Far Cry directx10 gfx video.

[Nemesis6 0]

Implementing something like this in OFP 2 would be... well, imagine the lag you get with OFP now in large and object-filled areas, and multiply that with... 3 or so. But the lag will just be everywhere then.

[Nemesis6 0]

Cons: No computer would be able to handle it.

If everybody thought like you we were still at pong .

If only...

[Guest]

I find it unbelieveable how Microsoft can keep doing these "lets throw all we have now to the trash and rebuild everything" stunts and still have game developers blindly following them... Why is a company with such massive resources incapable of designing things properly for one time, so there would be no need to keep changing things all the time?

I'd hope that if BIS would go with an API change, it would be a change to OpenGL instead of this yet-another massive Direct3D API rewrite which will no doubt be thrown out of the window again in a few years making all the code written for it useless.

Considering how MS seem to be trying to kill OpenGL I doubt this would happen. If BIS want to get XBox sales then from a small developers point-of-view they will have to write it for D3D. That's what MS is banking on.....bastards!

The whole DX 7,8,9 thing seems to be at this point about making a much be DX10, but with Vista able to call on DX9.0c in a kind of XP-Legacy manner. If that ends up being the case then the current crop of games will be ok, but anything older than a year might have problems.

[chipper 0]

dude ofp2 would be like teh best game of all time for at least 5 years if it had all the capibilities of DX10 possible. and dont start moaning "oh the lag. it will be to much" thats why every game out there lets you turn off certian video settings. so the guy with the g-force7800 and the guy with the g-force5900 can play the same game except the guy with the 7800 can use all the setting at maximum while the 5900 guy can turn some off and still run the game fine.

[shinRaiden 0]

BIS-level companies - even en masse - can't convince M$ to do otherwise. Even Valve rolled over, HL1 had OpenGL support. Only Carmack's been cranky enough and had enough pull to continue to snub his nose at Mr. Bill. While there is the strong Dx marketing aspect, I think stronger still is the leverage from the media industry. Mr. Bill as a penny-pinching miserly lawyer knows Steve Jobs is dancing circles around him, and Google is close behind. Although stubbornly fixiated on product monopolies, he's starting to be dragged kicking and screaming into the services markets, and his obstinance - see recent WSJ expose via Jim Allchin - is what's hurting M$.

No, the primary push seems to be the DRM aspects. By mandating Dx10, and imposing it via deprecating <10, they can force whatever DRM the media industry sees fit, and meanwhile retain that content on the Windows platform. If on the other hand the media industry were to demand a standards based DRM that is OpenGL compatible, then that would allow for better portability to non-M$ OS's, cutting into M$'s product monopoly.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think before we can see all this technology incorporated into large scale video games it will take..hmm 5 years? Maybe more? PC gaming is stagnating, you dont see most people running to the stores to arrive home with their nice, brand new 7800GTX SLI setup, dual cores or whatever, people are afraid of spending €€€ on expensive HW just to see it age while the industry focuses primarily on the consoles, more and more PC gamers sticking with their old hardware is the fealing i have from cruising several diferent gaming forums.

"Will it run?" is becoming the most comon question out there.

There is great technology on the orizon but they have to think about making it accessible to the general public first. If not it wont be worth developing games that make use of it.

Where are all the great DX9 games while we talk about DX10 already .

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I find it unbelieveable how Microsoft can keep doing these "lets throw all we have now to the trash and rebuild everything" stunts and still have game developers blindly following them... Why is a company with such massive resources incapable of designing things properly for one time, so there would be no need to keep changing things all the time?

I'd hope that if BIS would go with an API change, it would be a change to OpenGL instead of this yet-another massive Direct3D API rewrite which will no doubt be thrown out of the window again in a few years making all the code written for it useless.

Just one thing, Vista (DX10 will ship with that I'm certain) will also have, basicly DX10 AND a DX9c.. I.e, all games will work that run on your PC now..

As for changing the whole API.. DX has been around for years, using (as far as I know) mostly the same (vaugly) code.. THe advances in computer graphics is kinda huge recently, and isn't it about time they overhauled the code..? If their rewriting it for newer hardware, it's the exact same thing as how OFP runs pretty bad on new hardware..

It will be more efficant..

"Why is a company with such massive resources incapable of designing things properly for one time, so there would be no need to keep changing things all the time? " As massive as they are, I don't think they have a time-machine, how are they supposed to code stuff for things that haven't been made yet (better grahpics cards etc)..

I'm sure if DX10 was just more code-fiddling, people would complain, now their acctualy putting effort into something that will improve graphics/performace (unless they screw up the code, and intend it only to work on Å5,000 computers..), people compain because their changing to much..

And, thinking about it, I don't think OFP2 will use (/require, more) DX10.. Mainly because DX9c games will work to DX10, but DX10 games will not work to DX9.. So you kill of a huge number of players..

Unless it's released seperatly, which it probobaly will.. But still, since it's a huge change, large ammounts of the game's engine will have to be recoded, and I hope that doesn't happen..

- Ben

[kegetys 2]

As for changing the whole API.. DX has been around for years, using (as far as I know) mostly the same (vaugly) code.. THe advances in computer graphics is kinda huge recently, and isn't it about time they overhauled the code..?

Sounds like you haven't done much of DirectX programming (Well I haven't either but I'm quite familiar with the API), since especially the whole D3D API has went through numerous massive changes. D3D7 and before used a totally different type of interface (which was of quite horrible design, I cant believe some developers actually used that) than what it has now. That was changed entirely in move to D3D8. Then with D3D9 alot of things changed again, so much that it is propably more efficient to just throw all the D3D8 code out and re-write it entirely. And now they're apparently doing another stunt that changes it even more. What "huge advances in computer graphics" have there been recently that warrant such changes?

OpenGL has been around for a much longer time than Direct3D without any such massive changes, yet it can do everything Direct3D can and much more.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

What "huge advances in computer graphics" have there been recently that warrant such changes?

this to this..?

My main point is that redesigning it surely is good for performance, which should be the main thing when making games (No point having all the shineyness, and it running at 2FPS), and secondly to allow backwards compatibilty.. Which, going from the fact I can play OFP on DX9c, seems possible..

Aslong as games for 9c work on 10, you can code the games the same as you would if DX10 never existed, but, if you want, you can code it to use DX10..

"Sounds like you haven't done much of DirectX programming" - True, but I'm going from what sounds logical, and from what I've worked out, by playing games (I.e that DX8 games run fine on DX9) etc..

"OpenGL has been around for a much longer time than Direct3D without any such massive changes, yet it can do everything Direct3D can and much more." - Okay, then why isn't it used for most new games..? There must be a reason, no?

Also, the one that has no major changes is hardly used, the one that is reworked often is used by 90% of new "big" games.. Seems a it odd, no?

Anyway, all this argument is from what I know about DirectX/game programming, which is not much (As I've already proven )

- Ben

[kegetys 2]

this to this..?

The step to hardware accelerated 3D graphics? That was what, 9 years ago? I doubt they were designing Direct3D 10 back then :P

Quote[/b] ]Aslong as games for 9c work on 10, you can code the games the same as you would if DX10 never existed, but, if you want, you can code it to use DX10..

And the very point I made from the start is that its a huge amount of work to re-write all you have now so you can use the fancy stuff in D3D 10. Just as it has been in almost every major DirectX version change. There is no reason why you would have to do this, other than that Microsoft is not capable of designing something well for once and then stick to that design and extend it.

Imagine these situations:

a) You have a "first generation" hardware accelerated 3D engine, that doesn't utilize hardware transformation and lightning, but you want to. What do you do?

You're using Direct3D: Re-write all D3D code you have for a new Direct3D version

You're using OpenGL: You dont have to do anything, if HW T&L is available OpenGL will use it automatically.

b) You have an engine using the static T&L pipeline, you want to upgrade it to use pixel and vertex shaders:

Direct3D: Re-write all D3D code you have for a new Direct3D version

OpenGL: Just add code to use the shaders (or vertex/fragment programs in OpenGL terms)

c) You have an engine using "first generation" pixel/vertex shaders (1.x) and you want to use 2.0 or 3.0 shaders:

Direct3D: Re-write all D3D code you have for a new Direct3D version

OpenGL: You dont have to do anything, just load a newer version shader

See whats wrong here with Direct3D? I can take the OpenGL code I wrote six years ago (this :P) and it will still work fine, I can add all the new fancy bells and whistles to it to make it look modern. No need to re-write the whole thing as I would need to if I had used Direct3D. And no, there would be no performance loss of any kind either (Although I doubt the code I wrote back then was very optimal in general, but thats not the fault of OpenGL :P).

Quote[/b] ]Okay, then why isn't it used for most new games..? There must be a reason, no?

That you would have to ask from the developers. One advantage DirectX has that it has everything in one package (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput, etc.) and MSDN provides quite good documentation and a solid SDK to use them all. And there's a huge marketing machine working on pushing Direct3D, if you can print "Uses the newest Direct3D 9 effects" to you game box it will make people think your game has great graphics.

And OpenGL is still used widely, Playstation 3 for example is going to use OpenGL if I remember right, and it seems OpenGL will be the API to use for 3D acceleration in mobile devices (phones etc.).

[shinRaiden 0]

Just for chuckles people, did you know that OFPanim, Wrptool, ODOL explorer, and the preview functions in PBOx use OpenGL, not DirectX? Using the exact same p3d and paa and pac files without editing or anything else. And the rendering is far crisper and detailed than in-game. If you want a detailed ref pic of a model in progress, binarize it and use ODOLexplorer. The details really come alive.

[ebns72 0]

This thread is about a recently-released tech demo from the makers of far cry. Now I know flashpoint gamers hate games like far cry, but be mature and look at this from a technology standpoint.

The makers of far cry released a 1-minute tech video, and already I am peeing my pants over it. Although the game itself (far cry) doesn't compete with ofp, the technology most certainly does in terms wide-open, vast terrain.

As far as I know, this is the first game to use directx 10 and windows vista.

Anyway, here it is.

http://www.gamershell.com/download_12286.shtml

I am curious to see all your reactions to it. I am personally blown away. Proof that pc is superior to consoles hehehe

Discuss.

[Heatseeker 0]

I was going to start a thread about this same news 1 hour ago but my line went and i went for a coffee instead... .

That real DIB is very impressing, everything is very impressing but the HW requirements must be insane. Get ready to buy a SLI DX10 graphics setup...

I think it will be yet another Far Cry, to be played once, admired and throwned away, doubt it will come out at estimated Q4 2006 release though and its unfortunate that it will be a sci-fi shooter but the technology itself should make it worthy.

Out of that feature list i found funny how they advertise dynamic day/night cycles, we have it for ages now.

What i really want is a Flashpoint sequel anyway .

[shinRaiden 0]

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=48422;hl=far+cry;st=0

That puts this dup thread four months late. I haven't checked completely, but I believe that wasn't the first mention of the video here either. Furthermore that video only gets referenced in every other OFP2 / ArmA thread.

[wildo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am curious to see all your reactions to it. I am personally blown away. Proof that pc is superior to consoles hehehe

how does that prove that?

WIldo

[ebns72 0]

that the crysis engine already appears to blow away (imo) current-gen xbox 360. Sure, gears of war may look a tad prettier, but won't have the massively interactive terrains and physics of the crytek engine.

[wildo 0]

but you can put the crytek engine ON the 360

and yes, even owning a 360 im not blown away by it, but its btter than my pc/laptop just waiting for better games now :P (TES4, GoW, Huxley)

Wildo

[akm74 1]

check this screens , guys...

http://www.thg.ru/technews/20060123_225305.html

and video...

http://www.worthdownloading.com/download.php?gid=1724&id=6468

http://files.filefront.com/CryEngi....fo.html

[sa8gecko 0]

This video is already in circulation since september. Only this time is not taken on low-res with a videocam. Good work AKM74, thank you.

Farcry already looks better than many games released recently with just a GeForce 6800 (all settings to the max and HDR enabled). I don't know why nobody uses their (crytek) engine.

[Thunnder Bunny 0]

Yep it's ashame the first farcry wasn't used more. Even a few mods would have been nice. I've found allot of dead ends when it came to mods for FC

[Placebo 28]

Enough Far Cry engine threads!

I'll bump the main one and merge everything together......

[Raptor 10]

nice vid.

Seems to be a great game.

[codarl 1]

Yep it's ashame the first farcry wasn't used more. Even a few mods would have been nice. I've found allot of dead ends when it came to mods for FC

maybe that's because just about 9/10 of the stuff in their trailers (island-scale combat, dynamic day/night, IE OFP for 2003) wasn't in the actual game?

[ebns72 0]

Yep it's ashame the first farcry wasn't used more. Even a few mods would have been nice. I've found allot of dead ends when it came to mods for FC

maybe that's because just about 9/10 of the stuff in their trailers (island-scale combat, dynamic day/night, IE OFP for 2003) wasn't in the actual game?

The trailer was for far cry 2....

[NeMeSiS 11]

Yep it's ashame the first farcry wasn't used more.   Even a few mods would have been nice.   I've found allot of dead ends when it came to mods for FC

maybe that's because just about 9/10 of the stuff in their trailers (island-scale combat, dynamic day/night, IE OFP for 2003) wasn't in the actual game?  

The trailer was for far cry 2....

Those things were said to be in FC1

I really looked forward to the 1 big level thingy and was kinda dissapointed when it wasnt in...