Originally Posted by alltoasters;13872476
It doubt it uses direct x at all (it is microsoft stuff remember), and is probably better off because of it. Just because the gpu supports it doesn't mean to say they will use it, due to licensing.
From my limited understanding of programming, who would want direct x on a console anyway? All it would do would add overhead. You don't have to take different hardware configurations into account with consoles, therefore direct x isn't needed. If it was a dx11 card, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
Xbox is DX, DUH. Though DX isn't exclusive, the problem is nobody wants to pay licensing fees to have DX run on their console. If you can run OGL for free, which has worked for years (both PS3 and Wii) then why change?
Originally Posted by Horsemama1956;13873129
Tessellation was around with the 8500, maybe even before.
It's not like the 360 really has the power to use it.
Yes it does, and even in games, just not much power to use it.
Originally Posted by Blooddrunk;13874135
This thread gives me a headache. First, misleading article title is misleading, of course it's going to outperform slaughter the Xbox/PS3. Secondly, Nintendo will not/not have to use Direct X, ever. Neither will Sony. Direct X is just a middle man Microsoft API to allow different card vendors work on PC despite having different architectures. The common ground that Direct X delivers helps developers develop for PC without adapting to each vendor and each of their models.
Wrong, they can use DX and it's not a middle man. DX is an entire API, just like OpenGL. It doesn't do anything with different card vendors to work on a PC, though it plays a role in having software run universally on a PC. The hardware vendor chooses to make drivers (and firmware) that will run DX. Cards work either way, hardware acceleration for applications might not (DX required).
Originally Posted by Darkknight512;13874838
Why does it matter, most of the effects can be easily faked in the older version of DirectX no problem, the change is not that big and probably 99% of the people would never even notice it.
Also, this thing will probably be using OpenGL anyways because its not a Microsoft product.
It's not the standard OGL, it's OGL ES that consoles use. Though yeah it's basically OGL.
Originally Posted by Domino;13875419
sorry? its already been demoed and gives a solid 30+ fps on what is equiv to the tesselation in unigine. when you have a dedicated hardware for tesselation directly, the rest of the system doesnt really matter when the 360's cpu has no current bottleneck.
I quoted you for something, maybe I'll remember later.
Originally Posted by smash_mouth01;13875433
It's never been an issue if we need it or not, the fact of the matter it's there it's said to be easier to use when developing games, so I ask why aren't we using it.
Answer, the game developers don't want to,that's all.
No, console devs don't want to use conflicting tech. They would have to pay MS money and that loses them money. Devs might like it a lot, porting games with PC would be easy.
Originally Posted by Spunkybd;13878617
This world needs to move on from crysis. Its apparent that the Crytek just doesnt care anymore. We need DX11. Look at comparison videos of the polygons. When i got my dx11 card i sat there ina benchmark program for hours just looking at how amazing the difference is.
I also see this console failing cause you will have to buy umpteen different controllers and attachments after paying 300+ for the thing itself.... We'll see though. I probably wont be the first to run out and buy it.
1) We don't need DX on consoles, you have much more control than you do with a PC that it isn't exactly a need. It might be nicer for devs to program, might is a big word. They will have to modify the DX (like the Xbox) to be console specific. This might make porting slightly easier, another might. Because of this huge modification it could make it a headache, not to mention MS will know everything about your console. OGL is free and keeps security up.2) It won't be over 250 for the console, Nintendo has never gone above that. Even for their original release, the Wii was 250 just as the Gamecube was. They have kept their pricing schemes very cheap and affordable, that's their best marketing technique. It's designed to be thrown at the suburban family, cheap affordable gaming for the kids.
I just read that they have already announced it might be over 250, that really is a shock. They haven't changed their release price in a long time, interesting. They tend to push towards the suburban life, the "average" family. Hmmm.
Originally Posted by Jarhead;13889939
Actually it does, because the directX level possible is a tell-tale of what hardware features are available to developers. Plus, this means that Nintendo console ports can be done in DX11 with very little trouble, as opposed to the Xbox ports that still arrive in DX9.
This means that the video API of the ports could be done with very little ease. There's a hugh muck of porting outside the video API. Not to mention the hardware differences will force them to chop up the DX to a suitable form. I mentioned that above, which could be problematic.
Blah, and for all the haters of the wii mote. If Nintendo didn't have higher gross sales than the other console's then I would agree. However, money/statistics tell a much better tale. Nintendo dominated, for years even with the Wii. You don't dominate and be a failure, that's like saying the bear mulled you to death but still lost. No you died, you lost. Don't forget, japan love Nintendo (for obvious reason) as well as other UK countries. They really did dominate and they did it well.
As for being strictly on topic, freaking sweet. The Wii U might have some balls then, that's going to be good.Edited by mushroomboy - 6/17/11 at 11:08pm