant wait for Larrabee to finally arrive tbh, i'm sure we are gonna see Intel strike at the gpu market like we haven't seen a company do for a long time. They will be touting DX11, OpenCL, GPGPU etc until developers cant ignore them any longer, as per usual. Might just speed things up here.
|
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:17:00 -
[32]
i want eve on OpenGL not DX
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:20:00 -
[33]
Originally by: ceaon i want eve on OpenGL not DX
And i wanna burn on my gf's sister. Whats your point?
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: ceaon i want eve on OpenGL not DX
LOL every thread needs a good joke.
|
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:25:00 -
[35]
Originally by: brutoid
Originally by: ceaon i want eve on OpenGL not DX
And i wanna burn on my gf's sister. Whats your point?
oh this is not a desire thread ? |
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:26:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Khemul Zula on 01/11/2009 22:27:22
Originally by: brutoid
Originally by: ceaon i want eve on OpenGL not DX
And i wanna burn on my gf's sister. Whats your point?
Is she a witch? You could possibly argue legal precedent.
Just saying. Legal systems seem to like precedent. Never once specifies fire, or the type of stake.
Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work. |
Blev Oblix
Gallente ARK-CORP SATRAPY
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:31:00 -
[37]
The problem is that the uptake of Win 7 will primarily be from Vista users who will have the benefit of a nice easy upgrade (altho I've read horror stories where it's not gone smoothly). As a Win XP user, there is no way I'm going to do a clean install until I have to. From the few bits of tech advice I read, that's the standard advice. So Win 7 will have to wait until I have to buy a new PC - and this one is only a year old.
And, tbh, upping the graphics from Classic didn't add anything to gameplay so what's the rush for the latest graphics standard?
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:40:00 -
[38]
Edited by: illford baker on 01/11/2009 22:42:00
Originally by: Blev Oblix The problem is that the uptake of Win 7 will primarily be from Vista users who will have the benefit of a nice easy upgrade (altho I've read horror stories where it's not gone smoothly). As a Win XP user, there is no way I'm going to do a clean install until I have to. From the few bits of tech advice I read, that's the standard advice. So Win 7 will have to wait until I have to buy a new PC - and this one is only a year old.
And, tbh, upping the graphics from Classic didn't add anything to gameplay so what's the rush for the latest graphics standard?
get a small external drive, backup your files, and do a clean install, its worth it. i, too was a XP user. when the beta for 7 came out i upgraded and never looked back. and yes, better graphics doesn't improve gameplay, but we want better graphics because it looks nicer, if you haven't seen DX10 you don't know what your missing so you cant say "DX9 is alright" because that is all you know. once i thought that n64 graphics was good, then gamecube i thought that n64 graphics were trash and gamecube was the best ever. same with DX9, DX10 and DX11
|
ghosttr
Amarr Deus Imperiosus Acies
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:40:00 -
[39]
Well win7 does allow dx10 stuff to run on dx9 hardware via Direct3D 10 Level 9(although dx10 features are software emulated so if you tried to run with full goodies your framerate would be in the ****ter). And maybe they will backport it to vista.
So hardware isnt as important this time, as it was when upgrading from the classic client, the most important will be the adoption of win7.
SO putting the capability in there at least would improve performance in non-xp systems, even without upgrading the gfx themselves.
64 bit support is not as near term, as most users will probably be running 32 bit versions of win7 (though i dont know why, 64bit version performs alot better, and the majority of cpu hardware now supports 64bit). Win 8 is rumored to be 64 bit only (no 32 bit version) so maybe if that adops well we will get a 64 bit client (that 5+yrs away tho)
More importantly eve should be made to run better on multiple cores/threads
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 22:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Just saying. Legal systems seem to like precedent. Never once specifies fire, or the type of stake.
Cant answer that without making myself look like a r.apist.
Originally by: Blev Oblix
And, tbh, upping the graphics from Classic didn't add anything to gameplay so what's the rush for the latest graphics standard?
Upping graphics does not equal nerfing gameplay, the two are not mutually exclusive and can infact help to enhance each other.
For me its about adding more 'total immersion', keeping my client full screen and keeping me inside the game for longer. It would also keep EvE visually competetive against next years competition. Plus, what shader model are we upto now? and the benefits it brings with it.
|
|
Salia WinterDrake
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 23:17:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Salia WinterDrake on 01/11/2009 23:18:37 Business use of WinXP vs Vista vs Win7 is not really of much concern to CCP - they'll be focussing on which OS'es are actually logging into Eve.
Its not tied to the number of PCs now shipping with Win7.
Sure their graphs show that Win7 is starting to make a decent showing, but the majority of 'early adopters' for Win7 are already using it, so the rate of 'organic' conversion as new PCs are shipped with Win7 may well be a bit slower from here on in. The bulk of new subscribers WITH a new PC will add to these numbers, not current (post-Trinity) subscribers.
New subscribers (not trials) are not likely to make up a huge proportion of the login numbers - I think Win7 users will take time to accumulate further.
Point is, CCP will baulk at having to slice off a chunk of their subscriber base without having an overwhelming economic reason to do so. Dropping the classic client with its older shader model support probably hurt enough.
So reaching 90+% DX11 (or DX10) of all subscribed and logging-in users will take quite some time. ----- VPN-Firewall Guide
|
Camanche Jim
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 00:23:00 -
[42]
Isn't the question directed at CCP?
Why hasn't the question being answered by CCP?
If those that answered want to work for CCP, put in an application and join the organization - but until then S T F U
|
Constance Red
NoobFleet
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 00:28:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Camanche Jim Isn't the question directed at CCP?
Why hasn't the question being answered by CCP?
If those that answered want to work for CCP, put in an application and join the organization - but until then S T F U
Healthy discussion isn't discouraged :)
If were honestly all waited for CCP to answer questions we'd all be dead of old age :)
|
illford baker
Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 00:30:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Constance Red
Healthy discussion isn't discouraged :)
If were honestly all waited for CCP to answer questions we'd all be dead of old age :)
well, it is 12AM at eveHQ
|
Cap Jinx
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 00:46:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Camanche Jim Isn't the question directed at CCP?
Why hasn't the question being answered by CCP?
If those that answered want to work for CCP, put in an application and join the organization - but until then S T F U
If CCP dropped everything to answer every thread starting with "CCP, bla bla bla whine whine whine" in general discussions, they'de be doing nothing else
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 00:47:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Camanche Jim Why hasn't the question being answered by CCP?
Because that would be much less entertaining.
It's like seeing a shiney button labeled "DO NOT PRESS! SERIOUSLY! YOU DO NOT WANT TO PRESS THIS!". Of course you could do the sensible thing and not press it. After all the sign said right there, 'do not press'. But where would be the fun in that? Plus you'd never live with yourself for not finding out what the button did. I mean it could destroy the world. You could have had a button that destroyed the world and didn't press it! Life is not worth living with that knowledge.
Anyways, I'm not sure how but it is just like that.
Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work. |
Caporiccio
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 01:09:00 -
[47]
I'd rather have walking in stations, dust 514, and a larger player base (more targets) way before DX10 and 64bit versions of the game.
Hell look at Adobe. Way more people on this planet use Adobe software than there are people who play EvE (As great as EvE is). Any what do you get from them? Photoshop 64 bit, the rest isn't yet and they aren't particularly in a rush to get the rest of their suite up to par. Why? Well PS actually uses the memory, EvE at max I've ever seen only uses 500-700mb if you've got a LOT going on.
So for 64bit, CCP doesn't need to yet, its not a bottleneck. For DX10, as others have said maybe when Win XP is largely obsolete (AKA not used anymore).
Unfortunately though for developers, I'd put money on it that WinXP is going to be the IE6 of windows desktop application hurdles. It works, and a lot of people will be hanging on to it for quite awhile.
Just my $.02.
It took a few years to ween people off of Windows 2000 towards XP (SP1 is when people started to move over). I'd say when or if Windows 7 experiences a similar move, thats about how long itll be before you start seeing DX11 features in an EvE client. 2-3 years.
|
Blev Oblix
Gallente ARK-CORP SATRAPY
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 09:51:00 -
[48]
Quote: get a small external drive
Thank you but no, I'm not buying more h/w just to carry on playing a game (that's why I bought this PC). And why do you assume a small drive?
Quote: backup your files, and do a clean install, its worth it.
Thanks but no thanks. I've wasted far too much of my life in doing clean re-installs and it's never been worth it, only necessary. And so far as the published advice goes, Win 7 is yet to be a necessary upgrade for Win XP.
Quote: when the beta for 7 came out i upgraded and never looked back.
Perhaps you should start looking back if only to find out where you've been, where you are and where you might be going.
Quote: but we want better graphics because it looks nicer,
Actually, I prefer substance over style - I've played far too many games that looked great but played like crap.
Quote: if you haven't seen DX10 you don't know what your missing
If it's like the last graphics upgrade which gave us clever stuff like reflective station interiors, pretty asteroids and made Minnie ships look like they were wearing lace panties then thanks but no thanks.
|
Primnproper
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 10:55:00 -
[49]
Originally by: brutoid
Originally by: Blev Oblix
And, tbh, upping the graphics from Classic didn't add anything to gameplay so what's the rush for the latest graphics standard?
Upping graphics does not equal nerfing gameplay, the two are not mutually exclusive and can infact help to enhance each other.
Since when did, saying that graphics didn't add anything equate to nerfing gameplay? ...
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium ...we do not want to nerf it on that aspect since it is supposed to be part of a sandbox game to adapt a ship outside its original purpose.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 11:50:00 -
[50]
I'd settle for them just sorting out the z-distance on the translucent textures so the graphics card doesn't end up having a hernia trying to render twenty layers of red nebula, or four weapon flashes on the hull of my ship.
Oh, and it would be nice if clouds 100km away didn't obscure laser beams and engine exhaust in the foreground.
Upgrading to DX10 would just make the fail more epic. [Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
|
Raneru
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 12:54:00 -
[51]
The question is not can we upgrade the client, its should we. What advantages would 64bit and DX11 have that would make it worth it for the current models, textures, data, etc that eve has?
|
Neamus
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 15:35:00 -
[52]
Just to keep things on track:
Windows Vista is really really good.
Windows XP and Windows 7 suck, If you use either of these OS then you have no genitals and your mother is called Henry.
Signed: A Petition to implement a DX6 EvE client in Ubuntu.
I like donkey pron.
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 16:23:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Primnproper
Originally by: brutoid
Upping graphics does not equal nerfing gameplay, the two are not mutually exclusive and can infact help to enhance each other.
Since when did, saying that graphics didn't add anything equate to nerfing gameplay?
Upping grahics does not equal nerfing gameplay improvements. It was late and the dog was licking my balls.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 17:39:00 -
[54]
Goddamnit we had this thread last week, and the week before that.
Simple answer is NO you will not see DX10/11 in the next 4 years because:
- It costs resources (read: money) to make, and the average quality of video game graphics is still below what EVE does today thanks to the persistent current console generation. There is no competitive pressure.
- At least 5-10% of the userbase will cling to XP until their machines physically disintegrate into silica and they're forced to buy new ones where hardware specs require you to run Vista or newer for more than trivial performance differences.
- CCP has a viable 'lite' client for crappy mobile platforms like smartphones and laptops with integrated graphics (read: 98% of the laptops currently being sold)
- Even if the above three conditions are satisfied, a significant portion of households have, or will have OS X machines where DX10/11 API wrappers are experimental and commercial solutions are equivalent to "give us money and we'll hack it the best we can"
- Even if the above four conditions are somehow magically satisfied, emerging and secondary markets (remember there is an EVE China) ensure what becomes mainstream here will require additional time to become mainstream there
DX9 is a pile of crap, and I would love to see them dump it. But even this much is too much for CCP. Its taken almost two years to roll out the majority of Trinity 2 upgrades. And they were perhaps cutting edge when they were announced 2 years before the release of said upgrades. I doubt CCP is looking forward to doing something like that again, as much as they were the first time.
|
Amida Ta
German Mining and Manufacture Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 23:13:00 -
[55]
Hopefully they are looking into a DX11 Client with support for Tesselation. That could be a VERY nice replace for the current (quite bad) bump-mapping technique they are using. In fact implementing (just) that should be relatively straightforward as the required data is already in the client. And it should also be easy enough to keep the current technique for pre-DX11 cards. _________________________ EveAI.Live - The EVE-Online API/class library for .Net, C# and VB.Net |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 01:10:00 -
[56]
Originally by: SpaceSavage Don't get me wrong, i don't have memory issues, my RAM is DDR3 and is nice and fast, and the spec of my PC is good. But wouldn't you like... more?
More... What? Do you even have the slightest clue about how modern operating systems make use of memory?
Hint: A large portion of it gets used for caching stuff from the harddrive. So talk of 'using all my 8 GB of memory' is quite stupid, as you already are.
Also, did you know that compiling the same 32-bit code using 64-bit _INCREASES_ code size and memory footprint by an average of 30% or so? (Pointers take 8 byte, not 4 byte and such). So you're likely to get reduced speed.
Wait, WTF, Are You Serious? The Lastest Hype Word I Learned Will Actually Make My EVE Client Slower and Hog More Memory With No Benefit? OMG#!#!#!#!#!@@#
Or something like that. So leave these kinds of stuff to professionals.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 10:02:00 -
[57]
Originally by: LaVista Vista The limitation with 32bit is that each *process* can allocate 32bits of ram.
On 32 bit Windows its 2GB *per process*, not 4.
Originally by: LaVista Vista And that is to very little benefit. I have barely experienced an EVE client using up 1gb of RAM. I used 800mb once, but that was due to a memory leak.
In large fleet fights I routinely get over 800MB. At the time of the memory leak I passed 1.7GB just flying around.
To the OP: CCP is always doing experiments with new technology behind the scenes. They did it with DX10 and very probably starting to do it with DX11 now. If they ever rework the engine there is no reason not to go directly to the more future proof DX11, especially since Vista will also get DX11. |
Ralle030583
Mystic Lion Hearts Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 10:22:00 -
[58]
Win7 runs quite nice on my old XP pc's who coudn't handle vista...
but back to topic: gameplay > graphics i my opinions they should focus more on existing old bugs instead of playing with graphics current one looks nice and is fine , so whats the problem? we dont rlly need even better graphics so no need for dx10 or 64bit (cause no need for bigger RAM allocations, me runnung for example fine 5 clients in window mode on a 32bit system...)
just my 2 cent Ralle
|
Mihali
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 10:31:00 -
[59]
It's not a matter of can we, it's a matter of should we?
Since most players live on a limited income and probably couldn't afford new hardware for at least a year or so. You have Joe Blow with his wife & family paying a mortgage, playing the game on a casual basis that can only afford a new system, if it's in the family budget. We can't all be elite tech guys with awesome salaries or live with our parents. So you all can just calm down till Win7 hits the mainstream & at least SP1. Don't forget to take your Ritalin
Stop messing with my slack, pinko. Praise Bob! |
AterraX
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 10:48:00 -
[60]
Edited by: AterraX on 04/11/2009 10:48:32 I would rather have tesselated, DX11/10 (When you code for DX11, there is a fallback path to DX10.1, DX10 and DX9) shadered, supersampled transparacy antialiased graphics that immerses me into the game...than walking in stations, I signed up for space...not "System Shock 3"
|
|
kaplowwwwwwwwwwwww
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 13:05:00 -
[61]
because of the nature of computersd and the program and the fact eve was and is designed for less than 64bit there is technicaly no need for and no reason why eve would ever go 64bit as the client currently is. It all depeneds on IF the current engine requires it at all.
The only time you should see a 64bit version is: If the client needs it for enhanced performace. When the operating system needs the client to have it.
so the first case is prob 2-6 years (when eve graphics engine is updated again). When 64bit windows 7 is used at the levels xp is now. (when xp is gone basicaly).
|
Nefrin Maldoes
Minmatar People with Guns Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 13:25:00 -
[62]
Taking a Business course, we discussed something that is quite similar to this:
Cutting Edge vs. Bleeding Edge
Cutting edge is where a product or piece of technology is polished, readily available, and the public is ready to accept it as a replacement to an older product.
Bleeding edge refers to the newest and shiniest of all things, but that are not economically sound to invest in because you will only have a few adopters that *must* have the newest gadget on the market (I point in reference to the people who purchased a buggy iPhone for $600+ when they came out).
It's a fine line to walk between the two, and it gets even harder to navigate when it's focused at a community such as this, where there are a lot of tech geeks (like myself).
While the idea of an updated client with better graphics does send a tingle to nice places, I have to agree that gameplay > graphics hands down. I like to think that some (or most) of the people at CCP keep this in mind, which is why it took so long to kill the classic client, and why it will be awhile before they upgrade the client again.
As it has been pointed out, even if they only lose 10% of their players due a client upgrade, here's the math:
$15(U.S) x 12 months x 30,000 (30k based off of the last number I remember of 300k subscribers) = $5,400,000.00 loss in annual income. Even if they lost the annual subscribers that only pay $10/month, it's still a loss of $3,600,000.00 per year.
Doesn't make good business sense at this time.
Originally by: PostmasterGeneral at first i was like and then i was like and then we got to the shower scene and i was like and then i was like
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 16:49:00 -
[63]
Upping grahics does not equal nerfing gameplay improvements. These things are worked on by seperate teams.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 16:51:00 -
[64]
Originally by: brutoid Upping grahics does not equal nerfing gameplay improvements. These things are worked on by seperate teams.
No. But it does equal nerfing new features that requires art assets.
One of the biggest bottlenecks at CCP is the art department. Programmers are also in fairly short supply.
If the art department has to overhaul every texture to make use for DX11 features, they can't also be doing new ships or anything like that.
|
brutoid
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 17:07:00 -
[65]
Originally by: LaVista Vista No. But it does equal nerfing new features that requires art assets.
One of the biggest bottlenecks at CCP is the art department. Programmers are also in fairly short supply.
If the art department has to overhaul every texture to make use for DX11 features, they can't also be doing new ships or anything like that.
I'll have to take your word for it concerning staff shortages at CCP? Maybe the art department is a bit thin, i guess that would happen if you're developing more than one game. But concerning EvE, just like with gameplay features, there are alot of graphical 'bugs' that need fixing too. If they are striving for 'Excellence' then all matters need addressing.
And by 'new ships' do you mean Dust?
|
Amida Ta
German Mining and Manufacture Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 23:23:00 -
[66]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
If the art department has to overhaul every texture to make use for DX11 features, they can't also be doing new ships or anything like that.
But it doesn't have to! There are features in DX11 like tesellation that wouldn't require more stuff from the art department than the stuff thats already in the game right now. Moreover CCP does not have an "art department" for Eve at all. Have a look at the videos from last fanfast for their organizational structure. _________________________ EveAI.Live - The EVE-Online API/class library for .Net, C# and VB.Net |
Spurty
Caldari Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 23:39:00 -
[67]
Working for a software company that has been producing 64bit software for many years now I can with much experience say that the move from 32bit to 64bit is indeed niticable but only when you have to step back down to 32bit.
What shocks me most about peoples understanding of 32bit vs 64bit is that if they're argument is to be taken, we should have never left 16bit CPUs.
When every Line of code, hardware part, driver, bus, core and kernel runs in 64bit mode, stuff tends to fly, really fly!
My next games machine will have 32gigs of ram. This will be pretty weak compared to the 96gig box I ordered for running virtual machines off the netapp.
Seeing as companies like creative labs can bot work out how to write 64bit drivers fir their own hardware forcing opensource projects to spring onto life to deliver (it's not impossible, clearly they just don't want to put in the extra effort) it's not much of a stretch to see the path of least resistance is once more the soup of the day.
Gamers are a terrible force for bigger better faster more. You are pretty lame waving your "64bit, he'll we'llnot go" scarves. Demand progress, let grandads Clutch at the past
Originally by: Machine Delta When making a point, anyone taking it should consider the source.
pretty deep coming from you |
Chiyoko sama
Griefer-B-Gone Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 15:00:00 -
[68]
I've done several migrations to AMD64/Intel64 and have to confirm Spurty's comments.
- Alleviating the need for a mode switching and word conversion has a big impact-- aka "When... [everything] runs in 64bit mode, stuff tends to fly, really fly!"
- Since most graphics is offloaded to a GPU, its been my experience that database and bytecode/interpreted language code obtains the largest speedup. (See Python) What this means is the 64bit CMP/SCMP and SIMD instruction types have a huge impact.
- Most problems originate from uncontrolled binaries (which is in of itself a big problem -- poor code management) or poor programming practices (which is also another big issue in of itself)
- One of the biggest issue it seems overlooked is development of a real multicore capable client (see brethren on X360/PS3 platforms)
- If costs were truly the root issue, then DirectX is a bad option. Outside of the XBox/PC platform Direct3D isn't really used; rather OpenGL is used (which changes specifications ~1/10th as often as DirectX).
Its a simple matter, development companies without a 64-bit strategy are trapped in the thinking of the early 1990's. A development companies without a multicore strategy, are trapped in the early 2000's.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 15:41:00 -
[69]
The two posts above me seems fancy and all.
But right now, the biggest bottleneck is not the client. If you have a recent computer(3 years or so), you will be able to run EVE with fairly high details with fair performance.
The problem with EVE at present is the servers. It's not able to handle 1000's of people. And yes, the server software is 64bit, seeing as 1000 concurrent users will take up more RAM than can be allocated with 32 bits(As was seen from when Jita crashed after stackless python was deployed, when it ran out of memory).
The fact is that most performance issues comes from the fact that:
1. The EVE client is largely single-threaded due to the python-based UI. 2. The UI relies on the server(The server calls are blocking), and there's an inherent delay when talking to the server.
The EVE client is a dumb telnet client with a graphics, sounds, UI and networking engine. What is the most intensive one? The graphics part. That's where you will have a performance increase if anywhere.
EVE is not a data-intensive client. The server is, sure. Hence why it's running under 64 bits now. But the client has no need for a 64bit overhaul at this point. The performance improvement is likely to be minimal if at all existant.
In essence, it really comes down to this: Does your application need to allocate 4gb(3gb in case of consumer operating systems like XP or Vista) or more of ram?
|
Chiyoko sama
Griefer-B-Gone Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 17:44:00 -
[70]
Here's a handy dandy link for all to read. It explains software development guidelines... and that there is more going on than just address space. Intel« 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manuals
Originally by: LaVista Vista
In essence, it really comes down to this: Does your application need to allocate 4gb(3gb in case of consumer operating systems like XP or Vista) or more of ram?
If you wish to discuss just the addressing space features, then the primary consideration is caching -- (1)Texture/Models and (2)Client-side data. (1) could easily go above 4Gb. (2) just pushes it over the top. This is not to be confused with the current cache sizes set with in the client, but rather what would be optimal.
Originally by: LaVista Vista 1. The EVE client is largely single-threaded due to the python-based UI.
...aka a real multicore capable client. Additionally, Python isn't single threaded.
Originally by: LaVista Vista 2. The UI relies on the server(The server calls are blocking), and there's an inherent delay when talking to the server.
From a client side perspective, this is the same as point #1. Synchronous calls (aka blocking) over network IO is horrible for any client side functionality. This is behaviorally an intermittent hanging or frozen client. Any decent modern network programmer uses asynchronous calls (non-blocking or "get back to me when you have the data") which frees the process/worker thread to do other things. (note: CCP generally uses Async calls) Network latency is a different issue and not the same thing as a Sync/Async call.
While it could be analogized as a telnet client to a telnet server, the description falls short in even describing the predicative features of the EVE client (or any modern MMO client).
If you want to talk about improving Network IO, database transaction, and server performance then CCP will have to pay for that. ;)
Originally by: LaVista Vista EVE is not a data-intensive client. The server is, sure. Hence why it's running under 64 bits now. But the client has no need for a 64bit overhaul at this point. The performance improvement is likely to be minimal if at all existant.
So how many years ago is this thinking?
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:12:00 -
[71]
Quote: If you wish to discuss just the addressing space features, then the primary consideration is caching -- (1)Texture/Models and (2)Client-side data. (1) could easily go above 4Gb. (2) just pushes it over the top. This is not to be confused with the current cache sizes set with in the client, but rather what would be optimal.
If CCP thought it beneficial to cache more things(Which can be changed by the user as it is now, by the way) and needed the extra address space, I'm sure they would do it. At this point in time, there's no sign that it is going to happen any time soon.
Quote: ...aka a real multicore capable client. Additionally, Python isn't single threaded.
Python in itself supports threading, sure. But CCP uses stackless python and micro-threads, which isn't real threadning.
Quote: From a client side perspective, this is the same as point #1. Synchronous calls (aka blocking) over network IO is horrible for any client side functionality. This is behaviorally an intermittent hanging or frozen client. Any decent modern network programmer uses asynchronous calls (non-blocking or "get back to me when you have the data") which frees the process/worker thread to do other things. (note: CCP generally uses Async calls) Network latency is a different issue and not the same thing as a Sync/Async call
Yet CCP doesn't use async calls. Have you every tried opening the alliance list? Your character sheet? Maybe your wallet? In all cases you can see blocking calls.
Try and go to the market, go to Search and type in 'a' and search. Now tell me that it's not blocking.
And yes, network latency is highly relevant when discussing async/sync calls. If the delay inherent to network calls wasn't so high, it would virtually not matter if the call was async or sync. Of course, that's not universally true, but the point is extremely important to make.
Quote: While it could be analogized as a telnet client to a telnet server, the description falls short in even describing the predicative features of the EVE client (or any modern MMO client).
Just because EVE is a telnet client(Which it really is, try and use a telnet client and put in TQ's IP) doesn't mean that it's not smart about things. The simulation code that runs on TQ is the same that takes place in your client. Both client and server runs the simulation at all time and sync up on a regular basis(Which can be forced by the client if it finds itself in an invalid state).
Quote: So how many years ago is this thinking?
I'm not saying tat CCP shouldn't work on getting the client in a position where they can make the move to offer a 64bit client. But it relies on having to get 64bit version of all middleware, working their configuration(build) system to also handle a 64bit version and do specific testing for the 64bit client. That's ignoring the fact the have to support patches from version to version for both 32bit and 64bit clients. That's a lot of patches they need to put together and manage.
I'm just saying that it's a very large cost that CCP will have to absorb for very little benefit overall. They will have to do it eventually, but I don't think that the time is right yet.
But if you know how to solve the problem, then I happen to know that CCP is hiring. You should apply and give us all a 64bit client.
|
Lateris
Gallente Dark Star Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:07:00 -
[72]
At some point I see Eve evolving onto planets after Incarna with ships and avatars and I am not referencing Dust 514 for this natural evolution of Eve on our side of technology. The sandpit must grow in the next 5 years! So my question is due to my lack of knowledge of Microsofts DX.
Question: What is the advantage of going past DX 9 for the future of Eve? Is Eve really using DX 9 to its fullest capability? When adding a new DX version to a game does that mean all the art assets have to be redone?
|
Halycon Gamma
Caldari The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 02:20:00 -
[73]
Sigh, some shiny new thing comes out, and everyone wants to know when they'll upgrade to it. It doesn't make sense. Yes you can access more ram, and yes SOME processes are faster on a 64bit platform than a 32bit platform. Eve isn't either of those.
A tool should do its job, and no more. The more bells whistles and addons you give it, the worse it is at its original intended purpose. Eve Client may not be cutting edge in terms of a 64 bit codebase, but it does what its supposed to. Will adding a 64bit version improve the experience for anyone? Nope. So why add features that don't directly improve its original intended purpose? Instead deal with what you have.
Another 3-4-5-6 years down the line, chances are we'll get Trinity2.0 or whatever they wanna call it. With a completely revamped graphics system all over again. At that point in time, when doing a massive overhaul of everything on the consumer end.. it makes sense to explore the idea of introducing a 64bit version, or DX13, or what have you.
But, just because. The most interesting thing introduced in the last few years, to me, that could be added to Eve is real physics simulation through CUDA/OpenCL/DirectCompute. I'm much more excited about seeing non static pew pew animations, than I am in seeing prettier static pew pew animations.
|
Irongut
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 02:44:00 -
[74]
DX10 is so last year, my DirectX goes up to 11!
--
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 02:53:00 -
[75]
This definately needed to be resurrected.
Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work. |
Jonny Lumi
Gallente Blend.
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 03:05:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Jonny Lumi on 17/11/2009 03:05:23
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
*snip*
DX9 is a pile of crap, and I would love to see them dump it.
*snip*
Pile of crap? Saying this as DX programmer, I disagree. It might be old, but people still do pretty nice things with it.
Anyway, we should also try to remember that EVE is not a 3D photorealistic FP game (at least not yet). What advantage would we get from seeing overly detailed, tesselated, etc. ships? The most you see is brackets and small polygons anyway. I bought DX10 card for 120e (new), and client runs ~240fps outside station (test-run with vsync off), so why on earth would we need any "speed-boost from DX10/11"?? Even if they double polycounts and texture sizes, it wouldn't make much difference, since 60fps is all you need for fully smooth graphics anyway.
Was just thinking about the fact that whatever DX10 card you have, it is fast enough with DX9.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |