Advanced DX11 and PHYSX features

[4 IN 1 0]

Of all the technological advancement in computer GFX, we still some how fail to make a proper red dot sight, which makes me wonder will there ever be one.

[noubernou 77]

I guess red dot and holographic sights would be nice for people using trackIR, but its a game, meaning 95% of the time your head goes to exactly where it needs to be for you to aim properly. IRL those sights are best for faster off the carry position shooting because you don't have to align your irons, but in a game thats not really an issue cause its the same animation to the same position every single time.

It'd be nice, but its not a HUGE deal.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I guess red dot and holographic sights would be nice for people using trackIR, but its a game, meaning 95% of the time your head goes to exactly where it needs to be for you to aim properly. IRL those sights are best for faster off the carry position shooting because you don't have to align your irons, but in a game thats not really an issue cause its the same animation to the same position every single time.

It'd be nice, but its not a HUGE deal.

TBH, I'm getting the feeling they're a bit stretched on resources, and I'm sure people would rather see complete systematic overhaul of physics, which is going on at the moment, along with other key features like animations, underwater terrain, combat & interaction.

When people mention gimmicks as a "WANT", instead of vital core features, it makes me so sad. :(

P.S. Are wingsuits going to have tessellated textures for good airflow?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

When people mention gimmicks as a "WANT", instead of vital core features, it makes me so sad. :(

P.S. Are wingsuits going to have tessellated textures for good airflow?

Does PhysX do cloth simulation? ;P

[4 IN 1 0]

I guess red dot and holographic sights would be nice for people using trackIR, but its a game, meaning 95% of the time your head goes to exactly where it needs to be for you to aim properly. IRL those sights are best for faster off the carry position shooting because you don't have to align your irons, but in a game thats not really an issue cause its the same animation to the same position every single time.

It'd be nice, but its not a HUGE deal.

I would have to remind you then, that even without using head tracking, shooting accuracy are still hugely impact by the fact that when you fire your weapon or moving while aiming down on sight, the red dot will just jump everywhere in an extremely non realistic way, making it even less useful then iron sight itself, and further increase the frustration on weapon handling because, well, it just not how that darn thing work。

HOWEVER, since no one really have an idea on how to fix it, no one here actually force devs to fix it neither.

Edited August 15, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[liquidpinky 11]

I would have to remind you then, that even without using head tracking, shooting accuracy are still hugely impact by the fact that when you fire your weapon or moving while aiming down on sight, the red dot will just jump everywhere in an extremely non realistic way, making it even less useful then iron sight itself, and further increase the frustration on weapon handling because, well, it just not how that darn thing work。

HOWEVER, since no one really have an idea on how to fix it, no one here actually force devs to fix it neither.

Aircraft have working holo instrumentation, how easy it is to impement on moving guns I don't know.

Three methods that I can think of are:

1. Frigging alpha channels and model. Can get a bit glitchy at times and cause other graphical problems

2. Complex calcualtions measuring eye and head position relative to gun and then transfering coordinates to a red dot model that moves around inside the sight. Ballbusting to say the least.

3. same as above but using RTT on sight so that the red dot is easier to manage within the sight and optics styles are easier changed.

All three I don't particularly need and I use TrackIR, Better to stand still briefly while firing and actually make the rounds count.

[general2811 1]

i hope the direcX 11 version of this game will make the multiplayer gameplay mutch better!

[maddogx 13]

i hope the direcX 11 version of this game will make the multiplayer gameplay mutch better!

How do you get from improved graphics to multiplayer gameplay? Those are two very different things in my book.

[BasileyOne 10]

i hope the direcX 11 version of this game will make the multiplayer gameplay mutch better!

sure !!

even DirecX11 perform better when its done with DirectX11 support !! :P

How do you get from improved graphics to multiplayer gameplay? Those are two very different things in my book.

its simple and its clear, cuz:

1. more efficient GFX subsystem - mean more resources left for non-GFX part. WAY more.

2. more scalable GFX mean - more GPU saturation and better multi-CPu/GPU saturation/benefits.

3. DirectX are presently wide subset, including DirectCompute for example, which emerge vital parts of OS core within two generations for distributed processing.

so to summarize it: improved graphics will GIVE something from improved graphics, which isn't main and only DirectX11 improvement.

[Ekko 1]

sure !!

even DirecX11 perform better when its done with DirectX11 support !! :P

its simple and its clear, cuz:

1. more efficient GFX subsystem - mean more resources left for non-GFX part. WAY more.

2. more scalable GFX mean - more GPU saturation and better multi-CPu/GPU saturation/benefits.

3. DirectX are presently wide subset, including DirectCompute for example, which emerge vital parts of OS core within two generations for distributed processing.

so to summarize it: improved graphics will GIVE something from improved graphics, which isn't main and only DirectX11 improvement.

I like it :cool:

I hope LOD can somehow be improved with DirectX11 :confused:

[Pyronick 21]

I think it's really hard to decide for developers where they want to use tessellation in a game like ArmA 3.

There are loads of options. It can be used for the LOD transitions, for adding details to vegetation and local objects, for adding details to vehicle interiors, NPC/players and first-person weapons, etc.

Obviously the LOD transitions need to be fixed first, but even then adding details are always nice.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Tessellation could be introduced at a later date in a separate expansion for ArmA III, like they had done with SSAO and Operation Arrowhead.

[max power 21]

Just take a look at any tessellation demo and you'll see. You can't really notice a transition at all.

As I already noted, as far as I know, tessellation is not really applicable to the current way LODs function. LODs are a detail subtraction procedure. Tessellation is a detail adding procedure. You can't have something like ArmA's LOD 10 and tessellate it all the way up to a million polygons. You need to have a certain amount of silhouette detail plus control points to do the subdivision on.

Tessellation could be introduced at a later date in a separate expansion for ArmA III, like they had done with SSAO and Operation Arrowhead.

They would need to re-submit every pbo with an art asset that is being switched to use tessellation, unless they are going to use some mandatory delta patching client. SSAO is a post processing effect. These things are not comparable.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

They would need to re-submit every pbo with an art asset that is being switched to use tessellation, unless they are going to use some mandatory delta patching client. SSAO is a post processing effect. These things are not comparable.

Couldn't you limit it to the new island pbo without having to re-do every asset?

[Madeon 6]

This guy at Gamescom said the physX is AMAZING

gc9PdJUvEXQ

[Pyronick 21]

It would require a whole different approach, probably even dropping the current detail levels (LODs) system altogether.

[PuFu 4591]

It would require a whole different approach, probably even dropping the current detail levels (LODs) system altogether.

meshes that are designed for tesselation still have LODs.

will edit this post when i come back home

[BasileyOne 10]

It would require a whole different approach, probably even dropping the current detail levels (LODs) system altogether.

generally-speaking, many DirectX11-introduced-features can superseded, many in-house-designed things "manually-done" by most DX9/DX10/GL-engines of nowadays and for good reasons.

generally, thats why most of them appeared/brought to life, btw.

just like why nobody seriously today write own sound API or make new programming language "just because" for production development.

This guy at Gamescom said the physX is AMAZING

gc9PdJUvEXQ

guy on next door said that beating head against wall is wonderful and most enlightening experience in his whole life.

so what ?

myriads of flies can't make mistake ? consumers can't have [own]opinions ? nor rights to share/express/voice them ?

Edited August 16, 2012 by BasileyOne

[dunk 10]

As I already noted, as far as I know, tessellation is not really applicable to the current way LODs function. LODs are a detail subtraction procedure. Tessellation is a detail adding procedure. You can't have something like ArmA's LOD 10 and tessellate it all the way up to a million polygons. You need to have a certain amount of silhouette detail plus control points to do the subdivision on.

They would need to re-submit every pbo with an art asset that is being switched to use tessellation, unless they are going to use some mandatory delta patching client. SSAO is a post processing effect. These things are not comparable.

The thing is I highly doubted that tessellation (and hardware PHYSX) would be included in Arma 3 itself. What I was more curious with is to if tessellation along with hardware accelerated PHYSX would be included with the shipped engine allowing modders to play with it on their own time.

My own fanciful hope is that in eventuality a total conversion mod fully implemented into Arma 3 to bring about all of these advanced features at no expense to the developers would provide a very nice test bed for anyone who wants to kill their computer for many years to come. Hell, might even allow for an updated version of GMOD. Very wistful thinking but hey, think big, hope for the best, expect mediocrity.

[BasileyOne 10]

presently, scalability, performance and ability to provide such performance on prolonged period of uptime, was bigger Arma2 problmes, that lack of specific features or capabilites. you[and most players, probably]can live without one-two[more?]extra-features, but not with ALL of them persistently screwed beyond use :[

[Ash712 1]

...Just figured I'd share this...it's a tiny bit "off topic"...

I read some VERY interesting info about PhysX 3 today over at the Project Cars forums!

*A racing simulator in development by the Team behind EA's Need For Speed : SHIFT Series.

It seems that they too were using PhysX 2 for their game, and are now switching to 3.2, and they explained some of the the positive impact/reasons for it so far.

Their Physics Programmer said that PhysX 3 has decreased data sizes by %12 (in ref to collision meshes).

It also consumes around 66% less memory than PhysX 2.8, on average. (from the direct comparison of PhysX SDK run-time memory footprints)

Obviously Project Cars isn't using the Real Virtuality 4 engine, so who really knows what it means for ArmA 3?...

From the sound of it though this PhysX 2 to 3 switch/move could really improve the overall performance of ArmA 3(?)

[malau 10]

Is there no DX9 support at all ?

[Leon86 13]

nope, no dx9

[malau 10]

What about DayZ ? They are using a hybrid A2/A3 engine for standalone, so surely that will be DX9 compatible ?

I asked in their forums, but the members there are complete asses, just the kind of asses you'd expect from the non Arma community.

In fact, i've never got a sensible answer on anything from other members there (just wise cracks and smart alec replies).

[Leon86 13]

I think it'll be either dx9 or dx11, not both.

if they go for dx11 you need vista/7 with a dx10 or higher gpu, all gpu's capable of running arma 2 are dx10 compatible so it's purely an OS thing, since XP wont even get security updates soon I guess the best choice would be the dx11 route.