This has been discussed in length and confirmed as an incorrect assumption by the developers on multiple occasions.
See here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5902
DirectX 12 support, any news?
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
This has been discussed in length and confirmed as an incorrect assumption by the developers on multiple occasions.
See here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5902
Yeah, because it's too much work for Microsoft to back port it to Windows 7/8/8.1.
Gaming is actually a huge industry and pretty much every gamer worth their salt that uses Windows knows what DirectX is. Of course it's a marketing scheme; "don't be ridiculous." Honestly, it's difficult for me to tell if you really think it isn't, or if you're just being a troll; that's how blatant of a marketing scheme it is.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2690...ith-supercharged-directx-12-graphics-api.html
Last edited:
I'm excited for it as well. Seeing that initial tech demo with the endless city made me drool at the possibilities.
Always? I think not. Most will even falsely apply a sticker to their box promoting the compatibility with a feature or OS that they can't even guarantee, just so they can capitalize off it.
Plus I believe 64bit has been around for about a decade. PC games devs have been developing for it for about a decade. What's FDs excuse.
Also, DX for PC gaming if just now making a little come back because MS supposedly will support DX12 on the XBone. Every DX is better than the previous, but when all devs are making games for the consoles and only apply a few half-baked, half-working features so they can slap a DX sticker on it for their console port to the PC....it is nothing more than a marketing tactic.
Last edited:
If the game is fine in 32bit, why is there so much instancing? Why not map systems in their entirety? Why have a fancy transit animation masking a loading screen whenever you engage or disengage the FSD?
As has been explained ad infinitum. Bandwidth. The "not really a loading screen but a login screen" is to mask instance negotiations between hosts, and are limited in size/numbers because your average consumer net connection can't support the bandwidth required to accurately represent location and vectors of large numbers ships, munitions, objects and so on scoot about your screen.
Just because an entire system could fit on one map doesn't mean instancing shouldn't be used for performance reasons. We have this kind of instancing already. If there are too many players in a location, new arrivals will appear in a new instance of that same location. The same would of course still happen if an entire system fitted on a single map, it would simply instance the system in its entirety instead of a small part of that system.
Last edited:
And that would mean far less interactions between players...
The gameworld itself isn't instanced, only the "entities" (players/NPCs) within it as a layer on top of the gameworld.
+64 bit removes the memory limit adding to more possabilities
about 2K graphics.. depends on your GPU and Vram , your game still crashes on a 64 bit game with an GPU less as 1 GB Vram
Also someone said MAC is 64 bits game.. why does mac play 64 bits and windows not.. doesnt make sense
Also few people still use 32 bits.. it's ancient .. elite on windows xp.. ftw , we should have already 128 bits systems if not 256 ..seeing how cards are already 512 bits they're slow and witholding new technology until the day there's no profit to be made anymore and then they come up with something new that already existed 10 years in the first place
Last edited:
Yesterday I read: "ARK : Survival Evolved, proves that it is complicated to carry a game in DX12. For now the project is abandoned. Many people are surprised at the absence of DX12 titles, while Windows 10 arrived, worries met by Studio Wildcard are probably those that meet other developers, and it therefore seems that a DX12 game is not just a writing the same DX11 game, and that it is necessary write and encode much more" ---- Elite Dangerous for DX12 is not for tomorrow ...
Last edited:
Too be honest 64bit would be nice but its not required, if you want to see it done right look at Freelancer from 2000. All this waffle about we need this we need that isnt gonna get FDEV to add it.
Personally I would refine all the networking and make it as good as it can be so the plauer limits can be increased.
Personally I would refine all the networking and make it as good as it can be so the plauer limits can be increased.
It is an article in French, you want ?
As far as I know, in 32bit applications, memory usage can go up to a maximum of 3.1gb. That includes VRAM. 64bit apps makes it possible to use RAM as high as physically (im)possible. Using ultra high resolution textures will benefit high end system users, making Elite's graphics stand out a little. But that's just my opinion.
