Jump to content
dna_uk

DirecxtX 12 for ArmA 3?

Recommended Posts

Depends on how you define "huge fail". ;)

Windows 7 is their most popular OS because it works well and everyone (figuratively speaking) already owns it, so adding DX12 support to Win7 doesn't make them any money. They would much prefer if all Win7 owners switched to Win8, and eventually Win9 etc., so arbitrarily binding some shiny piece of technology to the new versions works as a kind of incentive. (Because, let's face it, the new Windows versions don't have much else of value to offer.)

So yeah, it's a huge fail from our consumer standpoint, but it will almost certainly cause some people to upgrade their OS, which is a "huge win" for Microsoft. Just sayin'. :)

Btw. I would bet money that DX12 will be for Windows 9 only.

I bet you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea , Microsoft will make a update of the Win8.1 and then basicly rename it to Win9 - enjoy the DX12 heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if this helps clients to run with prettier graphics, will this help server performance that much? Although if the current rate of server performance enhancements continues we might not need DX12 to help with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will not help server performance directly,but i believe that if everyone on a server has the same high fps it will run smoother !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe for a new engine, with the current I am sure that DirectX 9 is the best solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe for a new engine, with the current I am sure that DirectX 9 is the best solution.

Dude. Arma3 is DX11 :)

I'm sure the devs are looking into the potential gains of DX12 and how much work it takes to implement in Arma3. That does not mean it's going to be implemented though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am perfectly aware that A3 is DX11, unfortunately.

I am saying that the best solution for A3 is DX9, it would solve many of the performance issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am perfectly aware that A3 is DX11, unfortunately.

I am saying that the best solution for A3 is DX9, it would solve many of the performance issues.

sound like you don't know anything about DirectX...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will see what the gains are for arma. Only thing that will get me off windows 7.

Believe me, windows 10 is all the reason to get off windows 7 and 8. I hate 8. Totally hate windows 8, but when i saw Windows 10 bringing back the start menu and some other familiar features, i can't wait for it. It's got a lot of hype, and i have high hopes for 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mention of Arma 3, only Arma.

Yea hopefully that means arma 4 is already knee deep in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be bound by graphical APIs? Why not make a software-based sollution instead? Modern GPUs can already do real-time ray-tracing at decent rates. The upcomming AMD 380X will have 4096 Stream processors for an affordable price. ArmA is a too CPU bound game, time to off-load more to the much more raw power modern GPUs. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sound like you don't know anything about DirectX...

I could give you several examples where DX11 is affecting negatively the performance and also where DX9 could bring improvements, but I will give you only one.

The fact that A3 engine is not having full support for Multicore processing is reason enough for wanting to have DX9.

Edited by Bratwurste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why be bound by graphical APIs? Why not make a software-based sollution instead? Modern GPUs can already do real-time ray-tracing at decent rates. The upcomming AMD 380X will have 4096 Stream processors for an affordable price. ArmA is a too CPU bound game, time to off-load more to the much more raw power modern GPUs. :p
How do you imagine that? Game needs API so it can talk to GPU and render stuff for it. Real-time ray-tracing? even best GPUs can't make playable FPS in ray-tracing right now not to mention amount of noise...

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

I could give you several examples where DX11 is affecting negatively the performance and also where DX9 could bring improvements, but I will give you only one.

That fact that A3 engine is not having full support for Multicore processing is reason enough for wanting to have DX9.

DX11 is faster than DX9 by around 30% and adds more features https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

LoL how is DX11 not allowing multicore and DX9 do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you imagine that? Game needs API so it can talk to GPU and GPU do render stuff for it. Real-time ray-tracing? even best GPUs can't make playable FPS in ray-tracing right now not to mention amount of noise...

I ment that they could write a software render instead of being bound by Direct X or Open GL. It wouldn't need to run only off the CPU either, as modern GPUs support GPGPU, meaning they can be tasked with pretty much everything a CPU can do. Look at the raw power of modern GPUs, it far exceeds that of modern CPUs. Average GPU has a few TFLOPS going for it whereas a modern CPU only a few hundred MFLOPS. They could also start using voxels or ray-traced sparse voxel octrees instead of polygons only. The tech is here, is just needs to be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why be bound by graphical APIs? Why not make a software-based sollution instead? Modern GPUs can already do real-time ray-tracing at decent rates. The upcomming AMD 380X will have 4096 Stream processors for an affordable price. ArmA is a too CPU bound game, time to off-load more to the much more raw power modern GPUs. :p

This is basically going to turn in to one of THOSE threads so I'm just going to call dips on it. The only reason we have CPU problems is multi-blabla stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk guys, i think there should be an option to have Arma run either heavily CPU, or Heavily GPU. If they go straight GPU's, than i don't think my PC could handle it anymore. =/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ment that they could write a software render instead of being bound by Direct X or Open GL. It wouldn't need to run only off the CPU either, as modern GPUs support GPGPU, meaning they can be tasked with pretty much everything a CPU can do. Look at the raw power of modern GPUs, it far exceeds that of modern CPUs. Average GPU has a few TFLOPS going for it whereas a modern CPU only a few hundred MFLOPS. They could also start using voxels or ray-traced sparse voxel octrees instead of polygons only. The tech is here, is just needs to be implemented.
it's not like GPU not using it's power in games right now... voxel tech is not polished and every engine based on it show nothing special or playable right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea hopefully that means arma 4 is already knee deep in development.

With a TOTALLY brand new engine !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not like GPU not using it's power in games right now... voxel tech is not polished and every engine based on it show nothing special or playable right now

They are bound by APIs though. A software-based renderer would mean that a top GPU from 2008 like the HD 4870 X2 was could render something that would require roughly 2.5 TFLOPS of compute power, such as the Unreal Engine 3.9 tech demo. For today's standards that GPU is dated and not even supported in games needing DX11 to run, in actuality it has more raw power than your average mid range GPU of today.

I beg to disagree about voxels, they are potentially revolutionary. I don't believe in a polygon-only future for game graphics, we'll most likely see a lot of 'hybrid' engines in the future, combining voxels, ray-tracing and traditional rasterization.

To back my claims, Killzone Shadow Fall uses real-time ray-traced reflections and it's a modern console game whereas the original Crysis used voxels for it's terrain system. The use of voxels already dates back to Novalogic's Delta Force and Commanche series originating from the late and early 90s.

Edited by noob1
added some examples
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×