Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tristan North
I.Net Academy
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[61] - Quote
Please, do it for christmas 2012.
Really. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3563
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:27:00 -
[62] - Quote
Ashlynn Tanaka wrote:Jack bubu wrote:darmwand wrote:Just curious: is it safe to assume that this is a DirectX feature and not limited to nVidia cards?
Edit: also, looks very promising, I'm looking forward to watching my nicely redone Ishkur in even more detail! Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not. The problem I have with this demo and any other PhysX-enabled game is that it really leaves a lot of AMD video card users out of this experience. It's why I don't like that "The way it's meant to be played" logo on games because it makes me think that the game will be PURPOSELY gimped for non-Nvidia users. There are ways to enable PhysX via software which is slow depending on how good your CPU is (and considering that a portion of it is still using older x87 instruction set) or hacking drivers to get an Nvidia video card to run alongside an AMD video card. The latter method is necessary because Nvidia purposely blocked driver installation some years ago if an AMD/ATI video card was detected. In my situation, I would need to get a good mid-range Nvidia card to run alongside my Radeon 6950 and a 600 to 750 W power supply. And, I really do not want to resort to that. I don't want to resort to buying a new video card either. I don't expect to get a new video card for another 6 months at least. If CCP does implement this within 5 years or so, I implore you not to leave us AMD video card users out of the PhysX or real time physics goodness of the new graphics engine. I would like to see an OpenCL implementation of this or even something that can be used on an AMD GPU without having AMD users, like myself, resort to less-than-ideal methods to get physics-based effects.
Not my fault for AMD not adhering to standards set out by entirely other people (cough Microsoft)
|
Destrim
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
The most enticing thing about this, to me, was the mention of actual geometry collisions. That is, instead of things running into an invisible "bounding box" (or sphere), we can have actual collisions with the actual skin of our ships and stations.
Three major implications come to mind:
- Collisions can now be modeled realistically, which includes the damage or effect it may have on your shields, armor, or hull.
- Ramming may become a plausible mechanic.
- Fixing station undocks, and dancing ships in general (wonky collisions).
- Flying through asteroid belts with a frigate using a joystick becomes a real option. Dogfights, races, new strategies... in general, a whole new layer to the game. This would be particularly exciting if coupled with the ring mining which was also mentioned... for example, perhaps use frigates to tow asteroids out of the depths of the belts (where it is too dangerous/inaccessible to the primary mining barges), and within reach of the mining fleet?
Of course, I would love the enormous graphical upgrade all by itself, even without what it may or may not do for geometry dynamics within the game, but still... |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:52:00 -
[64] - Quote
DirectX11 tesselation is badass and definitely important to keeping EVE interesting and fun.
When you play other games for a bit and then come back to your MMO it's impossible not to make a comparison every time. I've quit playing several other MMOs because the graphics became so outdated I couldn't stand to continue. Seeing the quality in games like BF3 and Batman: Arkham City makes looking at many older games unbearable.
EVE looks great and recent improvements like engine trails and ship makeovers have been awesome. DX11 is the next logical step,. Please ensure EVE continues to keep up with the beauty we expect! |
|
CCP Solomon
C C P C C P Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:02:00 -
[65] - Quote
Thanks again for the great feedback and it makes me happy to see that for the most part, people are interested in DirectX 11. Here goes for some more detailed answers, I think I've got you all:
Pattern Clarc wrote:I'm in favour but I'd like to know the opportunity cost. What would that team be doing if not working on tesselation.... There are two components to this. The engine team responsible for adding DirectX 11 support, including the new domain and hull shader portions of the DirectX 11 pipeline that are required for tessellation do not work directly on player facing graphical enhancements. Adding this support to the engine is the lion's share of the work and is better handled by few specialists, rather than throwing all of the graphics programmers we have at it to get it done quicker.
Secondly, once the engine can support DirectX 11 features, then the EVE space art teams are able to start utilising the features of DirectX 11 during new feature development. Whether the engine is ready in time for Ring Mining or perhaps the PoS upgrade, I cannot say at this time. Potentially yes, it could slow feature development time but it's difficult to say by how much at this early stage.
Bayushi Tamago wrote:I'm also rather concerned my computer will not be up to the task of that level of detail. Will the introduction of dx11/tesselation cause the culling of a lot of players without high end computers, or shall it be an optional graphics update? This is a totally valid concern. As others have mentioned in this thread, the richer graphical content and features of DirectX 11 will be configurable via the graphics settings, if your card cannot support the features there will always be a fallback option.
There is always the risk that the minimum spec machine is updated and your hardware falls below the barrier of what we can reasonably support. The current minimum spec card is now 7 years old, which is a fair notice period.
Rikki Sals wrote:DirectX 11 looks awesome. Would it be difficult or practical to add other options for AA effects It's quite possible, although there is nothing currently on our roadmap.
Valeo Galaem wrote: Tessellation would be an optional feature the same way that you can toggle shadows on and off. The update itself would be rather small as all its changing is code in the graphics engine - tessellation is able to produce the higher quality graphics by using the already existing art assets.
Higher resolution textures are typically required to take full advantage of tessellation, so there is potential for an increase in client size as more assets become tessellated. Tessellating a well built piece of geometry is a relatively trivial task but adding support for it in the engine along with the other pieces required for DirectX 11 is the time consuming part.
Svennig wrote:For example, if it was a choice of tessilation or the new UI that we saw some mockups of, then it's the UI hands down. Typically speaking, UI programmers and graphics programmers are not cross-functional. Unless you get your hands on CCP Snorlax, he is quite capable of both but ironically is working on client performance at this moment.
Associate Technical Producer - Foundation Technology |
|
|
CCP Solomon
C C P C C P Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:03:00 -
[66] - Quote
The Wordinater wrote: They said 5 man years, so a team would take 1 year to finish it.
Indeed, don't expect to see the fruits of this project until at least the end of the year, and that's with a large cone of uncertainty.
Jack bubu wrote: Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not.
This.
Vincent Athena wrote:What happens to us who's OS uses OpenGL? The Trinity rendering abstraction work we are undertaking at the moment will essentially make the engine API agnostic (DX11 is a rendering API). Theoretically this means we could build Trinity up to support both Direct X and OpenGL. This is a massive, theoretical could, there are no plans to support OpenGL for the next year or beyond.
Tom Bodett wrote: What about supporting Multithreaded rendering which is part of DirectX 11?
I think it's too early to say with multi-threaded rendering, there is some evidence to suggest that the gains aren't worth the investment with the current generation of hardware. Trinity doesn't currently support it and it's possible to go to DX11 without it.
Kor'el Izia wrote:Any update on when we will see TXAA support coming? Apparently CCP has "chosen to implement TXAA" for Eve Online Source We can't give a solid date on TXAA support at this point.
Associate Technical Producer - Foundation Technology |
|
zcar300
SERCO Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:04:00 -
[67] - Quote
More triangles!! Do it!
But seriously, I'd spend money I don't have to build a new PC if you implemented this... |
|
CCP Solomon
C C P C C P Alliance
135
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Kopfy wrote:I'm i the only one who read the dev blog with Halldors voice?
I'll be sure to pass this on to him.
Nerevar Dwemor wrote:Please release the standalone demo for us to check out. Looks pretty when you're zoomed in. Would love to see my Hyperion with such an ammount of detail. Btw, does the quality also improve with tesselation when you're not zoomed in that close?
Unfortunately, adding more ship models into the stand alone demo would be a considerable time sink, it would be difficult to justify the value, sorry
The rate of tessellation and viewing distance are entirely configurable by the graphics programmer. Associate Technical Producer - Foundation Technology |
|
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
223
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:13:00 -
[69] - Quote
JUST DO IT. |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:28:00 -
[70] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:This looks awesome.Please do it. However, I'd like to see higher resolution textures to make the best of it. Close up the current textures look blocky. QFE.
Even in the mentioned demo, you can still count the pixels on the ship texture. It looks bad. Please fix that first! |
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
428
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:36:00 -
[71] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:JUST DO IT. This! Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Valeo Galaem
New Eden Advanced Reconnaissance Unit Sentient World Observation and Response Directive
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:39:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Solomon wrote:Valeo Galaem wrote: Tessellation would be an optional feature the same way that you can toggle shadows on and off. The update itself would be rather small as all its changing is code in the graphics engine - tessellation is able to produce the higher quality graphics by using the already existing art assets.
Higher resolution textures are typically required to take full advantage of tessellation, so there is potential for an increase in client size as more assets become tessellated. Tessellating a well built piece of geometry is a relatively trivial task but adding support for it in the engine along with the other pieces required for DirectX 11 is the time consuming part.
I was only referring to the file size of the update, as it seemed at least some people were wondering if the download would grow by an order of magnitude. I have no doubt modifying the graphics engine to support DX11 would be a large task.
|
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:51:00 -
[73] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Ashlynn Tanaka wrote:Jack bubu wrote:darmwand wrote:Just curious: is it safe to assume that this is a DirectX feature and not limited to nVidia cards?
Edit: also, looks very promising, I'm looking forward to watching my nicely redone Ishkur in even more detail! Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not. stuff. Not my fault for AMD not adhering to standards set out by entirely other people (cough Microsoft)
Sadly this point (AMD not adhering to standards)is grossly incorrect. Physx is proprietary and owned by nVidia. They could make it so that AMD cards could use it as well but they have closed the door on that. They do NOT want Physx (I know it's spelled wrong but whatever) to run on any hardware but their own. Their theory is that this will force people to buy their hardware.
Since they can shmooze game developers into doing this, it would force people who want Physx to buy their video cards. Not a bad business model from their point of view, it's smart and aggressive. I just don't like being pushed into only one buying option. I would like to choose my hardware based on the standards I feel are most important, not on the fact that the game I want to play only supports one hardware vendor for certain features.
Consider that they worked it so that sound effects only work if you install a Sound Blaster sound card. No sound effects if you have only onboard audio. Bet that would really cheese off lots of people. This may sound a bit extreme but the comparison and the principle are valid. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:13:00 -
[74] - Quote
The shiny is good, but I think that improving the graphics beyond the current level should wait until we have something to *do* with that improved level of detail.
Giving us more refined methods to interact with the world should definitely come first. |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
Its been asked already I think, but if we said 'no' to this, what would the engineering team do instead?
In the presentation video we were shown asteroids colliding with the supercarrier and breaking up, but this isn't mentioned in the dev blog. Is that a separate feature to this discussion on tesselation, or is tesselation required to implement that?
I think that everything shown in the video was cool, but I'm still not clear on what the alternative is. Keeping the visuals fresh is important, and 'destructible objects' would be sweet but unless there's a gameplay mechanic to go along with the asteroids then its ultimately 'just' more visual polish. Even if it is very sexily applied. ;)
If there isn't an alternative on the table then I'm just going to go 'Yay! Do this!' http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3570
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:37:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Solomon wrote:Kopfy wrote:I'm i the only one who read the dev blog with Halldors voice?
I'll be sure to pass this on to him. Nerevar Dwemor wrote:Please release the standalone demo for us to check out. Looks pretty when you're zoomed in. Would love to see my Hyperion with such an ammount of detail. Btw, does the quality also improve with tesselation when you're not zoomed in that close? Unfortunately, adding more ship models into the stand alone demo would be a considerable time sink, it would be difficult to justify the value, sorry The rate of tessellation and viewing distance are entirely configurable by the graphics programmer.
Can we get a copy of the demo you guys demonstrated so we can see for ourselves for those of us wich already have dx11 cards and wanted to take the technology for a spin or is that nvidia property and not for public consumption.
|
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:54:00 -
[77] - Quote
Supported.
So I can finally use this Nvidia 570m card for Eve soonGäó
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3572
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:56:00 -
[78] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Ashlynn Tanaka wrote:Jack bubu wrote:darmwand wrote:Just curious: is it safe to assume that this is a DirectX feature and not limited to nVidia cards?