Can we really interact with someone who's on the other side of the system? Do clients who are so far away from one another still need to exchange every single bit of data with each other? Would it not suffice to share the full set of data only among just those players who are, say, in a 3ls radius around one another, and share just positional data, and a bit less frequently on top of that, with players who are further away and go back to more frequent updating when targeted / in view / in range?
@Severian is quite right, I just think that these "instance negotiations" could be handled way better during the time it takes a new player to jump to a new system. During these 30 seconds the netcode has plenty of time to find a "cloud" (I think that's the term FD are using) for the new player that matches his network characteristics and that still has some room, to hand to his client the positional data of everyone already in this cloud and to update everyone already in said cloud to this new player's positional data. As this would work independently of the map size, we could at the same time have a map that fits the entire system. I think it would be pretty cool to see other players slow down their FSD and eventually drop out of it while I wait around a station.
We get it, MicroSoft bit you when you were a baby so you hate them with a passion and Windows 10 is the final sign of the end times, enough already. Vulkan is all well and good but it's not actually supported by the OS most people have on their computers. DirectX is the API used most commonly by game developers for a reason, regardless of whether you like it or not. 'Nix lost this battle over a decade ago due to not being willing to cater to the customer base, open source stuff is great, I wish it actually would take off and get MS out of the market, but until open source caters to the idiots who buy computers and phones and tablets, it ain't happening. Remember, the average 'Nix manual is a few thousand pages, while the average Windows manual is a few mouse clicks...people are on average rather stupid and lazy, computing that requires thought and ability doesn't sell. Bill Gates is a great man, but I for one kind of wish his parents had been pro-birth control, ya know?
Devs are already in the process of upgrading to DX12 or using it as their basis for new games, fact. It seriously increases performance without increasing overhead, fact. It took 2 devs 6 weeks to convert Age of Wushu to DX12, fact. It's only complicated and a pain for those devs who insist upon keeping DX9 support, if you aren't concerned with that(and no game released in the past 2 years should be!), it's not an issue and it's not all that difficult, see Age of Wushu conversion, but again, loss of DX9 support results in upgrading to support DX12, and again, nothing released within the last 2 years should have a problem with that loss.
Horizons for example, no DX9 support, you must have DX11, FD have said this, so upgrading to DX12 wouldn't be an issue, and the performance increases while dropping the overhead would benefit everyone, even those who are still only using DX11, due to the optimizations done when upgrading to 12(Chris Roberts talks about this in an interview recently, CIG is upgrading SC to DX12). This is also why Mac users won't get Horizons, the OS doesn't support DX11. Personally, I'd be surprised if FD isn't actually looking to go DX12 after the release of Horizons, they are already moving to a pure DX11 state, may as well go DX12 and get the performance boosts while cutting the overhead. And CIG is doing it for SC, that'll definitely put a bee in someone's bonnet at FD.
This is true, Wildcard has indeed put the DX12 update on hold because they can't get it working right. It would probably help of they used an engine capable of working with DX12, which the UE4 isn't one of currently. When you use someone else's engine, you'd either better be able to refactor that baby as you need to make it do what you want OR you're stuck waiting for the creators of that engine to do the work for you, which is the situation Wildcard finds themselves in.
CIG is updating SC to DX12, CryTek did that upgrade to their engine last year, so the engine already supports it natively sorta, it's still a single thread for the graphics, while DX12 is best with multithreading, so CIG is doing some of their magic on the CryEngine to make it work better than CryTek did(something they keep doing well I might add, rather impressed with that).
But you don't get it. I don't have a problem with Microsoft nor DirectX 12, I just won't be using Windows 10, which means I and many other gamers won't be using DirectX 12. Because of this, it's better for everyone except Microsoft if developers focus on utilizing Vulkan instead. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.
I'm happy using Windows 7. It isn't my fault that Microsoft wants to push a new OS on me that I don't need nor want. Volkan looks to be the solution going forward. DirectX 12 could have been a solution, but Microsoft isn't interested in solutions. That's the difference.
Last edited: