HOME It would require a whole different approach, probably even dropping the current detail levels (LODs) system altogether.
It would require a whole different approach, probably even dropping the current detail levels (LODs) system altogether.
"A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one."
- Otto von Bismarck
meshes that are designed for tesselation still have LODs.Originally Posted by SgtH3nry3
will edit this post when i come back home
generally-speaking, many DirectX11-introduced-features can superseded, many in-house-designed things "manually-done" by most DX9/DX10/GL-engines of nowadays and for good reasons.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.
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 ?
Last edited by BasileyOne; Aug 16 2012 at 22:53.
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.
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 :[
...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(?)
Is there no DX9 support at all ?
nope, no dx9
Arma 3 is a twitchshooter
Needs more rainbow six 1-3
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).
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote