These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: DirectX 11 Tessellation Tech Demo at Fanfest 2012

First post
Author
Solhild
Doomheim
#81 - 2012-03-27 20:23:01 UTC
Seriously, it's a nobrainer - just do it!

In fact, if we're talking about resources being spread so thinly that one small team may be focussed on this for at least a year then it seems that staffing priorities are still all over the place. This type of thing should be non-negotiable.

If you were designing EVE now, what would its graphics look like? Why would you choose to make it look 5 years old? What does it need to play on? How scalable to each device should it be? Surely you'd want Open GL in the mix etc. etc.

I like the idea that CCP wants 'buy in' from the playerbase but strap one on FFS.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#82 - 2012-03-27 20:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Vincent Athena wrote:
Wait, so once this goes through those of us using OpenGL will no longer be able to play eve? Or just be locked out of the high end graphics?


OpenGL supports tesselation, and PhysX is available for Mac OS X and Linux.

The real questions are: For tesselation, when will Cider update their DX -> OpenGL translation layer (or have they already)? And what will people running AMD cards on any platform get in place of PhysX?

EDIT: I should clarify, tesselation is an old and necessary step pioneered by SGI (inventors of what became OpenGL) in order to turn everything into triangles for easy processing. I'm not sure if what they're calling "tesselation" here is precisely what OpenGL calls tesselation.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Omega Tron
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#83 - 2012-03-27 21:01:46 UTC
First off I would very much like to see my rather large investment in my Nividi -SLI configured graphics cards begin to better utilized by EVE. So please begin supporting DX11.

My suggestion is perhaps you can for the time being have two modules of the EVE Client available -- one based on the DX9 standards and the 2nd based on the DX11 standard.

My personal thinking for when I upgrade my hardware to the new supported standards has always been base on when the gaming providers started to produce their game in that standard. I think most of the EVE players have similar thinking and just need the push to upgrade hardware that comes from you providing the 2nd (better) choice.

CCP's sand box is EVE Online.  The sand is owned by CCP.  We pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other.  That is all that is here, so move along. Nothing more to be seen.

Moe2
XYManufacturing
#84 - 2012-03-27 21:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Moe2
At this point it seems the question of DX11 isn't if it should be done, but how fast and how should it be handled.

Tesselation is definately the way to go, but at the cost of how many more GB of space on low-end hard drives? The ideas about sharding the client into 2 would solve this, but I think sticking with one client is overall a better option. For example, you could have the new launcher download the larger-res artifacts just for those users that can and want to use the tesselation features. The client then notices that the computer can handle tesselation and has the artifacts available, so it just displays objects in space with a different rendering style.

The big issue I see is the PhysX handling (if it is accepted, remember they talked about implementing DX11, not necessarily PhysX). You can run PhysX without a GPU that supports it, it is just less powerful. Multithreading support is now in PhysX 3.0, so the difference isn't that great between high end GPU and non-GPU systems. However, we should keep in mind that the physics in EVE at the moment runs client and server side. PhysX would either need to be supported and integrated on both ends for all machines, or it would not be allowed to effect any game mechanics (which is a deal-breaker for me, and why run two physics engines at the same time?)
I am not sure this will happen within a year timeframe and would need the involvement of not just the art departement, but the core game department as well. It was a really cool tech demo to see asteroids colliding and breaking on the ship though..


So..
DX11 = YES!!!
PhysX = I want it, but not at the expense it would likely come with...
Mike deVoid
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-03-27 22:50:10 UTC
If it delays new POSes due to a graphics bottleneck then no.

Else, yes.
Tierere
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-03-27 22:51:04 UTC
Looks a vast improvement and more importantly feels better, if there is a commitment to internet spaceships this is one of the next obvious things to do.

i find the current system of bouncing of rocks very crude, it's like flying a ship in a giant rubber thingy, it makes navigation around belts very haphazard, there's nothing worse than bouncing of invisible sphere's when desperately trying to warp.

In addition to looking and feeling better it would be even greater if it interacted with the flying of space ships. Guns should not be able to fire through them, larger ones perhaps that do explosive or kinetic damage could break them and missiles fly around then to hit there target. It'd be excellent to be able to do a Star Wars Hoth asteroid field and hide inside some of the larger ones if you were caught ratting. Some could perhaps interfere with ship scanners so making it difficult to scan or use directional scanner. Taking a big ship into a roid field could cause HP damage to the ship, while small ships fly around them. And i'm sure it be used to make mining more interesting in someway.

This is a definite must and if it starts to make belts and anomalies viable and interesting locations to hang out it could be used to enhance pvp in low sec for example.
Alain Kinsella
#87 - 2012-03-27 23:23:32 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
Well not standardizing is what killed companies in the past or failing to make thier standard the one everyone else uses.
Most successful standarizating known? DDR standards, USB.

Not so seccesful ones? Packard Bell boards.


What came to mind was my dad's AT&T 6300+ (go look it up, it was an interesting challenge to a growing computer geek Cool ).

Anyway, I'm for this atm. Don't remember if my 8800GT handled DX11, but I was looking at new cards anyway and found several replacements that were 3-4x more powerful and 1/2 the cost (average at Microcenter was $70-130, not bad).

Now just need to find one that can support the old Video 'barrel' connector (so I can connect it to a still-working 32" Trinitron).

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).

DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
#88 - 2012-03-27 23:54:46 UTC
Bring on the shinies!
Endeavour Starfleet
#89 - 2012-03-27 23:59:53 UTC
I hate to say it but PhysX development is blowing AMD out of the water at the moment. And from what I am hearing is FAR easier to use for development purposes.

And the current situation is nothing compared to what it was like in the 90s. You had different features only available on certain cards and some could only run on that card period. Today is downright easy in comparason.

BTW. DX11 NAO! Big smile
Kossaw
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#90 - 2012-03-28 00:06:01 UTC
CCP Solomon, I will be honest - given your replies so far I'm struggling to understand why you are even asking us. Given the success of the trinity upgrade and the relative effort required to do tessellation, this question is a complete no-brainer. These graphics look fantastic.

So, assuming we aren't missing out on something equally shiny or more important, what the hell are you waiting for - get on with it.

WTB : An image in my signature

P'taqh
State War Academy
Caldari State
#91 - 2012-03-28 00:44:10 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Wait, so once this goes through those of us using OpenGL will no longer be able to play eve? Or just be locked out of the high end graphics?


OpenGL supports tesselation, and PhysX is available for Mac OS X and Linux.

The real questions are: For tesselation, when will Cider update their DX -> OpenGL translation layer (or have they already)? And what will people running AMD cards on any platform get in place of PhysX?

EDIT: I should clarify, tesselation is an old and necessary step pioneered by SGI (inventors of what became OpenGL) in order to turn everything into triangles for easy processing. I'm not sure if what they're calling "tesselation" here is precisely what OpenGL calls tesselation.


I think what CCP is talking about here is Hardware Tessellation which is (as far as I understand) a technique to generate geometry on the GPU by means of a special shader program. OpenGL does support this starting from version 4.0 IIRC.
hellwarz
Rising Thunder
#92 - 2012-03-28 00:52:06 UTC
+1 for me
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2012-03-28 01:38:38 UTC
the other effects in that keynote, the ships shields blocking incoming lasers, titans breaking in half and having better looking fire, better looking damage etc etc, is that possible without Tess?

1:58:30
1:52:00
http://youtu.be/j9Ozvef7CvQ
Ogogov
Arpy Corporation
#94 - 2012-03-28 03:05:48 UTC
I would be disappointed if a physics implementation was limited to only one GPU manufacturer, although CCP has failed to address this point.

As for the other stuff, yes please. Shield impacts and damage skins are something I've been waiting for since 2008.
Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-03-28 03:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirei Jun
If you have a clear (or even slightly opaque) idea of new types of game play and content allowed by this feature then by all means do it. If it just looks pretty then the argument is weaker.

With that said, Eve looks great because of continued refreshing of the graphics. Seeing this as another step towards keeping Eve modern, or even on the cutting edge of graphics is a strong argument in favor.
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Ixian Machines
#96 - 2012-03-28 04:13:48 UTC
Ogogov wrote:
I would be disappointed if a physics implementation was limited to only one GPU manufacturer, although CCP has failed to address this point.

As for the other stuff, yes please. Shield impacts and damage skins are something I've been waiting for since 2008.

I most certainly doubt there will be a hard restriction to one manufacturer's hardware. Most likely you'll get it emulated on CPU for more cpu usage or somewhat less physics detail, or both. Like all of the modern PhysX-enabled games still run without any trouble on other hardware as well.

And current EVE's physics work fine with ATI cards.

Eiter way, even if i were forced to use physx, i'd rather buy a cheapo graphics card and run it as a dedicated physics processor than swith to the manufacturer entirely, but that's just my opinion :)

Also it'd be really cool to get my hands o the demo =]
K Kerryngktonn
General Mechanics Ltd.
#97 - 2012-03-28 04:42:54 UTC
As far as I understand the tesselation in this scope is different from that is supported in OpenGL - the latter just provides a method to breakdown the geometry from polygons (mainly concave) into normal triangles that are always convex. The tesselation here is more like the one in 3dsmax where the model is just made smoother by subdividing the mech parts into more and more triangles.

Given this I don't see any apparent increase in the value of assets - apart from some curvy ships where these curves will be smoother, better interpolated. Rectangular designs (most caldari ships) won't win much, I suppose.

This really seems like applying a pretty filter on a photo via Photoshop, assets-wise. And so much pain to implement it? I don't see the reason why everyone is so agitated about this. "Oh, subdivided and smoothed geometry, we want it!". It's like upscaling a raster image - you won't gain new detailed geometry, but just a rough emulation of it.

Apart from that, I run EVE on Debian through Wine and won't really be able to take advantage of the tech in the middle-to-long-term run. But that's another story and is really my own problem.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-03-28 05:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
Poster above. Your doing it wrong. Look up how high poly modeling is made.

Then watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFK7UIYUMMQ

Then look back at the 2 screen shots more careful to really see whats going on. Honestly I'm surprised you couldn't see that it caves in the side of the ship near the back, where before there was just a flat texture.

CCP Solomon wrote:
Boris Lachenkov wrote:
Any chance of getting this released as a stand alone tech demo that we can all have a look at?
Would be interesting to see how my PC copes with such sexyness.

Please? :3


It has been discussed for sure but there is no solid commitment at this stage.


why not, Just upload it to the eve downloads page :/

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2012-03-28 05:43:37 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
Adding this support to the engine is the lion's share of the work and is better handled by few specialists, rather than throwing all of the graphics programmers we have at it to get it done quicker.

Secondly, once the engine can support DirectX 11 features, then the EVE space art teams are able to start utilising the features of DirectX 11 during new feature developmen


...

....

So it's a win win? and takes nothing from the art team to do?

Then do it, what the heck is holding you back?

I think that's what he was asking, and you didn't answer it. What would those 3 guys be doing instead, if not this. so we can pick which we think it more useful.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Psihius
Perkone
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-03-28 05:44:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Psihius
DX 11 is a no brainer and even if you do not jump start it right away and finish till start of the 2013, you should definitively commit some resources to start the slow burn right now and then pick up the pase when it's needed.

But you should look at the textures. Even at full graphics you don't want to put your camera close to anything because it becomes an ugly mess. On my HD 24" monitor it becomes even more ugly because of the size of it Sad And I don't think the tessellation by itself can fix this, the Revenant in the demo still looks blurry up-close (all capital ships suffer from the bad textures. They are the size of the mountains, but it feels that the model has the same size textures and polygons like battleship or a battlecruser).