I'm in favour but I'd like to know the opportunity cost. What would that team be doing if not working on tesselation....

Any chance of getting this released as a stand alone tech demo that we can all have a look at?
Would be interesting to see how my PC copes with such sexyness.

Please? :3

I'm in favour but I'd like to know the opportunity cost. What would that team be doing if not working on tesselation....

Any chance of getting this released as a stand alone tech demo that we can all have a look at?
Would be interesting to see how my PC copes with such sexyness.

Please? :3

Any chance of getting this released as a stand alone tech demo that we can all have a look at?
Would be interesting to see how my PC copes with such sexyness.

Please? :3

It has been discussed for sure but there is no solid commitment at this stage.

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 cool stuff, and as I see it, will be inevitable at some point down the line to keep the game looking amazing. How soon this should be is a different matter. I don't see this being something that the art team has to do, but something for the programmers. So what will be put on hold to code and implement this ?

They said it would take ( IIRC) about 1 man year to finish this, so I figure it'll have to be a prominent part of a expansion. If this is the case then I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.

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.

Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not.

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.

I'm in favour but I'd like to know the opportunity cost. What would that team be doing if not working on tesselation....

i5-2500K OC to 4.4GHz with Gigabyte GTX580 OC, runs with a 550W power supply without any problem, you only need to pickup a good power supply like: Enermax, SeaSonic, Super Flower, Corsair AX series, Kingwin.

in addition new generation video-card, at least from nVidia with series GTX6xx, needs less current than old, new nVidia GTX680 card also drains less energy than new AMD card HD7970... i don't know why people think to need 800W / 900W power supply to plug a nVidia card, it's not so... you need an 800W Power Supply only if you buy a Chinese 19$ power supply.

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.

I'm in favour but I'd like to know the opportunity cost. What would that team be doing if not working on tesselation....

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?

DirectX 11 looks awesome.
Would it be difficult or practical to add other options for AA effects

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.

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.

They said 5 man years, so a team would take 1 year to finish it.

Tesselation runs on all DX11 cards, nvidia or not.

What happens to us who's OS uses OpenGL?

What about supporting Multithreaded rendering which is part of DirectX 11?

Any update on when we will see TXAA support coming? Apparently CCP has "chosen to implement TXAA" for Eve Online Source

I'm i the only one who read the dev blog with Halldors voice?

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?

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.

JUST DO IT.

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.

Not my fault for AMD not adhering to standards set out by entirely other people (cough Microsoft)

I'll be sure to pass this on to him.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

OpenGL supports tesselation, and PhysX is available for Mac OS X and Linux.

The real questions are: For tesselation, when will Cider update their DX -> OpenGL translation layer (or have they already)? And what will people running AMD cards on any platform get in place of PhysX?

EDIT: I should clarify, tesselation is an old and necessary step pioneered by SGI (inventors of what became OpenGL) in order to turn everything into triangles for easy processing. I'm not sure if what they're calling "tesselation" here is precisely what OpenGL calls tesselation.

I would be disappointed if a physics implementation was limited to only one GPU manufacturer, although CCP has failed to address this point.

As for the other stuff, yes please. Shield impacts and damage skins are something I've been waiting for since 2008.

It has been discussed for sure but there is no solid commitment at this stage.

As far as I understand the tesselation in this scope is different from that is supported in OpenGL - the latter just provides a method to breakdown the geometry from polygons (mainly concave) into normal triangles that are always convex. The tesselation here is more like the one in 3dsmax where the model is just made smoother by subdividing the mech parts into more and more triangles.

Given this I don't see any apparent increase in the value of assets - apart from some curvy ships where these curves will be smoother, better interpolated. Rectangular designs (most caldari ships) won't win much, I suppose.

This really seems like applying a pretty filter on a photo via Photoshop, assets-wise. And so much pain to implement it? I don't see the reason why everyone is so agitated about this. "Oh, subdivided and smoothed geometry, we want it!". It's like upscaling a raster image - you won't gain new detailed geometry, but just a rough emulation of it.

Apart from that, I run EVE on Debian through Wine and won't really be able to take advantage of the tech in the middle-to-long-term run. But that's another story and is really my own problem.

the other effects in that keynote, the ships shields blocking incoming lasers, titans breaking in half and having better looking fire, better looking damage etc etc, is that possible without Tess?

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!

I vote no until you can't think of anything else whatsoever that requires those production resources. There is still too much gameplay to be improved or implemented before worrying about shinier ships; they're already very attractive.

Some things that come first off the top of my head:
Starbases.
Ship Redesigning.
FW Conquest.
Sov and infrastructure.
New ships and variants (textures and models).
Effects.

The list is unending.
But, I would be ok if those sexy damage effects were produced instead.

DirectX 11 support would be great.

What about supporting Multithreaded rendering which is part of DirectX 11?

hmm ... I am more for an OpenGL layer than adopting DX11 ... but that's because it would remove quite a lot of problems for me (linux/wine here).

"Do it!"

No more words needed here ;)

Not going to happen.

CCP has a DirectX culture, and it is a rare studio that can transition from one to the other given how religious of an issue DirextX vs OpenGL can be. People generally do not like training from one to the other since they are such different beats and toolchain.. not to mention because of the push over the years there is such a glut of DirectX programmers on the market it doesn't make much business sense to go with a tech that has fewer hires available. All the diploma mill game schools churn out DirectX developers at this point, with OpenGL ones coming from a different type of program.

Plus, schools have forgotten how to teach OOP in C, which hurts OpenGL since people look at the C code and go 'oh noes, not C! C is not OOP and that is the one twue way now! The design patterns look wrongz!'

Getting stuck on an acceleration gate when I can visually see there is no obstruction is annoying, but understandable. An improvement on this scale would be, quite frankly, beyond awesome at this point.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but has CCP Solomon just indicated that CCP plans to drop support for OSX and Linux users?

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.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1016223#post1016223

or am I missing something?

Maybe I am reading this wrong but has CCP Solomon just indicated that CCP plans to drop support for OSX and Linux users?

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.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1016223#post1016223

or am I missing something?

I do not expect it to happen, but one can dream :-)

The demo was made using a latest gen but mid range gfx card. By the time the feature makes it into the game most NEW cards should be able to handle tessellation just fine.

Back to talking about this reasonably, we need to assess the pros and cons of this kind of change/proposal

Cons
-it will probably place a higher workload on the player's computer - although in the presentation, they showed it being used with an average GPU, I would have to think that even still, having to render all objects in space with such fine detail and geometry will cause more lag than we experience no
-what is the opportunity cost of developing this, if they decide to commit one year's worth of work to this (as they said), what could we have gotten instead (i.e. iteration on nullsec sovereignty, changing missionioning structure/style, customizing ship skins? etc.) - then again, a change like this won't take away from changes to game features since CCP has different teams for different probjects (so this would only take away from other graphically-oriented projects perhaps?

Pros:
-Having real physics in the game increases immersion and generally that's associated with higher satisfaction with the gam
-Could this end the dominance of blobs in nullsec (both Titan and subcap)? If I understand it correctly, they're going to make every object in EVE "real" with physical properties, well, would that then mean that Titans can no longer be compacted into tiny spaces? What about subcap blobs? Also, does this mean friendly fire would come into the equation, i.e. an Abaddon in the center firing lasers outward, hitting a friendly Maelstrom on the edge (in which case, fighting in dense blobs FINALLY has a disadvantage!

Some things to consider, I'm sure there are more points that can be brought up. But if we can use this to make all warfare in EVE more tactically engaging (i.e. by actually bringing a counterpoint to having blobs), then I definitely think that is good for the game and worth a year's time of development.

plz give us tessalation and dx11


got an Nvidia card because they sponsor Fanfest,

so make it work for its money with tessallation

Revenant is like a 500EUR bill. Everyone hears about it but almost no one has one. I think CCP should reconsider the difficultness of getting that ship.

DX 11 Tesselation in eve online ? HELL YEA !! now i can finnaly heat up my radeon 6970 and let him do his job