62 replies to this topic

[MrMadguy]

Updating something just for the sake of update - is really bad thing. When you think about updating something, you should ask yourself simple question - do I really need it? Majority of people here are laymen, who trust marketing and think, that things, like new engine and DX12 will somehow magically make this game much better. No, they won't. Currently DX9 runs faster, than DX11, despite of all promises from M$, that new Vista driver model will bring 100% more performance on the same hardware. And if DX11/DX12 won't bring any graphic quality improvements anyway, why use less effective teches, that will limit your playerbase even more?

TL;DR Just pick appropriate tech for your game. Don't try to use DX12 to make Super Mario Bros. If super photo realistic graphics isn't your goal and you just need max performance - just pick least denominator tech.

[Peter2k]

Azar Javed, on 01 May 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

My apologies for necroing this thread, but according to Google search, this should be the most relevant one to ask this question in.

I assume nobody cares, and if I ask this, I'm likely asking for insults and "please update your OS" outcries as well, but let's give it a shot nonetheless: Even with the 32-bit client having been dropped altogether, the Steam version of the game still works on XP x64. The non-Steam one doesn't, since its launcher has been rewritten using .Net 4.5, but yeah.

So, the Direct3D 9.0c renderer is the last thing that keeps the game alive on the x86_64 version of XP (and Server 2003).

I'd like to ask: Are there any plans to drop the Direct3D 9.0c renderer completely? And if yes, is there a schedule for that?

Just asking as MWO is the last "modern" 3D game I'm playing (HW: Westmere Hexcore, GTX Titan Black), and as soon as the D3D9 renderer gets dropped, I'd look into building an actual, proper gaming machine for it.

Would just be good to know when/if that's going to happen.

Thanks!

I really don't think so

Way back PGI/Russ where contemplating that upgrading MWO's engine to a more modern CryEngine would be as much work as switching to Unreal engine
Which btw died rather quickly as a discussion

It matters to you in this case, because newer versions of CryEngine drop DX9 support
So unless your gonna read that MWO actually is switching to a newer (or other) engine you have nothing to worry about

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2018 - 01:20 AM, said:

Updating something just for the sake of update - is really bad thing. When you think about updating something, you should ask yourself simple question - do I really need it? Majority of people here are laymen, who trust marketing and think, that things, like new engine and DX12 will somehow magically make this game much better. No, they won't. Currently DX9 runs faster, than DX11, despite of all promises from M$, that new Vista driver model will bring 100% more performance on the same hardware. And if DX11/DX12 won't bring any graphic quality improvements anyway, why use less effective teches, that will limit your playerbase even more?

TL;DR Just pick appropriate tech for your game. Don't try to use DX12 to make Super Mario Bros. If super photo realistic graphics isn't your goal and you just need max performance - just pick least denominator tech.

You realize that MWO is like THE most CPU bottlenecked game on the market right?
Comes down to 2 things

Too old an engine that can't handle all the draw calls being made (old dev post states lots of draw calls)
Which DX12 and Vulkan are particular good at handling at, besides being able to generally better multithreading tasks and are better at getting more performance out of older (and newer) hardware

And the second thing is that the UI uses an old scaleform version (switching off UI ingame usually gives a good fps boost)
Dev's know (old dev post) but no resources are being allocated to updating it, especially since newer engines (like newer CryEngine) come stock with a newer version already
So chicken and egg problem

I don't have the links handy, but it should be in an old thread with Karl Berg about 4k textures and why we don't have them, although the art team uses higher res textures than 4k anyway
Small reminder, install size, that's all (wonder if those old tweets from Russ are still there)

Anyway all this DX12 talk is rhetorical
Under DX12/Vulkan the dev's have to do more work to coax out more performance
I wouldn't trust PGI's ability to code something like that proper if they can't fix different ammo for LBX

Gotta remember way bigger dev studios DX12 implementation where terrible at first

Hey
I mean the changes to the forums look is a rather good example
They can change the look, can make art something, but fixing the search function?

Edited by Peter2k, 02 May 2018 - 03:52 AM.

[Azar Javed]

Thanks for your replies (and the detailed information)!

I was just thinking that the D3D9 renderer might meet the same fate as the 32-bit client. I mean, they could just drop it because they want to maintain less renderers (=less work?) or something. Actually, I find it to be amazing that they're even compiling with an NT 5.2 x64 platform toolset, making this work on my ancient OS. I could be mistaken, but what I can determine by inspecting MWOClient.exe, they seem to be building it with Visualstudio 2010 still.

Well, I just didn't think that people other than me would even notice if D3D9 was gone, much like I assume it was for the 32-bit client as well? Though I wasn't around when that got dropped. But who would really notice these days.

Out of curiosity: Was the removal of the 32-bit version announced beforehand?