EVE-Search ForumWatch

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:51:00 +0000

"http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/presentations/"

I've read that dx10 introduction a while ago, but it doesn't really answer my question

What i mean is, i seriously doubt anyone is currently able to think of any kind of actual visual effect that would be made available by dx10, and which would make some tremendous difference in what the game looks like... that could justify the whole "new shaders will make what we have now look old overnight" line of comments. This is more wishful thinking and delusions of grandeur, that cover lack of actual solid ideas what else can be added to game visuals that is not possible and being done already.

The only thing at the moment seem to be generation on the fly of extra geometry to improve appearance of normal-mapped 'bumpy' surfaces. But even this people do already, with self-shadows and all.

(i realize the new architecture can make it easier for the programmers to achieve these effects. but the end user couldn't care less about this particular aspect, as long as things wind up for them looking no different)

"So why use DX10 now, and not DX9c? this is how i see it:

1. What's better in the short term and for the current eve playerbase -> programmable pipeline upgrade to trinity using DX9
2. What's better for the long term future of eve's graphics, the trinity engine (beyond eve?), and your employees skillsets -> DX10"

Except there's a part missing from that picture. Which is: "the hardware meeting requirement of 'long term future' engine won't really become widespread until well in the future as well."

So there is no real need to make this sort of choice between "well-being of EVE now" and "well being of EVE few years down the road". Instead, it appears more logical to target current hardware now, and then start development of next generation of engine for the hardware which, by the time work is done, actually may be something people have and use.

Does it mean twice the work that has to be done? Yes, of course. But trying to skip this work and going for shortcuts, thus effectively ignoring the needs of current playerbase and launching 'next generation' system before it's actually needed... isn't really benefitting EVE any, imo.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by D'onryu Shoqui

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:47:00 +0000

i wouldnt even bother arguing guys ,this person isnt willing to change there opinion.

did you just spend hundreds of $ on a new pc without bothering to research what is happening with pc hardware? im beggining to think you just bought some 7800gt sli rig and your crying because you made a mistake and one that is going to stop you from seeing eves new graphics engine in all its glory.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by kieron

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:46:00 +0000

Please read the new Dev Blog and turn all discussion to the new thread.

kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:35:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
I've read...considerably more than theoretical works about game design. In practice, it's never that near, and the vast majority of game engines out there don't even support shaders at this point in time, Eve being just another example of them.

(here's a hint btw - you don't need to be a coder in the traditional sense to work with shaders)

You do actually know what shaders are? Right?

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Assumption after assumption after assumption there.

I've read...considerably more than theoretical works about game design. In practice, it's never that near, and the vast majority of game engines out there don't even support shaders at this point in time, Eve being just another example of them.

(here's a hint btw - you don't need to be a coder in the traditional sense to work with shaders)

Furthermore, this is completely irellevant to the actual discussion here - the point about requiring Vista being a Bad Thing (TM).

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:25:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Indicentally, the average game programer DOSN'T have a doctorate in whatever...and he's going to take even longer to get to grips with DX10 than it took him to learn DX9c...you should hear them freaking over multi-core too.

Deary me, sigh. Considering your comment about multi-core I take it that you actually have read game-developer related discussion, from say the Game Algorithms list or the like? If so, I assume you have read more than one post, like where theres quite a lot of references to research papers about this, and that?

The people "with doctorates in whatever" write research papers, or articles in game industry publications. In those papers/articles they explain what they have done, how they did it, and what the results, pros and cons of doing it their way are.

The comes along the "average game programmer" - who, whilst might be pretty competent when it comes to programming, arn't really that amazing when it comes to coming up with really obscure ways in using vertex and pixel shaders. They reads these papers, works out how the authors did what they did, and go ahead and implement the solution.

You might actually learn something from this, by like, actually reading and comprehending the context in which I made the statement you quoted. Or instead you can continue to completely ignore anything bar "DX10, Vista" and spam the same old responses to posts not even directed at you

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:17:00 +0000

XP? I use 2k. You're making biased assumptions based on your own narrow worldview. Grow up and look outside your little box.

I suggest you actually take a look at what Vista will mean for you...so much you cannot DO on it. DX10 for Vista only is Microsoft's way to try and force people to upgrade.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Sir Juri

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:14:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
The damage a two-tier client model will do, looking at MUD's which tried this, means that Eve won't have an especially healthy long term. Vista is going to be useless to a lot of people except for the games which demand it.

There is a quick, easy and entirely wrong answer to any situation. In this case, that's DX10/Vista. The only other people one hears about the other side of the "line" are those being paid or owned by Microsoft.

Indicentally, the average game programer DOSN'T have a doctorate in whatever...and he's going to take even longer to get to grips with DX10 than it took him to learn DX9c...you should hear them freaking over multi-core too.

stop trolling lies. Never heard of a Windows XP fan club but I guess maya is the president. About DX10 your so wrong. I suggest you get a clue about Vista its embarrising to see what you post.

Im a noob, bear with me :P

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:11:00 +0000

The damage a two-tier client model will do, looking at MUD's which tried this, means that Eve won't have an especially healthy long term. Vista is going to be useless to a lot of people except for the games which demand it.

There is a quick, easy and entirely wrong answer to any situation. In this case, that's DX10/Vista. The only other people one hears about the other side of the "line" are those being paid or owned by Microsoft.

Indicentally, the average game programer DOSN'T have a doctorate in whatever...and he's going to take even longer to get to grips with DX10 than it took him to learn DX9c...you should hear them freaking over multi-core too.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 22:06:00 +0000

Quote:
Could you provide us with some specific examples of what exactly will be possible with these 'next gen shader models'

j0 you are probably best viewing the latest GDC slides at: (about half way down)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/presentations/

also the Meltdown 2005 slides
These are technical presentations and not spiffy screenshots.

Shader model 4 probably won't make an overnight difference - keep in mind it's taken quite a while for the guys with doctorates in got knows what out there to work out how to utilize the current programmable pipeline in out-of-the-box ways, and we are only just starting to see some of these tricks utilized in new releases.

It is definatly the case that the eve engine could be upgraded to current "state of the art" graphics using DX9 and the current programmable pipeline. in the short term that's a very viable option and one I would have liked to have seen happen a while ago.

The exact same effects (and more) can be created in DX10 shortly (now, to some extent, the feb 2006 directx SDK contains some DX10 stuff, reference driver, software emulation for the latest shader model and so on) and potentially much more efficiently due to the "driver optimizations" (or so microsoft claims).

So why use DX10 now, and not DX9c? this is how i see it:

1. What's better in the short term and for the current eve playerbase -> programmable pipeline upgrade to trinity using DX9
2. What's better for the long term future of eve's graphics, the trinity engine (beyond eve?), and your employees skillsets -> DX10

The second path is definatly a brave, bold and risky choice - especially considering many consumers issues with Vista. CCP however are not the only software house in the gaming industry going over these same questions and issues, and they are definatly not the only ones landing on the DX10 side of the line.

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 21:15:00 +0000

Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 21:16:28

"No, but next years 'next gen shader models' would make it look bad almost overnight."

Could you provide us with some specific examples of what exactly will be possible with these 'next gen shader models' that will be leaps and bounds ahead of current generation graphics in say, X3 or Infinity? And i do mean specific examples, not hand-waving and buzzwords...

"Considering it's not supposed to be released until next year, competing with todays titles when coding something that is to be released 12 months from now would be terminally stupid."

I was under impression Kali is to come out this summer ("Q2/2006") not next one..? o.O;

(well more like 'this year' now with 3rd party delaying their own releases and stuff, but still...)

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:57:00 +0000

You can achieve broadly the same effects, even if the methods are different.

Yes, it may mean that you need to support two different ways of doing specific issues because of different ways ATI and Nvidia handle things with their driver extensions, bbut at the end of the day that dosn't matter. What matters is what is best for the Eve community. And if that means that CCP need an extra engine coder, so be it.

It is STILL a far better idea than putting all the pretty into a DX10/Vista client.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:57:00 +0000

Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 20:58:56

"Don't use EQ2 as an example.

EQ2 engine is one of the most inefficient, buggy and horribly coded in the history of DX9 graphics engines."

Look at the speed of UI rendering in EVE, at the speed performance in battles involving more than dozen people, and then try to say with straight face that graphics engine of EVE is that far off from EQ.

We are talking of game which has conditioned its playerbase into running it with turned off rendering of turret fire, module effects, and sound on top of it, with the view zoomed out as far as possible and the overview filtered down to most necessary stuff... simply to ensure the client runs faster than at single digits per second. All this while well coded engines can happily chew through 1-2 mil polys per frame at 60+ fps (1 mil polygons is 200-250 typical EVE ships)

The comparison might be overall quite closer than it'd seem at first glance -.o

(it doesn't have much to do with the original point, btw. Since it doesn't really matter if hardware requirements of EQ2 engine were result of bad coding or trying to do too much and aiming for 'hardware of the future' ... as long as situation overall simulates quite closely what the situation of upgraded EVE will be like. I.e. demanding top hardware to look good, or looking outdated on the machines which don't meet this requirement)

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:52:00 +0000

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 20:53:13
Moominer,

The core of the updates will be for DX10. That DX9c users are being tossed a bone dosn't mean that it'll be any less a two-class system. And you need to read up on DX10, I'm afraid. It's not really a "DX" in the same way the previous updates from 7 to 8 to 9 and so on. You're right, WITH DX9 AND BELOW, you can have a subset of the features and still be able to play a DX9 game.

With DX10, THAT ALL CHANGES. Either you have a fully DX10 card, or your caerd IS NOT DX10. If you want to play a DX10 game, your card must be DX10. Period. No ifs, no buts.
The DX10 cycle will only really start with the built-for DX10 engines. That's still nearly a YEAR away. And in a year, a TINY proportion of the Eve population will be able to use the new client. Even by the end of 2008, they will STILL be a minority. BY the time that CCP has had a FULL three year cucle, THEN it will be right to consider DX10.

You can add features into a DX9c engine which can equal those of DX10, IF their graphics card can support it. If the engine is DX10, then no DX9c graphics card, HOWEVER GOOD, can play it at all. And you're required with DX10 to install the bloatware which is Vista.

And I don't care about "happy with the API", I care about the players of Eve. I argue that not offering DX9c users a deacent upgrade is going to cost Eve dearly.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:52:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Jarnis McPieksu, I sure as HECK am going to use it as an example. It's the logical end result of precisely the sort of the thinking which wouls lead someone to think coding for Vista/DX10 is a GOOD idea right now. Philosophy, not technology.

And sorry, but the DX10 techology both isn't THAT revoloutionary, but you can support the features using driver extensions in ANY case under DX9c.

Driver extensions are EXACTLY the reasons why DX10 is so stringent. Nvidia and ATI both have their own ways of doing stuff and force developers to code 2+ codepaths for each method. DX9.0b is ATI and DX9.0c is Nvidia/ATI OpenGL isnt much better either. DX 10 stops all this nonsense and allows developers to code just 1 path.

As for your idea that DX10 can be done in any case under DX9c WTF are you smoking. The rendering pipeline is totally different. Unified shaders cannot be done under DX9.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:46:00 +0000

"The entry barrier for EVE is not going to change by the sounds things. If we go by what CCP are currently saying - the plans are for an upgraded DX9 version to still be available."

Well, the problem is, CCP seems to be telling all sorts of things that don't necessarily form together single coherent picture. In the last thread regarding the subject Oveur piped in, explaining that the developers are currently trying to determine what can be done in the dx9 version of the client, and what will be 'dx10-exclusive' due to technology issues, lack of bear and whatnot. Surprisingly enough though, this statement was made by the time current issue on EON already went to print, and from what i understand the picture painted in it is quite different, with dx10 being target platform and dx9 version receiving maybe few scraps as "upgrade" here and there? o.O

This is seriously confusing at the moment...

"You don't need to spend money on new hardware to play EVE post trinity upgrade? unless you want some of the new fancy effects."

Indeed, if for some reason you choose to not switch to next OS and/or upgrade your computer, you have option of playing with few years old graphics. Question though, do you think this sort of "latest hardware or brace for trip down memory lane" choice... is going to increase or decrease number of people who after picking up EVE to check it out, wind up as actual subscribers? Provided the alternative could be the game offering up-to-date visuals on 'reasonable', couple years old hardware...

"I am assuming some of the effects mentioned will be included in the upgraded DX9 version."

Well, think we differ at this point then. After the mixed up signals from CCP am trying to no longer assume anything to the effect of "yes we will code upgraded engine for dx9 and then entirely new engine utilizing fully dx10 to boot". Because, as you point out yourself, this is basically expecting the game to receive two full development cycles worth of upgrades in one go...

"For EVE to be released with "present day" graphics technologies it means it's development started out aiming for the "next generation".
The same applies here."

Re-reading it, i worded my comment wrong, sorry about that. When i said "present" it was to mean hardware which was already out for couple years, and as such spread enough to be considered "standard" close to "low common denominator". In similar vain i'd consider dx9-compliant hardware to approach the same point of being "present" platform to code for.

"However, all things considered I would personally like to see a "present" technology deployment of a
DX10 engine sometime after Vista and DX10 has settled down."

Well, if the rate at which dx9-compliant hardware is spreading can be any indication, i'd say there's at least 2-3 years before Vista and dx-10 cards become equally "present" technology. (as opposed to gimmick in small number of households) Which leaves enough time for another development cycle that could bring this dx10-based version of the engine.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 20:41:00 +0000

Quote:
Eon says that this isn't the case. The core of the upgrades are DX10 ONLY.

I don't have EON, but what I have read there will be improvements made to the DX9 codebase.

Originally by: Maya Rkell
The effective barrier is.....

Do you actually have anything to back up that claim? What about all the MMOGs that have graphical upgrades in pay expansions?

A really basic example of how this is flawed: My card can't support HDR, does that stop me playing games in lower gfx settings (e.g. Oblivion) because I don't have HDR?

Quote:
And two cycles? Yes, DX9c now and DX10 in three years. The NEXT sequence. It's not like the DX9c upgrade is exclusionary - it's the DX10 one which is.

The DX10 cycle has already started (in it's infancy for developers currently, but it's started). Waiting three years and the end result will be CCP's engine is always three years behind the times. If I was CEO of CCP I would not put up with that. By that time they may be needing to look at their project after EVE - and it would be very advantagous to have a stable DX10 engine already there.

Quote:
And there IS no present DX10 tech. ...

By the time any trinity upgrade (be it DX10 or DX9c) is ready for release DX10 will be present technology

Quote:
..precisely the sort of the thinking which wouls lead someone to think coding for Vista/DX10 is a GOOD idea right now. Philosophy, not technology....And sorry, but the DX10 techology both isn't THAT revoloutionary...

There are a lot of developers who are very happy about the D3D10 API and shader model 4. There are a lot of technical pros for DX10 by the initial looks of it. As for the promises of the optimizations we'll have to see.

Theres also a lot of unhappy consumers who don't like the sound of Vista, and therein lies the problem. Many people are arguing against DX10 simply because of the Vista issue. Which, I conceed, is valid.

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 18:40:00 +0000

Jarnis McPieksu, I sure as HECK am going to use it as an example. It's the logical end result of precisely the sort of the thinking which wouls lead someone to think coding for Vista/DX10 is a GOOD idea right now. Philosophy, not technology.

And sorry, but the DX10 techology both isn't THAT revoloutionary, but you can support the features using driver extensions in ANY case under DX9c.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Jarnis McPieksu

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 18:36:00 +0000

Originally by: Hunters Presence
"Well it's hardly CPPs fault people don't upgrade. You expect to play oblivion at full GFX on a computer from 4 years ago? Hell no. Same here."

No but even on a system that plays Oblivion at full GFX AND EvE at full GFX simulaneously using current technology, I still don't have DirectX 10 support on my GFX.

There's just no hardware to cope with it. It seems a ridiculous marketing mistake to target a market that doesn't exist and won't for many years. If you applied bump-mapping and decent shadow-mapping to EvE right now it would look gorgeous, you don't need next-gen shader model standards to do that.

No, but next years 'next gen shader models' would make it look bad almost overnight. Considering it's not supposed to be released until next year, competing with todays titles when coding something that is to be released 12 months from now would be terminally stupid.

- Jarnis McPieksu
Industrial Operative, Beagle Corp [KAOS EMPIRE]

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Jarnis McPieksu

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 18:35:00 +0000

Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 12:24:17

"Why spend substantial development time on upgrading to current generation that may last 2 years, when you can spend equally substantial development time on upgrading to next generation that will last many more years?"

Because your users live in the present, and are trying to play your game now, not 3-4 years down the road?

Sony tried this route with Everquest II -- they made a really ****ty and really demanding game engine that runs like dog on most hardware even nowadays, because all estimations nonwithstandings we really have no way to tell what the hardware is going to be exactly capable of, some years in the future (with new concepts on how things "should" be done springing up every now and then, and everyone dropping current "in" thing so they can start chasing the new shiney)

Don't use EQ2 as an example.

EQ2 engine is one of the most inefficient, buggy and horribly coded in the history of DX9 graphics engines. Heck, they haven't got their shadows working yet, and it's been, what, 1.5 years since launch? People disassembled the EQ2 shader code, and found it to be a buggy compilation of 'example' shaders from DX9 manuals, with zero optimizations whatsoever to any hardware.

In other words, CRAP, coded by salaried drones with no skills, working to check off tickboxes in a feature sheet.

Oblivion engine is much better indication, and it runs great at full 1600x1200 res at least on my computer - and I don't even have a SLI/Crossfire setup. (EQ2, however, still runs like a dog, and it will keep running like a dog on every computer, because it's crappily coded)

Considering the age of EVE, it's 3D engine is one of it's good bits. I have every reason to belive CCP coders did not turn stupid overnight, and the new engine will actually exploit the hardware properly and will both look cool and run well (on proper hardware).

- Jarnis McPieksu
Industrial Operative, Beagle Corp [KAOS EMPIRE]

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Karol Kei

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 18:25:00 +0000

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Maya and the rest of you that are doom saying... I've got a few things I feel I need to share with you.

Will you please stop whining? It's been shown COUNTLESS TIMES that you people don't know what you are talking about. And whining about it constantly, and insesantly has NEVER changed anything.

Right. Care to give a thought, just one, for the possibility that we are not wrong. You see, the thing is, we aren't.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Vista isn't for the "elite few" Nor is the EVE vista upgrade. It is simply not CCP's fault that you can't afford to keep a current PC running. And the fact that CCP is going to allow the older version of the engine to operate under the new system is a boon and a pretty big one at that.

I have no problem affording my rig to be up to date, thank you. Like in my last response to your last paragraph I am simply asking you to clue up - and if that is too much trouble to go through, reading what you are replying to shouldn't be.

Furthermore supporting multiple clients is not a good idea and it has been proven a bad idea in the past.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
2 years from today, most people playing eve will be doing so on a vista machine. The fact that we are seeing the upgrade soon is simply future proofing, and if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the phrase.

Yes, you seem to be right there. And that is the point of this thread. There is very little benefit if any and plenty of drawback s in forcing the gamers to adopt to Vista. Once more I ask you to read up a bit. There is a choice to be made and it seems like for some reason CCP is going to make the bad one. If you don't know why it is so I advise you to read up on Vista.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
The bottom line is Vista will be adopted by home users at the same or faster rate than XP was. Which, despite your opinion to the contrary was faster than any previous operating system in HISTORY. The reason for this is clear in this thread. Because THE BIGGEST, BADDEST GAMES ARE GOING TO WORK ON VISTA. PERIOD.

Oh giving me the advertising line now, are you? Please. "Bottom line" too? lollers.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
You want the big toys, you gotta play with the big boys. And us big boys upgrade every 6 months.

Can I have your autograph, please?

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
For the record, a top flight gaming computer costs about 1100$ if you can build it yourself. Twice that from Dell. And when vista hits, it's still only going to cost about 1100$ to build a gaming rig.

I built my first gaming rig at 1989. It wasn't the first computer I built. Thanks for the lesson.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
If you can't afford the hobby, thats fine, but please don't complain and try and get the hobby nerfed for the rest of us. What you should be doing is singing the praises of CCP for allowing you to continue to play under xp/2k with DX9, and upgrading even that experiance. Not whining because your mom's Dell can't run vista.

Oh kay.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 17:35:00 +0000

Moominer,

The effective barrier is. Very few people will use the "old client", and that's how they'll see it. "Oh, I can't run the new client. I don't want something old...pass".

And again, you're assuming that the UI will be identical. You're assuming that it won't let you turn of effects in battle. You're assuming a lot of things, as trhis thread has explored. I don't think they're good assumptions to make.

And two cycles? Yes, DX9c now and DX10 in three years. The NEXT sequence. It's not like the DX9c upgrade is exclusionary - it's the DX10 one which is.

And there IS no present DX10 tech. It's going to be a while before DX10 tech is avaliable, then there will be pitfalls and stumbling blocks along the way. And there are assumptions about the OS which will have to be mad,e some of which will be true...it's a BIG risk compared to a DX9c engine.

"I am assuming some of the effects mentioned will be included in the upgraded DX9 version."

Eon says that this isn't the case. The core of the upgrades are DX10 ONLY.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 17:29:00 +0000

Quote:
...
to do with actual game being done differently, but to pretend the fact
one of these games have way way lower 'entry barrier' hardware-wise
than the other... that it doesn't have some effect there... that'd be
plain denial.

The entry barrier for EVE is not going to change by the sounds
things. If we go by what CCP are currently saying - the plans are for an upgraded DX9 version to still be available.

Quote:
You could reverse your original question and ask yourself this,
instead: why spend substantial development time on upgrading to next
generation that may 'last many more years' but equally well may
change to something completely different after 2-3 years, to make
people spend the money on new hardware again

You don't need to spend money on new hardware to play EVE post trinity
upgrade? unless you want some of the new fancy effects. I am assuming some of the effects mentioned will be included in the upgraded DX9 version. This hardware
generation cycle really is not something new in the games industry.

For those calling for a DX9 version of EVE now before a DX10 - you do realise that is two development cycles - taking developers off content twice to do basically the same thing.

Quote:
When EVE was originally released it was aimed at generation
present at that time. It was simply very well utilized to look
gorgeous.

For EVE to be released with "present day" graphics technologies it
means it's development started out aiming for the "next generation".
The same applies here.

Quote:
Moominer, very few engines, even HL2, push DX9.0c to its limits
even today. And The article said 3 year cycles...well, this cycle
should be a DX9.0c upgrade, and the NEXT cycle when Vista might
actually be used by slightly more than half its users, in 3 years from
now, should be DX10. Trinity 3.0, not 2.0.

See my response to j0 above as to why doing two cycles for this engine upgrade is bad idea.

I fully agree that EVE could be made to look a *lot* better with
current hardware and DX9 without even needing to look at DX10, and to be honest, the DX9 upgrade should have already happened.

However, all things considered I would personally like to see a "present" technology deployment of a
DX10 engine sometime after Vista and DX10 has settled down.

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 13:23:00 +0000

Originally by: Hydrian Alante
Maya, I got your points and I think that they are valid.

But: Just wait for the Windows Vista version of EvE. Maybe this Version is almost identical to the DirectX 9 Version of EvE and you have to search for some little Shader Effects with a looking glass.

No, that's not what has been said in EON. The core of the updates are planned for Vista/DX10 only. If they would be large identical but the DX9 version had a slightly earlier version of HDR, for example, then I'd be a lot less concerned. But the article indicates a fundermental difference.

SengH, you're dreaming if you think they'll do that anytime soon. You can run the Aero desktop on DX9.0L (the Vista DX9), and the target market for Intel's integrated graphics are NOT the people who'll want to play the dozen or so games which will run on vista in the first handful of months.

Moominer, very few engines, even HL2, push DX9.0c to its limits even today. And The article said 3 year cycles...well, this cycle should be a DX9.0c upgrade, and the NEXT cycle when Vista might actually be used by slightly more than half its users, in 3 years from now, should be DX10. Trinity 3.0, not 2.0.

And again, the PROBLEM is per EON that Vista/DX10 will be getting the core of the upgrades and DX9 users will be getting a handdown to try and pacify them. It'll create an immediate two-class Eve system and is wrong.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Lacero Callrisian

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 13:19:00 +0000

j0 makes good points. I'm still fairly optimistic though, CCPs announced plans are to improve the DX9c game, and then slowly release DX10 content afterwards. EON puts the timescale for the final DX10 content as the "end of next year", this leaves plenty of time for CCP to abandon or scale down this support if Vista sells as badly as most people seem to think it will.

I don't expect CCP to say anything in response to this thread as any comment just limits their options. It may be that Vista tanks so horribly that CCP have to just release a "DX10" version of the DX9c client that's been recompiled to work without the Vista DX9c emulation. That's perfectly compatible with what they've said so far, or could be made to look that way with some clever PR.

I have some sympathy for their position, if they'd redone the graphics engine a year ago they'd have just gone with DX9c, if they start redoing it in a year or two they'd probably use DX10, but eve needs upgrading right now and ignoring DX10 is as bad an option as supporting it. I personally think even the end of next year is too soon for DX10 support to be worth bothering with, but if they're rewriting the graphics engine anyway they should take it into account and prepare for it.

I agree with Maya though, if they do make completely different clients there will be problems. And like I said in the last thread, I'd rather use the (mythical) in station only mobile phone version of Eve than the DX10 version.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Hunters Presence

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 12:46:00 +0000

"Well it's hardly CPPs fault people don't upgrade. You expect to play oblivion at full GFX on a computer from 4 years ago? Hell no. Same here."

No but even on a system that plays Oblivion at full GFX AND EvE at full GFX simulaneously using current technology, I still don't have DirectX 10 support on my GFX.

There's just no hardware to cope with it. It seems a ridiculous marketing mistake to target a market that doesn't exist and won't for many years. If you applied bump-mapping and decent shadow-mapping to EvE right now it would look gorgeous, you don't need next-gen shader model standards to do that.
________________
Lead Games Programmer
Quasit-Rushyo Games

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Pesadel0

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 12:44:00 +0000

I agree with maya .

Why do a DX10 when you can do a 9.0c and the game whould be pretier ,and we wouldnt have to upgrade to vista.

Now what i'am saying is why not upgrade the grafic engine to take full advantage of the Dx9.0c?

They are taking a huge step maybe to huge in tecnology terms i think.....

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 12:20:00 +0000

Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 12:24:17

"Why spend substantial development time on upgrading to current generation that may last 2 years, when you can spend equally substantial development time on upgrading to next generation that will last many more years?"

Because your users live in the present, and are trying to play your game now, not 3-4 years down the road?

Sony tried this route with Everquest II -- they made a really ****ty and really demanding game engine that runs like dog on most hardware even nowadays, because all estimations nonwithstandings we really have no way to tell what the hardware is going to be exactly capable of, some years in the future (with new concepts on how things "should" be done springing up every now and then, and everyone dropping current "in" thing so they can start chasing the new shiney)

And this particular case does make you wonder. EQ2 has very steep hardware requirements, and at best mediocre user base. On the other hand their direct competition i.e. WoW could be probably run on Java-enabled toaster ... and the playerbase for this game is counted in millions. Sure, lot of it has to do with actual game being done differently, but to pretend the fact one of these games have way way lower 'entry barrier' hardware-wise than the other... that it doesn't have some effect there... that'd be plain denial.

You could reverse your original question and ask yourself this, instead: why spend substantial development time on upgrading to next generation that may 'last many more years' but equally well may change to something completely different after 2-3 years, to make people spend the money on new hardware again ... and which will cost your game a number of potential subscribers meantime (due to your game looking outdated on present hardware and demanding latest hardware just to look like games that currently look good without it) ... that might well affect overall well-being of your game before that 'few years later future' even comes?

When EVE was originally released it was aimed at generation present at that time. It was simply very well utilized to look gorgeous. This development model proved in practice to be more than successful. So we shall now ignore this experience completely, turn around 180 and do something entirely different, something that didn't work too well for another company who tried it, meanwhile.

That makes perfect sense... not ;

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 09:18:00 +0000

Edited by: MysticNZ on 14/04/2006 09:17:55

Originally by: Moominer
...

Fully understand. From what I understand dual core gpus are not far away either.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 09:11:00 +0000

Originally by: Cadadon
Why can't CCP do the DX9 upgrade now?

That's current-generation graphics, there is already a next-generation of graphics pipelines in the workings, and CCP are aiming for that - for the future - for 3/4years time. They have openly stated this.

Why spend substantial development time on upgrading to current generation that may last 2 years, when you can spend equally substantial development time on upgrading to next generation that will last many more years?

Originally by: Cadadon
This is still gonna mean ALOT of people a gonna need to upgrade their computers if they want the new stuff (however, if they want to see the new shiney DX9 features, they don't have to upgrade, because thier graphics cards will only show what they can. Thats the joy of DX9, something DX10 won't be able to do.

"Direct3D 9 support is needed to run on Windows XP or on Windows Vista
without Direct3D 10 class hardware, so we don't expect developers to
stop using Direct3D 9 anytime in the immediate future. Direct3D 9 is a
first-class API on Windows Vista and is intended for use by more
applications than just games. The new driver model in Windows Vista is
intended to provide a great Direct3D 9 experience as well as support a
new generation of hardware features through Direct3D 10 and beyond."

-Chuck Walbourn
SDE, Windows Gaming & Graphics
(DirectX Mailing list 13th December 2005)

Kieron on the first page of this thread stated they are looking at adding the new content in a way which is compatible with both DX9 and DX10. So you've heard it from one of the leads on the DX10 project, and Kieron. Now, what's the problem?

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Cadadon

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 07:23:00 +0000

Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 02:27:53

"Dont pull BS numbers out of your ass. DX 9 market penetration is FARRRRRRRR from 90%. Using steam's survey as a test here less than 60% of their users can use the DX9 path."

Ironically enough, doesn't it in a way confirm Maya's main point? dx-9 compliant video cards have been around for quite a few years, yet turns out 30-odd percent of avid gamers (i.e. that part of computer users who according to this thread upgrade the fastest and most often) ... still didn't bother to get on the bandwagon.

And since there's continually less and less point in upgrading to next latest operatating system while the one currently installed already does pretty much everything users need and more... i really don't see where this whole wishful thinking comes from, of how magically and unlike it was with previous couple versions of the OS... everyone and their grandma rushes to the stores to grab Vista box off the shelves. Or even suddenly discovers their box that has been running the words processor and whatnot fast enough for last 2-3 years isn't cutting it anymore and runs off to swap it for next computer with new OS pre-installed.

Also, one aspect which is sort of overlooked in this discussion... it's quite common for EVE players to operate 2 or even more game clients on single computer, which is made possible by its relatively low requirements. Something which realistically can't be expected from the upgraded client running on Vista, with all the extra overhead. Which might make people even less eager to switch to the new system, all the eyecandy nonwithstanding...

j0sephine hit the nail on the head here. You point proves that not very few people actually have DX9 hardware capabilities, after years of them being available. A much smaller percentage of people will rush out to buy the DX10 cards. CCP are spending a lot of time/resources coding for a minority.

I would guess not even 50% of EVE users could run DX9 graphics code, and TBH DX9 will be around for a long time to come, and can look damn good (HL2, AoE3 etc).

Why can't CCP do the DX9 upgrade now? This is still gonna mean ALOT of people a gonna need to upgrade their computers if they want the new stuff (however, if they want to see the new shiney DX9 features, they don't have to upgrade, because thier graphics cards will only show what they can. Thats the joy of DX9, something DX10 won't be able to do.)

---
They're -- They are
Their -- The Smith's are selling their house
There -- Look over there

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 06:56:00 +0000

Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 14/04/2006 02:27:53

"Dont pull BS numbers out of your ass. DX 9 market penetration is FARRRRRRRR from 90%. Using steam's survey as a test here less than 60% of their users can use the DX9 path."

Ironically enough, doesn't it in a way confirm Maya's main point? dx-9 compliant video cards have been around for quite a few years, yet turns out 30-odd percent of avid gamers (i.e. that part of computer users who according to this thread upgrade the fastest and most often) ... still didn't bother to get on the bandwagon.

And since there's continually less and less point in upgrading to next latest operatating system while the one currently installed already does pretty much everything users need and more... i really don't see where this whole wishful thinking comes from, of how magically and unlike it was with previous couple versions of the OS... everyone and their grandma rushes to the stores to grab Vista box off the shelves. Or even suddenly discovers their box that has been running the words processor and whatnot fast enough for last 2-3 years isn't cutting it anymore and runs off to swap it for next computer with new OS pre-installed.

Also, one aspect which is sort of overlooked in this discussion... it's quite common for EVE players to operate 2 or even more game clients on single computer, which is made possible by its relatively low requirements. Something which realistically can't be expected from the upgraded client running on Vista, with all the extra overhead. Which might make people even less eager to switch to the new system, all the eyecandy nonwithstanding...

The thing that I meant with vista forcing the baseline up, it will force intel to stop releasing crap for integrated graphics. That said if intel releases an integrated DX10 solution for vista due it its stringent requirements, it will work with EVE rather than the crap intel integrated graphics we have today.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Moominer

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 06:40:00 +0000

Edited by: Moominer on 14/04/2006 06:44:01

Originally by: MysticNZ
Quad core cpus are due out by then, with 8x next year... I have a dual core, very nice for running one clinet on one core and fraps on the other. No at and full res. I guess the day of the single core cpu is over.

Dual/Tri booting for the next-gen trinity engine will depend on GPU load, not just mostly CPU load like now (the current trinity engine is pretty low on GPU load and high on CPU load)

Current gen graphical effects (i.e. not the current trintiy engine which is old) rely much more on GPU work than CPU work to create the effects we see and that trend is only increasing. Someone with little technical knowledge of graphics could glance at the pretty pictures in at a copy of the GPU Gems series of books to see what I mean.

I am talking about very mundane processing/geometry tasks that once used to be handled on the CPU that the minds that be are now finding ways to moved to the GPU - such as terrain rendering (yes not in EVE but you get the point), geometry instancing, occlusion culling and so on.

Eve Fitting Manager

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 05:39:00 +0000

Originally by: j0sephine
Also, one aspect which is sort of overlooked in this discussion... it's quite common for EVE players to operate 2 or even more game clients on single computer, which is made possible by its relatively low requirements. Something which realistically can't be expected from the upgraded client running on Vista, with all the extra overhead. Which might make people even less eager to switch to the new system, all the eyecandy nonwithstanding...

Quad core cpus are due out by then, with 8x next year... I have a dual core, very nice for running one clinet on one core and fraps on the other. No at and full res. I guess the day of the single core cpu is over.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Hydrian Alante

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Maya, I got your points and I think that they are valid.

But: Just wait for the Windows Vista version of EvE. Maybe this Version is almost identical to the DirectX 9 Version of EvE and you have to search for some little Shader Effects with a looking glass.

I buy every 10-12 Months a new Notebook. Next one is planned for March 2007 (4th Generation Centrino Codename: "Santa Rosa" ). And this one is going to have Vista and a DX10 Graphics Card Onboard.

Beside EvE, I just play classic games on my pc (notebook). All the other new ones (like Oblivion) are getting played on my home consoles.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by j0sephine

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 02:23:00 +0000

"Dont pull BS numbers out of your ass. DX 9 market penetration is FARRRRRRRR from 90%. Using steam's survey as a test here less than 60% of their users can use the DX9 path."

Ironically enough, doesn't it in a way confirm Maya's main point? dx-9 compliant video cards have been around for quite a few years, yet turns out 30=odd percent of avid gamers (i.e. that part of computer users who according to this thread upgrade the fastest and most often) ... still didn't bother to get on the bandwagon. And since there's continually less and less point in upgrading to next latest operatating system where the one currently installed already does pretty much everything users need and more... i really don't see where this whole wishful thinking comes from, of how magically and unlike it was with previous couple versions of the OS... everyone and their grandma rushes to the stores to grab Vista box off the shelves.

Also, one aspect which is sort of overlooked in this discussion... it's quite common for EVE players to operate 2 or even more game clients on single computer, which is made possible by its relatively low requirements. Something which realistically can't be really expected from the upgraded client running on Vista, with all the extra overhead. Which might make people even less eager to switch to the new system, all the eyecandy nonwithstanding...

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:37:00 +0000

Torquemanda Corteaz, the problem is that Eon says that the major upgrades will ONLY be in the Vista version. Which is what got me going in the first place.

And no, DX10 engines are not scaleable. You sre DX10 or you are not. This is part of the problem.

And yes, if they are dedicated to a Vista main client then a full year. Another reason why the idea's nasty. Especially when Vista will be delayed.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Torquemanda Corteaz

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:35:00 +0000

I don't think anything is entirely crystal on this, but what I can gather

when the update (in its entirety) is eventually released (towards the end of the year/ early 2k7) there will be 2 versions of the graphical overhaul... the DX10 vista super spiffy version, and a DX9 still quite spiffy version (quite likely this will be released before the other).

So to answer your original question... yes, you are going to have to have apply the new engine overhaul patch, but your worry about the ability to play eve on a laptop is unfounded.

Just like every other game engine out there, this new engine will be quite scalable, so eve can look hawt, or be more suited towards performance. Just like now, if you have been in a large fleet battle turning off turret and effects is usually needed to attempt to reduce teh lag

So.... in short you will be updating... but updating isnt going to make eve unplayable on your laptop, however i might eat those words as CCP hasnt released minium specs for either version of the new game engine, but I can't imagine them being uber... as long as your laptop isnt sitting already at the current min specs you should be fine.

oh and we are talking like.. a year away... thats a long time in my book

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Sirial Soulfly

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:26:00 +0000

So here I was thinking we were going to see better graphics when kali hits.

Reading all this stuff it looks like we will have to look at this old engine for a lot longer.

I dont understand why CCP can't create an intermediary engine using dx9 that people will be able to use for another 2 to 3 years.

I mean look at X3 that uses dx9 and it looks great, so EVE could be looking like that as well without dx10 and vista.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:23:00 +0000

D'onryu Shoqui, sigh.

DX10 is not like previous standards..it has across-the-board requirements for whst the card must do. (Calling it DX10 is...a choice which makes it seem like older DirectX's, when it's not really). You should really read up on some of the Microsoft Blogs about it.