Edit: also, looks very promising, I'm looking forward to watching my nicely redone Ishkur in even more detail! Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not. stuff. Not my fault for AMD not adhering to standards set out by entirely other people (cough Microsoft) Sadly this point (AMD not adhering to standards)is grossly incorrect. Physx is proprietary and owned by nVidia. They could make it so that AMD cards could use it as well but they have closed the door on that. They do NOT want Physx (I know it's spelled wrong but whatever) to run on any hardware but their own. Their theory is that this will force people to buy their hardware. Since they can shmooze game developers into doing this, it would force people who want Physx to buy their video cards. Not a bad business model from their point of view, it's smart and aggressive. I just don't like being pushed into only one buying option. I would like to choose my hardware based on the standards I feel are most important, not on the fact that the game I want to play only supports one hardware vendor for certain features. Consider that they worked it so that sound effects only work if you install a Sound Blaster sound card. No sound effects if you have only onboard audio. Bet that would really cheese off lots of people. This may sound a bit extreme but the comparison and the principle are valid.
Well not standardizing is what killed companies in the past or failing to make thier standard the one everyone else uses. Most successful standarizating known? DDR standards, USB.
Not so seccesful ones? Packard Bell boards.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
563
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Solomon wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:What happens to us who's OS uses OpenGL? The Trinity rendering abstraction work we are undertaking at the moment will essentially make the engine API agnostic (DX11 is a rendering API). Theoretically this means we could build Trinity up to support both Direct X and OpenGL. This is a massive, theoretical could, there are no plans to support OpenGL for the next year or beyond. Wait, so once this goes through those of us using OpenGL will no longer be able to play eve? Or just be locked out of the high end graphics? Or it will all work as it does now with the translation layer, but with even lower fps? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:21:00 -
[80] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:lotsa stuff
Well not standardizing is what killed companies in the past or failing to make thier standard the one everyone else uses. Most successful standarizating known? DDR standards, USB.
Not so seccesful ones? Packard Bell boards.
Thank you, this is exactly the point I was going towards. If nVidia did not insist on a non-standard format, I would be all for it. We can only hope they see the light. Or CCP does not decide to pursue proprietary solutions like Physx (dang it doesn't look spelled right but I think it is).
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
|
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
642
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:23:00 -
[81] - Quote
Seriously, it's a nobrainer - just do it!
In fact, if we're talking about resources being spread so thinly that one small team may be focussed on this for at least a year then it seems that staffing priorities are still all over the place. This type of thing should be non-negotiable.
If you were designing EVE now, what would its graphics look like? Why would you choose to make it look 5 years old? What does it need to play on? How scalable to each device should it be? Surely you'd want Open GL in the mix etc. etc.
I like the idea that CCP wants 'buy in' from the playerbase but strap one on FFS. |
Dersen Lowery
Children of Armok
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:25:00 -
[82] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Wait, so once this goes through those of us using OpenGL will no longer be able to play eve? Or just be locked out of the high end graphics?
Since Cider uses a DX -> OpenGL translation layer, my guess is that we're locked out of the high end graphics until somebody comes up with an Extension to OpenGL to support it (the usual way to ship cutting-edge stuff before the main OpenGL standards board gets around to adding it).
|
Omega Tron
Amarr Mining Inc Technical Exploration Conglomerate of Hemera
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:01:00 -
[83] - Quote
First off I would very much like to see my rather large investment in my Nividi -SLI configured graphics cards begin to better utilized by EVE. So please begin supporting DX11.
My suggestion is perhaps you can for the time being have two modules of the EVE Client available -- one based on the DX9 standards and the 2nd based on the DX11 standard.
My personal thinking for when I upgrade my hardware to the new supported standards has always been base on when the gaming providers started to produce their game in that standard. I think most of the EVE players have similar thinking and just need the push to upgrade hardware that comes from you providing the 2nd (better) choice. My view of EVE and I don't-álike it.-á ========================================================= EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Moe2
XYManufacturing
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:33:00 -
[84] - Quote
At this point it seems the question of DX11 isn't if it should be done, but how fast and how should it be handled.
Tesselation is definately the way to go, but at the cost of how many more GB of space on low-end hard drives? The ideas about sharding the client into 2 would solve this, but I think sticking with one client is overall a better option. For example, you could have the new launcher download the larger-res artifacts just for those users that can and want to use the tesselation features. The client then notices that the computer can handle tesselation and has the artifacts available, so it just displays objects in space with a different rendering style.
The big issue I see is the PhysX handling (if it is accepted, remember they talked about implementing DX11, not necessarily PhysX). You can run PhysX without a GPU that supports it, it is just less powerful. Multithreading support is now in PhysX 3.0, so the difference isn't that great between high end GPU and non-GPU systems. However, we should keep in mind that the physics in EVE at the moment runs client and server side. PhysX would either need to be supported and integrated on both ends for all machines, or it would not be allowed to effect any game mechanics (which is a deal-breaker for me, and why run two physics engines at the same time?) I am not sure this will happen within a year timeframe and would need the involvement of not just the art departement, but the core game department as well. It was a really cool tech demo to see asteroids colliding and breaking on the ship though..
So.. DX11 = YES!!! PhysX = I want it, but not at the expense it would likely come with... |
Mike deVoid
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:50:00 -
[85] - Quote
If it delays new POSes due to a graphics bottleneck then no.
Else, yes. |
Tierere
The Corporation of Noble Sentiments Sleeper Social Club
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:51:00 -
[86] - Quote
Looks a vast improvement and more importantly feels better, if there is a commitment to internet spaceships this is one of the next obvious things to do.
i find the current system of bouncing of rocks very crude, it's like flying a ship in a giant rubber thingy, it makes navigation around belts very haphazard, there's nothing worse than bouncing of invisible sphere's when desperately trying to warp.
In addition to looking and feeling better it would be even greater if it interacted with the flying of space ships. Guns should not be able to fire through them, larger ones perhaps that do explosive or kinetic damage could break them and missiles fly around then to hit there target. It'd be excellent to be able to do a Star Wars Hoth asteroid field and hide inside some of the larger ones if you were caught ratting. Some could perhaps interfere with ship scanners so making it difficult to scan or use directional scanner. Taking a big ship into a roid field could cause HP damage to the ship, while small ships fly around them. And i'm sure it be used to make mining more interesting in someway.
This is a definite must and if it starts to make belts and anomalies viable and interesting locations to hang out it could be used to enhance pvp in low sec for example. |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:23:00 -
[87] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Well not standardizing is what killed companies in the past or failing to make thier standard the one everyone else uses. Most successful standarizating known? DDR standards, USB.
Not so seccesful ones? Packard Bell boards.
What came to mind was my dad's AT&T 6300+ (go look it up, it was an interesting challenge to a growing computer geek ).
Anyway, I'm for this atm. Don't remember if my 8800GT handled DX11, but I was looking at new cards anyway and found several replacements that were 3-4x more powerful and 1/2 the cost (average at Microcenter was $70-130, not bad).
Now just need to find one that can support the old Video 'barrel' connector (so I can connect it to a still-working 32" Trinitron).
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
1029
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:54:00 -
[88] - Quote
Bring on the shinies! |
Endeavour Starfleet
764
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:59:00 -
[89] - Quote
I hate to say it but PhysX development is blowing AMD out of the water at the moment. And from what I am hearing is FAR easier to use for development purposes.
And the current situation is nothing compared to what it was like in the 90s. You had different features only available on certain cards and some could only run on that card period. Today is downright easy in comparason.
BTW. DX11 NAO! |
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Solomon, I will be honest - given your replies so far I'm struggling to understand why you are even asking us. Given the success of the trinity upgrade and the relative effort required to do tessellation, this question is a complete no-brainer. These graphics look fantastic.
So, assuming we aren't missing out on something equally shiny or more important, what the hell are you waiting for - get on with it.
WTB : An image in my signature |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |