Quote:
Originally Posted by Heliocon
Just for the record here about your post:
1. Your numbers I guess you pulled out of your backside, which makes it super funny when you say dx11<6% because you have absolutely no idea do you? Feb data, highest % share of market graphics card used is ATi Radeon 5770, with a 7.22% market share and a +0.5% share increase from Jan->Feb which meanes this one single card alone is higher then your claim for total dx11 cards. Following is 5850 with 4.48% share and then 460GTX with 4.6% share. So that means those three cards alone make up about 16%-17% of the market share... = FAIL
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/
2. I dont care if you diagree or not, crysis 2 engine is worse than crysis 1 in the majority of areas. It doesnt matter what your opinion is, go youtube the comparisons. You can wish away the fact that they reduced the draw distances, or changed and removed lighting features in the game.
3. I love how oyu bring sandybridge in here, you do realise thats a CPU not a GPU? Really... thats sad, your making yourself look very silly. In fact, dont ever post about computer hardware again for your own sake because not only are you confused about what is and is not related to DX11, but you dont even seem to know what Direct X is...
Also incase you have completely fooled/confused yourself and you are thinking about the onboard gpus for SB cpus, they hold less then a 1% market share and will not gain any share in desktops. No one wants a onboard gpu for gaming, the target market is laptops and low end pcs. But no components are DX11 other then GPUs, so = fail
4. A game being heavily based on directcompute? Really.... after 4 fails without a win do you get to call in a failstrike? o.0
Do you even know what direct compute is? How would you base a game off it? Maybe its because you can base a game on direct compute and that is never what it was designed for?
5. Yes they can be added, I never said they cant. When they are added and integrated and running well then it will be a cutting edge next gen engine. But currently at release it is not, and thats the reality of the situation as you put it.
This forum seems to love cognitive dissonance: This game will have the best graphics ever in pc history, it is pushing the envelope and is SO good no ones computer can max it out!- Stop whinning, there a 20 person dev team, how can you expect them to implement new cutting edge tech and features when they have a shoestring budget???
-Also its rather stupid to just look at the graphs like you did then make silly statements, because if you looked carefully/critically you would of noticed that its on a scale from May 2009 - May 2010 for gpus and 2008-2010 for cpus.
-Also the DX11 features I mentioned make the devs work easier not harder, thats part of the reason dx11 is good. |
1.) You are right, it was from 2010. I didn't see the finer print. However, you did make a mistake, the page you linked is the count of all DX10/DX11 cards. The actual percentage since February is over here:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc. Adding all the values at DirectX11(Vista/W7 + DX11 GPU) system section will net you 17% - for all DX11 parts.
2.) We don't have to get into this, I personally think Crysis 2 look great and they made great improvements on the both the art direction and optimization.
3.) You missed my point. I brought up Sandy Bridge because it has competent a GPU for the masses. Even if it were DX11 ready, it would not make a tent for for DX market share, which you btw, agreed with me.
4.) Are your serious? You were referring to using part of DX11 for computation heavy tasks, so I WAS talking about games UTILIZING directcompute for their prominent engine features (for CloD, that'd be physics, and weather(?)), other engines, I don't know, but you are welcome to correct me.
5.) This is the NEXT GEN flight sim engine. Please point out a comparable flight sim engine that's released/being released in the next 6 months (or a year). I have never believed one bit that this engine has the best graphics in video games (I don't remember Oleg saying that), but it does have the best graphics we have seen for flight sims. It has its short comings - crappy clouds and water as I have pointed out earlier, but over all, everything else is leaves the competitions in the dust.
DX11 is easier to develop on, but you'd be insane to not develop for DX10 too. So in the long run, DX11 will still cost development time.
The question remains, is 17.1% of market share at the time of release justify developers maintain two different rendering paths plus different physics engines? Seeing how Maddox is strapped for cash (Oleg had mentioned that CloD was supposed to be released by BoB anniversary last year due to financial issues), aiming for DX10 is the wise choice.
And no, it does not mean that it's antiquated. If this is antiquated, then show us a comparable flight sim engine.
03-21-2011, 03:07 AM
Threaded Mode