| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raem Civrie
   |
Posted - 2006.04.23 19:55:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Raem Civrie
"real-time ambient maps"
OH GOD YES FINALLY.
Perfectly possible without DX10. And in all honesty, not really worth it. There are far lower-cost ways to achieve the same or better visual results.
Maya. I don't care WHAT they do to achieve the effect. It just looked sweet, and I want it in more games.
|
babyblue
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 19:57:00 -
[32]
Edited by: babyblue on 23/04/2006 19:57:55
Originally by: j0sephine
"I checked the link. Don't make assumptions. Walk up to a steep parallax map, bump map, normal map, or any other kind of planar map and move from side to side and tell me you can see solid 3d geometry. Now do the same with a true displacement map. If you can't see the difference, then the technique is probably wasted on you."
I made this assumption because if you managed to completely overlook screenshots and videos on that page which demonstrate the very effect you talk about (visible change to silhouette of polygon instead of it appearing flat) ... then clearly you didn't check it close enough. Which isn't surprising when you replied in under 5 mins to my original post.
There is simply no difference here to see, that you speak of. (ok difference would be per-pixel displacement is probably far more accurate that extra polygons added by shader, but doubt this is the kind of difference you'd want me to point out, since it's not in favour of dx10 approach)
These mapping techniques are known as fake displacement maps. Good luck integrating them with more advanced techniques, such a morphing, blending, advanced lighting etc. It won't work. True displacement maps leave the geometry available for further shading. They are much simpler to implement in an engine.
Your agenda here is to basically rubbish DX 10, rather than objectively asses the various techniques available.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 20:12:00 -
[33]
"Your agenda here is to basically rubbish DX 10, rather than objectively asses the various techniques available."
My "agenda" if you can call it that was to correct the info posted by people in this thread. First in regard to presented 'dx10' footage, and then to your take on the displacement mapping.
If correcting the hype-induced simplifications by pointing out alternatives is "rubbishing" dx10 somehow... well, it's not my problem and i don't really share your view in this matter, either.
|
Virida
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 21:08:00 -
[34]
Noone do absolutely NEED DirectX10 to acheive those functions, only an graphics card capable of doing it.
An example: lets assume Playstation3 gets an gpu capable of competing with the new DX10. Then opengl is used. no problems. But also, on pc, the vista can be making that approach obsolete. What ive seen, of MS web documentation, sugest DX10 makes OpenGL lesser useable, so DX is monopolicing the GPU to the degree its not possible to use opengl to acheive DX10 competing effects.
|
Fortior
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 21:20:00 -
[35]
All ya'll sure are usin' long 'n fancy werds! I ain't too hawt on that there tek-nio-logi-kal werds. My head done started spinnin' when I hurd mah grammommophone say all them werds ya'll be typin'.
Sig removed, image size 71,770 bytes (maximum is 24,000). Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -wystler |
babyblue
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 21:40:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Virida
Noone do absolutely NEED DirectX10 to acheive those functions, only an graphics card capable of doing it.
An example: lets assume Playstation3 gets an gpu capable of competing with the new DX10. Then opengl is used. no problems. But also, on pc, the vista can be making that approach obsolete. What ive seen, of MS web documentation, sugest DX10 makes OpenGL lesser useable, so DX is monopolicing the GPU to the degree its not possible to use opengl to acheive DX10 competing effects.
No that isn't true at all. Microsoft just used DX for the Aeroglass effects on the desktop. Now obviously it's complicated to let GL create and use surfaces when DX has the screen, if you see what I mean. However, they have recently enabled OpenGL in Aeroglass, so it is no longer an issue.
|
Kahani Lyn
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 21:44:00 -
[37]
CRYTEK's engine for Far-Cry was pretty damn good running DX9 with no software layering, although the player models could have been done a little bit better.
See if you can find some Far-Cry clips, it's a damn good engine.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 22:31:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: keepiru
Considering there's quite a few very recent games that dont even use SM3.0 (oblivion, for example) im not holding my breath quite yet.
Oblivion uses parallax mapping and HDR - both of them are sm3.0 functions.
Yes, HL2 has a 2.0 HDR version, but that doesn't mean Oblivion uses the same kind of HDR. Far Cry and Oblivion both use a sm3.0 version - for that matter, Far Cry got displacement maps a while ago aswell.
Yes, but for some odd reason Oblivion uses SM2.0 shaders even if you have a SM3.0 compatible card - change the switch "Allow30Shaders" in the ini from 0 to 1 and see the differenc... oh wait. A little disappointing, tbh. Guess there wasnt enough develoment time... hopefully itll get enabled in a later patch.
I expect the situation will be the same for DX10 cards... early games might use a couple of features, but apart from no-compromise engines like the crytek one, the time needed to make an engine that works in SM2 and 3 as well will mean that most functions wont get a SM4 version as well until DX10 cards become mainstream.
That is, imo. I could be wrong, its happened before, but with the rising price of game development it amkes ever less sense to develop redundant code for every single part of your effects engine, when just using an MS3 enging with a few SM4 bells and whistles works nearly as well and cuts on costs considerably, unless youre into it for the really long term like CCP. For most games it just doesent make sense to make the entire engine purdy for that 1% of the users who are nutters like me and buy X1900XTXs and equivalents, you just give them some really visible eye-candy and leave the rest of it backwards-compatible.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Erik Pathfinder
|
Posted - 2006.04.24 07:49:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Fortior
All ya'll sure are usin' long 'n fancy werds! I ain't too hawt on that there tek-nio-logi-kal werds. My head done started spinnin' when I hurd mah grammommophone say all them werds ya'll be typin'.
Thread winner!
---------------
|
Kel Shek
|
Posted - 2006.04.24 07:58:00 -
[40]
in a couple years when hardware and software that can run that sorta graphics on the fly are standard, it'll sure be nice!
~~~~~
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
~~William Blake |
Ja'kar
|
Posted - 2006.04.24 11:26:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Ja''kar on 24/04/2006 11:26:48
Ow dear god u lot r giving me a headache û all us poor souls who do not understand ur tech talk need to know is ôthe new stuff does it make my graphics better û so much better that I can log on and see the difference - like the wow factorö
|
babyblue
|
Posted - 2006.04.24 12:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Ja'kar
Edited by: Ja''kar on 24/04/2006 11:26:48
Ow dear god u lot r giving me a headache û all us poor souls who do not understand ur tech talk need to know is ôthe new stuff does it make my graphics better û so much better that I can log on and see the difference - like the wow factorö
Most definately yes but, alas, the technical discussion is neccessary because DX 10 will improve life for developers more than make a huge difference in itself to quality. But as you may know, making life easier for developers enables them to concentrate on important things like Gameplay, Stability and Special Effects  .
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |