DX9 for B.o.S??

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

By the way, DX9 isn't so inferior visually like some people think. The differences between it and later DX APIs are more important for programmers than end users. There are things impossible or hardly done in DX9, but they are not used commonly anyway.

Yes! Thank god there's someone else out there that seemingly knows the facts!

[Liz Lemon]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

Photorealism implies that image is like photograph, which is very different from what human eyes see in reality. I.e. photorealistic image tends to suffer from typical low dynamic range, what makes bright parts too bright, or dark parts too dark. If you are going to represent a tree in bright summer day in photorealistic way, then it will have some leaves almost black, and some leaves almost white, while other leaves will be green. Black/white leaves are details being seen by eyes, but lost because of "photorealism". If you choose to drop photorealism, and make bright leaves less bright, and dark leaves less dark, you will represent more details, but image will become more flat, less impressive/convincing. In other words, if you fix one end, you will break the other, and it will be so until graphic cards and displays will be able to represent high enough dynamic range.

I personally prefer details over impression/feeling in combat sims, because the less I see, the less realistic decision I can make. However, lots of people prefer impression, and RoF kinda goes more for later.

Ahh yes, the photorealistic vs what the human eye can see argument.

In theory I agree with you. A game should seek to duplicate what the human eye can see as closely as possible. But the problem with this is that we have no displays that can duplicate what our eyes can see.

This is a problem that cinema had to deal with early on. And its still a problem today - be it plasma, lcd, and old CRT or even a 4k projector, you can never display the dynamic range, depth of color, resolution (iffy) or framerate, let alone all the other little things that would match the human eye.

Because of this, I think games should try to emulate films as closely as possibly. Not just because the above problems have been something that film has worked out over 100+ years, but also because our expectations of what reality on a 2d screen looks like are based on film. This is why having things like chromatic abrasion, bloom and film grain can go a long way to making a digital image look "real" on the screens we see them on. But as an aside the things I just listed are often over done to a significant degree in games... but that is a whole other discussion I can get into.

[Skoshi Tiger]

According to wikipedia the new additions to the DirectX 10 API were

The DirectX 10 SDK became available in February 2007.[9]

New features:

1)Fixed pipelines[10] are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.

2)New state object to enable (mostly) the CPU to change states efficiently.

3)Shader model 4.0 enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.

4)Geometry shaders, which work on adjacent triangles which form a mesh.

5)Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.

6)Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.

7)Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.[11]

Number 1 allows the programmers to custom build effects

Number 5 reduces the workload on the CPU when swapping textures

Number 7 would be used for representing 3d trees and grass and such.

The rest are basicaly effect the efficiency on the graphics processing.

To reproduce these functions in DX9 the CPU would be taking on a lot more load. Sort of makes sense when people talk about lower frame rates under ROF.

Cheers!

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by Ataros

If seems RoF visuals are not DX9 issue but art direction issue: artistic style vs. photo realistic style and maybe lighting technologies complexity.

That is the real point here. It´s about having Oleg in the team or not. Even CoD suffered that lighting downgrade since Oleg departure.

In its artistic and lighting department, RoF is not years, not DX versions below CoD, it´s thousands Olegs below CoD. Even the original IL2 is better in color choice than RoF. Sad, but true.

Sorry, but I can´t have any confidence in the artistic direction that let that horrible over glowing white horizon or that acid blue sky in RoF reach the final product and stay there for years.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

That is the real point here. It´s about having Oleg in the team or not. Even CoD suffered that lighting downgrade since Oleg departure.

In its artistic and lighting department, RoF is not years, not DX versions below CoD, it´s thousands Olegs below CoD. Even the original IL2 is better in color choice than RoF. Sad, but true.

Sorry, but I can´t have any confidence in the artistic direction that let that horrible over glowing white horizon or that acid blue sky in RoF reach the final product and stay there for years.

Sounds like you need some gamma correction in your life, friend.

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Sounds like you need some gamma correction in your life, friend.

He is right. Many colors in ROF are not natural. Just feel off. The sky is wrong, the horizon is too bright, and few other things that show the strong "artistic licence" used in making the lighting engine.

[WTE_Galway]

But will it be available as an iPhone app ?

[Wolf_Rider]

give it time, Galway... give it time

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by RickRuski

Why would the new production team go with a 12 year old Dx system (based on the release date for B.o.S. and the first release of DX9) when there is a better one now.



Is it because the R.o.F. engine is based on DX9 and to change it is not economically viable.

You've just answered your own question!

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Sounds like you need some gamma correction in your life, friend.

ROF artist team are the ones needing a serious gamma correction in their lifes, friend.