Battlefield 3 not direct x9? Doesn't make any sense

[Zargon]

So is knowledge. DX11 and DX10 execute DX9 codepaths more efficiently than DX9 does, so your logic is severely flawed. But don't take my word for it... it's not like I'm the only one trying to tell you this.

"sticking to dx9 for performance purposes" is flat out ignorant. Period. /Thread.

the main reason I have done it in BC2 before is the missing shit on the screen that makes it harder to hide from me in the jungle

less stupid lens flare and dust storms

 

[jordanecmusic]

(Theory)Dice is going to code all 3 different versions of the game for the 3 different systems instead of porting the games.

DX10 for PC
DX9 for 360
and Open GL for PS3

I am guessing they're doing this so it could be the perfect game with no lag and full optimization so everyone can BUY the game without no problems. Not sure if they're the first to do this but if they pull it off, then their plan will succeed. EA doesn't care about the game, they care about the money. Dice cares about the game, but they also care about the money. It's the perfect mix.

(Theory 2) Devs lied. It will support DX9 and it will be ported to every system, including Wii.

 

[ch33kym0use]

DX 11 or fail.

 

[Maligx]

Maybe op is a cheater, I've heard the hacks for bc2 require the game to be played in dx9 mode.

 

[jordanecmusic]

Maybe op is a cheater, I've heard the hacks for bc2 require the game to be played in dx9 mode.

I don't even play the game anymore. The horrible optimization just turned me off.

 

[WMD]

To start off my...arguement, the Xbox 360 (Direct 9) and the PS3 (Open GL) is getting Battlefield 3. Dice has stated that Battlefield 3 will not support Direct X9 on PC and will only support 10 and 11. This does not make a bit of sense. As of now, the main differences between the console versions are of such:

-Better graphics on pc of course
-PC version gets all maps, but 360 and PS3 gets Small and medium variations of the PC versions maps
-PC=64 players, Console=32 players.

To be honest, these features right here does not help differentiate why the PC version of Battlefield 3 does not support Direct x9.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 (mind you, a console port) supported Direct X9.

Discuss...I must know the answer lol.

Note that I do have graphics card that supports direct x 10. There, happy trolls? lol...

Mostly likely BF3 will be fundamentally the same game on both console and PC just like BC2. The PC version will simply remove DX9/ XP support for marketing reasons. Firstly it makes you upgrade to Win 7 + DX11 hardware. Secondly they will able to boldly claim the game was "built from ground up" for Dx11. This way Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft as well as DX11 hardware enthusiast will be happy. But it will be really naive to think they really code the PC version independently from the console version.

Besides, if they aren't using tessellation, there is not a whole lot more that can be done on DX11 vs DX10 or even DX9. Ambient occlusion and AA are artificially locked out in BC2 DX9. But there are a ton of (better looking) DX9 games out there running ambient occlusion. Crysis 2 and witcher 2 just to name a few. And AA in BC2 DX9 can already be enabled with recent catalyst drivers. The whole talk about how DX11 IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED will be better performing, better looking, night and day...blah blah better than DX9 remains pure speculation to this day. 2 years on since the 5800 series we never saw that happening.

BF3 Alpha DX11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3pVMic875Q&feature=related

BCBF2 DX9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdHo6ZvJEw

For a game built "ground up" for DX11 exclusively it sure doesn't look any better than BC2 in DX9!

Edit: I run Win7 + DX11 capable video card so i am not saying that just because I can't run the game.

 

[Genx87]

Vista came out 5 years ago. Time to force DX9 to die. I applaud them not making a DX9 path available.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Mostly likely BF3 will be fundamentally the same game on both console and PC just like BC2. The PC version will simply remove DX9/ XP support for marketing reasons. Firstly it makes you upgrade to Win 7 + DX11 hardware. Secondly they will able to boldly claim the game was "built from ground up" for Dx11. This way Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft as well as DX11 hardware enthusiast will be happy. But it will be really naive to think they really code the PC version independently from the console version.

Besides, if they aren't using tessellation, there is not a whole lot more that can be done on DX11 vs DX10 or even DX9. Ambient occlusion and AA are artificially locked out in BC2 DX9. But there are a ton of (better looking) DX9 games out there running ambient occlusion. Crysis 2 and witcher 2 just to name a few. And AA in BC2 DX9 can already be enabled with recent catalyst drivers. The whole talk about how DX11 IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED will be better performing, better looking, night and day...blah blah better than DX9 remains pure speculation to this day. 2 years on since the 5800 series we never saw that happening.

BF3 Alpha DX11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3pVMic875Q&feature=related

BCBF2 DX9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdHo6ZvJEw

For a game built "ground up" for DX11 exclusively it sure doesn't look any better than BC2 in DX9!

Edit: I run Win7 + DX11 capable video card so i am not saying that just because I can't run the game.

Not this again :thumbsdown:
When you use DX11 (or DX10) it isn't a mix of 60% DX9 code and 40% DX11 code.
DX11 is DX11...it not a mixed and thus all DX11 is "buildt from the ground up DX11"

Besides tesselation, you can basically do everything you do in DX11 in DX9.
It would just run either really, really crappy...or you'd have to tune down the I.Q. in order to ensure sustained/palyable performance.

And you have to lend the CPU for some tasks....not desireable.

And for the xxxxx'th time.
When you compile DX11 you can choose to have auto fallback pathcode created for DX10.1, DX10 and DX9Xe and DX9.
(Downscaling features in order to ensure sufficient performance)

A reason for omitting <DX10 could be that desired fidelity on PC's could not be achieved on DX9.
One problem is that eg textureswapping under DX on the PC takes "ages" compared to on consoles.
Also what people like AMD's Huddy and id's John Carmack and Epic's Tim Sweeny all have expressed concern about...the "lantecy" of high level code compared to "code to the metal".

I suspect this has more to do with performance/I.Q. than PR.

 

[Sonikku]

The gist of what I'm getting from OP's post is that if the game is being built from the ground up on the DX9 limited 360 and runs just fine in high def resolutions on a console half a decade old then it stands to reason a PC Gamer with a machine as powerful or more powerful then the 360 using a DX9 gpu should be able to play it too without having to overhaul his entire system.

I guess it would be different if the game was so ultra high end it's engine was built from the ground up to make full use of cutting edge PC hardware, to the point of being a clip show on consoles or anything but the highest end of PC's. Except console games are built to run on the lowest common denominator these days, in this case the Xbox. And if the game can run smooth on a 6 year old console you can get off ebay for 80 bones, it should support 3 year old PC video cards that cost three times as much.

 

[Red Hawk]

The Xbox 360 may use DX9 but it's not the exact same DX9 used on PCs. The 360 uses an IBM CPU with PowerPC architecture instead of the x86 CPU architecture used by AMD and Intel, so porting any game from the 360 to PC still takes a lot of code rewriting even if it's just a DX9 game. Sure, the fact that the 360 uses a form of DX9 helps but it still takes time, money, and effort. It's easier to just support DX10/DX11 rather than develop the game to run well in DX9, 10, and 11.

That said, there probably will be some kind of hack to make the game run in DX9. I suspect it will cause a quality drop similar to hacks that let TES: Oblivion play on older DirextX hardware.

 

[jordanecmusic]

Vista came out 5 years ago. Time to force DX9 to die. I applaud them not making a DX9 path available.

nope.avi until 360 and ps3 upgrade to 720 and ps4, dx9 will still be widely used. and open gl

consoles are ruining all the fun .oh well we can keep our 1080p and higher games. they can keep their dx9

 

[Red Hawk]

I think he means force it to die on PC.

 

[WMD]

Not this again :thumbsdown:
When you use DX11 (or DX10) it isn't a mix of 60&#37; DX9 code and 40% DX11 code.
DX11 is DX11...it not a mixed and thus all DX11 is "buildt from the ground up DX11"

And you have to lend the CPU for some tasks....not desireable.

And for the xxxxx'th time.
When you compile DX11 you can choose to have auto fallback pathcode created for DX10.1, DX10 and DX9Xe and DX9.
(Downscaling features in order to ensure sufficient performance)

A reason for omitting <DX10 could be that desired fidelity on PC's could not be achieved on DX9.
One problem is that eg textureswapping under DX on the PC takes "ages" compared to on consoles.
Also what people like AMD's Huddy and id's John Carmack and Epic's Tim Sweeny all have expressed concern about...the "lantecy" of high level code compared to "code to the metal".

I suspect this has more to do with performance/I.Q. than PR.

When did I say its a mix of 60% DX9 and 40% DX11? What I mean is the game will follow BFBC2. Essentially the same game across all platforms coded in DX9 for Xbox and both DX9 and DX11 for PC. It just make no sense financially for them to make 2 different games for PC and consoles without sharing any assets.

Besides tesselation, you can basically do everything you do in DX11 in DX9.
It would just run either really, really crappy...or you'd have to tune down the I.Q. in order to ensure sustained/palyable performance.

Again this sounds like speaking from marketing hype or parroting what others say with no connection with reality. In practice how many games have shown that they perform significantly better in DX11 with the same IQ? Or have similar performance and better IQ in Dx11.

I have personally tested Dirt2 for example turning off tessellation and ambient occlusion and it still performs 15% worse than in DX9 mode. Same with Metro2033 turn off tessellation and Advanced DOF still worse performance than Dx9. Hawx2 DX11 without tessellation still slower than DX9. All games to date either performs a little worse in DX11 with little to no gain in visual quality. Or much worse with noticeable gains in quality. So all these talks of improved efficiency are nothing more than marketing PR speak. Just like how they market DX11 direct compute. FXAA done in shaders using plain DX9 code has shown that it far outperforms MLAA done using DX11 direct compute.

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=510658

It is not that I don't want to like or support new technology. I too have a $400 DX11 gpu sitting in my PC hoping to get utilized. But instead of making excuses for the technology like "not properly implemented", "held back by consoles/ DX9"....... I have accepted the reality that DX11 given 2 years has failed to deliver any tangible benefit to games visually.

 

[Red Hawk]

Not every game implements the same DirectX 11 features. Some games might have properly implemented, efficient DirectX 11 lighting, while others just slap on DirectX 11 for the fancy tessellation and other features and chop down performance on whole.

Part of DirectX 11's advantage in BF3 is that it makes draw calls more efficient. This is NOT something that DirectX 9 can match. You might say "But the 360 uses DirectX 9 and it can do the same thing!" Yeah, the problem is that due to the 360's nature as a console, the game can be programmed directly to the hardware and be far more efficient -- as in, 10x more efficient -- at draw calls than DX9 on PC. DX9 on PC has to go through lots of overhead and abstraction layers that makes draw calls inefficient. DirectX 11 on PC remedies that.

 

[WMD]

Not every game implements the same DirectX 11 features. Some games might have properly implemented, efficient DirectX 11 lighting, while others just slap on DirectX 11 for the fancy tessellation and other features and chop down performance on whole.

Part of DirectX 11's advantage in BF3 is that it makes draw calls more efficient. This is NOT something that DirectX 9 can match. You might say "But the 360 uses DirectX 9 and it can do the same thing!" Yeah, the problem is that due to the 360's nature as a console, the game can be programmed directly to the hardware and be far more efficient -- as in, 10x more efficient -- at draw calls than DX9 on PC. DX9 on PC has to go through lots of overhead and abstraction layers that makes draw calls inefficient. DirectX 11 on PC remedies that.

Of course DX11 is supposed to be far more efficient and looks better. But its funny that somehow Witcher 2 running primitive DX9 manage to look far better and run at a higher fps than DA2 using cutting edge DX11 technology on my rig.

 

[vrait]

Of course DX11 is supposed to be far more efficient and looks better. But its funny that somehow Witcher 2 running primitive DX9 manage to look far better and run at a higher fps than DA2 using cutting edge DX11 technology on my rig.

Dragon age 2 is a horrible port. What do you expect?

 

[sigurros81]

Bad artists with uninspiring art direction has nothing to do with the potentials of the technology.

 

[blckgrffn]

Awesome Witcher 2 pic, BTW.

 

[Dankk]

Ooh, are we posting TW2 screenshots now? Can I join?

Proof that you don't need DX11 to make a good-looking game.

 

[Red Hawk]

Of course DX11 is supposed to be far more efficient and looks better. But its funny that somehow Witcher 2 running primitive DX9 manage to look far better and run at a higher fps than DA2 using cutting edge DX11 technology on my rig.

Dragon Age II was developed by BioWare in under a year and a half while Witcher 2 had years of dev time. They just were able to polish and put detail into everything. And I'm quite sure Witcher 2 with all high settings enabled runs a good deal slower than Dragon Age 2 with everything enabled. Unless you're running on Nvidia, which is just crap at running DA2 because of bad driver support...

 

[WMD]

Dragon Age II was developed by BioWare in under a year and a half while Witcher 2 had years of dev time. They just were able to polish and put detail into everything. And I'm quite sure Witcher 2 with all high settings enabled runs a good deal slower than Dragon Age 2 with everything enabled. Unless you're running on Nvidia, which is just crap at running DA2 because of bad driver support...

I am running Ati card. Witcher 2 was run on ultra only ubersampling (ssaa 4x) was disabled and it still averaged well over 60fps.
Of course it is always blamed on developer not properly utilizing the technology when a dx11 game fail to stand out in visuals. But isnt it weird no developer seem to get it right somehow in 2yrs since dx11 was introduced. Or maybe like what Lessthandan said, Directx version (currently used) is irrelevant to how a well you can make a game look? I am looking forward to 2012 and dx12 btw.

 

[WMD]

Ooh, are we posting TW2 screenshots now? Can I join?

Proof that you don't need DX11 to make a good-looking game.

Great looking shots. Have I mentioned before that W2 have impressivey detailed stone wall surfaces, rock surfaces, terrain and character models without using tessellation. And performance doesn't tank either. Proof you don't need tessellation to create a highly detailed game environment.

 

[Red Hawk]

I am running Ati card. Witcher 2 was run on ultra only ubersampling (ssaa 4x) was disabled and it still averaged well over 60fps.
Of course it is always blamed on developer not properly utilizing the technology when a dx11 game fail to stand out in visuals. But isnt it weird no developer seem to get it right somehow in 2yrs since dx11 was introduced. Or maybe like what Lessthandan said, Directx version (currently used) is irrelevant to how a well you can make a game look? I am looking forward to 2012 and dx12 btw.

Witcher 2 vs Dragon Age 2 is just not a good example. There are reasons other than the raw API for the difference in visuals. Another is the art style. All the best graphics technologies won't help if your art style is busted.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Ooh, are we posting TW2 screenshots now? Can I join?

Proof that you don't need DX11 to make a good-looking game.

These are some pretty damn good looking screenshots. Makes me wanna install the game again (finished it twice.)

 

[jordanecmusic]

Witcher 2 vs Dragon Age 2 is just not a good example. There are reasons other than the raw API for the difference in visuals. Another is the art style. All the best graphics technologies won't help if your art style is busted.

when i compared the dragon age 2 demo dx9 vs dx11 all i noticed was the following: better lighting, better effects, distortion effects, and lesser frames.