The DirectX Ceiling is Close!

Love it or Lump it - post your feedback to individual blog posts on mtbs3D.com
Post Reply
User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6862
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

The DirectX Ceiling is Close!

Post by Neil »

Has 2D gaming reached its limitations sooner than expected? Do you think DirectX has more tricks up its sleeve, or is 3D indeed the next leap forward?

Regards,
Neil

User avatar
chilledsanity
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:23 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

Post by chilledsanity »

Actually I think what will become the next step forward before S-3D (unfortunately) is more immersive input devices. 3D graphics do seem to be plateauing though.

User avatar
gisabun
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:54 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: Other

Re: The DirectX Ceiling is Close!

Post by gisabun »

Neil wrote:Has 2D gaming reached its limitations sooner than expected? Do you think DirectX has more tricks up its sleeve, or is 3D indeed the next leap forward?

Regards,
Neil
With quad core systems dropping in price already [by brother picked up one for just over $500 without screen], I can see that the only limit to S-3D will be a S-3D capable screen. It's not like you can go into a computer store and easily buy on [or for that matter online in some places].
Image

User avatar
yuriythebest
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Kiev, ukraine

Post by yuriythebest »

If you ask a typical off the street gamer he will tell you that 'the ultimate gaming' is when the game will be indistinguishable from video camera/film footage. Show that same gamer some games on an iz3d monitor and you can easily convert him though.


a= newer directX= need for newer hardware
b= S-3D capability= need for newer hardware
a+b=really expensive

I am on a quad core with an nvidia 8600gts yet I know that 8800 is way better. This is just crazy, hardware isn't software, a .1 increase in the version number shouldn't mean you have to upgrade.

certainly flat 3d graphics have not reached their limit. Neither will S-3D. Simply because the 'limit' is to have a fully realistic world made up of simulated molecules and not polygons. Sure the computer that runs the matrix can handle that, but my quad core is like an atari in that department. At first I was gonna say "3d graphics will never reach their limit since it's impossible to make something as realistic as the real world", but then I remembered that 20 years ago we all played pong. pong!!! pong... pong!! compare pong to crysis. compare crysis to soemthing in a hundred years. You get the picture. crysis will look as mundane as pong.


so my conclusion:
directX- nowhere near it's limit
S-3D -*looks around for a holodeck*, nope still not there yet.


EDIT:
chilledsanity- input devices you say?

combine

http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=8377

+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTnnJR-hS7k

+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynAuZWk2aao

then make some decent drivers and keep em up to date so most games are supported and voila!

nubie
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:49 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor

Post by nubie »

Close? I don't know about that, I do know that the video cards need to get their own general control processors, because this current rage of needing quad core processors and blah blah physics etc is not helping the pc gaming scene.

I agree that MS needs to take their thumb out and start being supportive of change and advancement. (witness consoles with 4 players, and only a handful of PC games support 2+ players, NFS 1,2,3, maybe 4 but it sucked too hard to play, Serious Sam, and World Racing, whereas at any given moment a mid-range gaming PC can have easily twice the horsepower of the console and 2 video outputs, not to mention the opportunities for controllers for multiple users).

If they brought a standard to the table that rendered the shaders correctly, and to the proper eye, would allow for multiple GPU acceleration on multiple displays, etc etc etc. They are the Gorilla (8 billion pound?) and since they are intent on moving the DX version up higher and higher for useless gains (witness "HDR" speckling off of the bump map on every game released in the last 2 years and making it look like pure S#*t, Xbox360 and PS3 included, and perhaps the worst.)

I don't know what to say, they are making all the money they want, simply due to lack of user education, imagination, and possibly intelligence (I don't know what can be said of a poll in the nVidia forums to "delete the 3D section").

User avatar
yuriythebest
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Kiev, ukraine

Post by yuriythebest »

nubie wrote: I don't know what to say, they are making all the money they want, simply due to lack of user education, imagination, and possibly intelligence (I don't know what can be said of a poll in the nVidia forums to "delete the 3D section").
wow that is deeply disturbing. I know herding instincts can be bad but on that massive scale? We just have to be the wise and show the world the way. perhaps form an illuminati-style community.

Image

sharky
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:08 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by sharky »

personally i agree with the first post of yurithebest... i remember pong, stunts, cannon fodder, north vs south.. and see crysis.. i think the limit is FAR.. the question is not if the limit is reached or not.. the question is when MS will set a limit.. microsoft sells conosles and in order to keep them selling the DX must be behind the console.. so if the console does not grow then th eDX does not grow. dx 10 is different! oyu can enable all the settings, also in crysis, and you get an image which is like in the crysis trailers. those feautres have been disabled because the GPU couldnt keep it up but it exists! so dx10 is better.. and a lot.. its simply downpowered. try to play asasin's creed in dx9 and 10 and compare it!

cu guys
Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
Jamie Hyneman: "It's really cool, but really unusual."

Image

User avatar
cirk2
Certif-Eyed!
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:13 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor

Post by cirk2 »

DX10 can handle so many polygons, that Photorealism is in reach. In crysis you already can get that level. You have to edit some config files an computer with a very high power...

I think latest with 10.5 an great optical advantage isn't posible anymore. You can't be more realistical then the reality. So Microsoft only can improve the "depth" of the picture ;) but they won't, sharky already sayed it: Microsoft also want to sell his consoles. So an DirectX supportet S-3D will come with the X-Box-3D with stereoscopic output (may with an HMD)... And that will not be tomorrow....

User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6862
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

Post by Neil »

Just to clarify, I'm not saying Crysis is the ceiling - not at all. The full potential of DX10 has not been realized yet because of processing power limitations.

However, I am confident that each future revision is going to get progressively less innovative, and this has nothing to do with what Microsoft chooses to program for the PC in relation to their console competitiveness.

Look at Hollywood cinema. Has there been a major film innovation since Jurassic Park? Lord of the Rings was a visual masterpiece, but the core technology dates back to 1993. There is a direction in realism happening where stunt doubles are being replaced by digital stand-ins, and it won't be far off that actors are completely replaced by digital replacements. From a 2D point of view, is this visually more impressive than what has already been available to the end movie goer? Does anyone really care whether Rambo is human or digital if they look the same?

There is a difference between the limitations of art and the limitations of technology. I will concede that visually, we have a ways to go yet as far as full artistic potential is achieved. However, if the greatest technological innovation we have to look forward to is the video game polygon count, then the best innovations are behind us in the 2D space.

Regards,
Neil

sharky
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:08 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by sharky »

what i read from that article si that between dx9 and 10 there are no visual differences, except if you look at the tiny tiny thingys on still images. this is different then saying "The full potential of DX10 has not been realized yet because of processing power limitations."

in my opinion what you say in your last post is not what you say in the article.. and i dont agree that the changes wil be allways smaller. i think that the canges are constant. just take an example in time of the same game: tomb raider. look at its evolution from the first to the last. very constant in time, and the trailer of the next one shows that it is amazing compared to the last one. IF things would be like you say, then the only reason for upgrading the comp would be 3D gaming.. but unfortunately this teconology is still unknown for the mass. it would be a dead for the gaming industry since except mtbs there are no other plasn of making 3D public. 3D is the future, but 3D alone i not enough.. what 3D gives is immersion, reality.. and reality comes form many fators including images as real as possible. at the moment a engeneering program takes hours to render some seconds of movie on a powerful pc. one day these renderings will be done by the gpu instead of the gpu, and ingame, giving effects that you dont understand if it is real or not. add to that image a 3D effect and you ahve the maximum. but noone of both can live without the other one if you want a GOOD solution and a good rapresentation of reality. the main point is that at the mometn the gpus RARELY (not all fortunately) dont have enough power to run a game in stereo AND max settings. so what is needed now is that the gpus fill up this big hole and make a power jump to catch the sudden big demand of power. the graphics itself will allways be behind a console, simply because of marketing strategies.. but not far behind. so its just a matter of time.. 10 20 50 100 years and we will have realistic computergames with 3D effects, but for shure not that plastic formed graphics we have now.. (plastic formed compared to a real fully rendered image)

basically, DX continues to evolve, graphics continue to evolve, eD is catching up more day by day, gpus need to give more juice out.. its just a matter of time..
Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
Jamie Hyneman: "It's really cool, but really unusual."

Image

User avatar
yuriythebest
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Kiev, ukraine

Post by yuriythebest »

sharky wrote:
in my opinion what you say in your last post is not what you say in the article.. and i dont agree that the changes wil be allways smaller.
yes, there is an allways will be a pattern of continuously more powerfull cpu's, gpu's, more polygons, better art, etc. HOWEVER. Half life 1 in stereo looks way better than crysis in 2d. That's gotta say something. DirectX Graphics continue to evolve.. so what??? I've rather be playing directX8 games if that meant there would be good stereo support from Nvidia. When I hear all the 'innovations' in the world of pixel shaders and such, I am less and less impressed.

User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6862
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

Post by Neil »

I think my original article and my follow-up post are very consistent.

Article:
In an earlier editorial, I remarked that we are seeing diminished returns in PC gaming from a thrill to dollar point of view. 2D gaming is reaching its ceiling potential much faster than anyone anticipated. Granted, DirectX 10 is still in its infancy, and the hardware performance still has to catch up to the processing requirements of the visual potential, but the core problem remains. How can PC gaming renew its diminishing advantage over console solutions?

You are correct that DX has gotten progressively better over the years. 100%. However, each revision has had very significant improvements. DX9 and DX10 was not nearly as big a leap as DX7 to DX8 and DX8 to DX9. I still have to be convinced that an optimal DX10 game will look incredibly better than a DX9 game. The progress of Tomb Raider may have more to do with artistic expectations and goals and available processing power versus the abilities of DirectX.

I'm not saying that the only reason to upgrade a computer is for S-3D, but given its visual advantages, it's a good justification as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,
Neil

User avatar
LukePC1
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:30 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Europe
Contact:

Post by LukePC1 »

I thought the advantage of DX10 is the physics or ability to stretch things...

Didn't you see pics with a frog which was stretched very far? Imagine, how environment could be manipulated with that :roll: :)

I like a fully destructible environment. Flatout2 makes a good start. Imagine this in shooters... You throw a granade and the wall breakes :lol:

however I'm not shure if it's DX or something else :roll:
Play Nations at WAR with this code to get 5.000$ as a Starterbonus:
ayqz1u0s
http://mtbs3d.com/naw/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AMD x2 4200+ 2gb Dualchannel
GF 7900gs for old CRT with Elsa Revelator SG's
currently 94.24 Forceware and 94.24 Stereo with XP sp2!

User avatar
yuriythebest
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Kiev, ukraine

Post by yuriythebest »

LukePC1 wrote:I thought the advantage of DX10 is the physics or ability to stretch things...
You throw a granade and the wall breakes :lol:
that has already been done in crysis as well as older games like red fraction (faction??) 1,2. I even recall a game called surface tension that I used to play on my pentium 1. It had a voxel-based terrain which you could blow away.
Oculus Rift / 3d Sucks - 2D FTW!!!

Post Reply

Return to “MTBS Editorial User Remarks”