MysticNZ, why should I stop? You've even more strongly convinced me in this thread that there needs to be a protest against a DX10/Vista client, leading to a bluntly two-tier Eve. This is a current issue, not something which shoud be dried out and put on the shelf.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:14:00 +0000

No, I stated that there would not be low-end cards at the time Vista launched. You really need to read what I actually post, not the nth filtered post of what I posted.

And supporting all the features demands by what is today a bleeding-edge card. From bleeding-edge to budget cycle...18 months is really NOT unreasonable.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 01:09:30
Originally by: D'onryu Shoqui
ill refrain from any more posts in this now useless thread.

Right.

So, anyway, do you really think that the devs can't make mistakes? Look up the missile arming distance for a VERY good example of a dev "oops!". AFAIK, doing a DX10/Vista client which was the ONLY version with the deacent upgrades would be another.

It's not a matter of spending cash on the graphics card. It's a matter of having to buy a bloated operating system which will expensive and generally be utterly useless for the vast majority of PC owners for anything except the games which will demand it.

And no, there will NOT be budget DX10 cards quickly. DX10 cannot be "picked and chosen" from like DX9. The card must support ALL the DX10 features to be able to run DX10 games. Going by the Nvidia/ATI roadmaps, that puts "low" end cards able to run Vista at no earlier than Q3 2007.

MysticNZ, that was a question. Not a statement.

See, you always change your facts. A few weeks ago you stated there would never be low end cards. Of course there will. They may have to support all the features, but that's not going to stop them selling 512mb versions, 1gb memory, higher clock rations, dual core gpus etc.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:09:00 +0000

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 01:09:30

Originally by: D'onryu Shoqui
ill refrain from any more posts in this now useless thread.

Right.

So, anyway, do you really think that the devs can't make mistakes? Look up the missile arming distance for a VERY good example of a dev "oops!". AFAIK, doing a DX10/Vista client which was the ONLY version with the deacent upgrades would be another.

It's not a matter of spending cash on the graphics card. It's a matter of having to buy a bloated operating system which will expensive and generally be utterly useless for the vast majority of PC owners for anything except the games which will demand it.

And no, there will NOT be budget DX10 cards quickly. DX10 cannot be "picked and chosen" from like DX9. The card must support ALL the DX10 features to be able to run DX10 games. Going by the Nvidia/ATI roadmaps, that puts "low" end cards able to run Vista at no earlier than Q3 2007.

MysticNZ, that was a question. Not a statement.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:05:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
So why are you arguing that it's a good idea in Eve? Where is IS preventable?

In saying that, I was not agreeing with you.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by D'onryu Shoqui

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:05:00 +0000

Quote:
And the point about DX9 is it ALLOWS back-compatibiliy. DX10 does NOT. Hence you're chopping off everyone who does not have a DX10 card and vista and making them second class citizens.

its not making u a second class citizen at all if it was going to have a such a massive impact on the game do you really think the devs would do it? and theres a reason directx 10 isnt backwords compatible, directx in its current state is full of bloated crap holding pc gaming back and hampering the true performance people should be seeing from there fairly hi spec pcs.

if you cant afford to spend a few hundred quid on a graphics card then dont ,nvidia and ati are bound to bring out budget versions really quick unless you think they are stupid. surenyl you can afford to spend 150$ on a new graphics card.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:04:00 +0000

So why are you arguing that it's a good idea in Eve? Where is IS preventable?

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 01:01:00 +0000

That same theory can be applied to anything in life.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:58:00 +0000

Right. And if the Vista client dosn't HAVE to? Right, he has an advantage since he can see with a glance which ships have mining lasers fitted. Two-tier client systems are BAD.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:57:00 +0000

Edited by: MysticNZ on 14/04/2006 00:58:22

Originally by: Maya Rkell
SengH, you've obviously never warped into a big mining op with 200 mining drones out. All those sparkle and mining laser effects are a killer :/

Turn them off? Even if Dx10 is more efficent, cards are more powerful etc, I bet everyones going to turn the effects off.
-

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:56:00 +0000

D'onryu Shoqui, as repeatedly stated by many people, Vista does not. DX10 DOES, and it will only run under Vista.

And the point about DX9 is it ALLOWS back-compatibiliy. DX10 does NOT. Hence you're chopping off everyone who does not have a DX10 card and vista and making them second class citizens.

SengH, you've obviously never warped into a big mining op with 200 mining drones out. All those sparkle and mining laser effects are a killer :/

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:53:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
There are also lag issues related to effects, are there not? If the vista client can show effects and the poor client cannot, the vista client user has the advantage of a better feel for the battle and the messages. Before any other UI improvements which the Vista client will get.

Effects lag(FPS) << Scheduler lag(stuff not rendering at all or taking a while to show up on screen (the main complaint on warpins)

The effects lag is just annoying. Scheduler lag is what gets you killed.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by D'onryu Shoqui

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:51:00 +0000

Edited by: D''onryu Shoqui on 14/04/2006 00:55:04
Edited by: D''onryu Shoqui on 14/04/2006 00:52:06

Quote:
Also, Vista will REQUIRE a new graphics card..this has not been true since the transition to 95 (and there partially)...look at uptake factors there.

vista doesnt require a new graphics card at all alot of gamers allready have a dx9 graphics card, its not like dx9 is something new at all.

eve in its current form doesnt require a dx9 graphics card either the engine is far older than dx9 and it most probably dx8.0 if not 7.

a game requiring a certain directx version to be installed and actually using directx features based on directx 9 is totally different.

you dont seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to computer hardware and graphics engines.

ill refrain from any more posts in this now useless thread.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:49:00 +0000

There are also lag issues related to effects, are there not? If the vista client can show effects and the poor client cannot, the vista client user has the advantage of a better feel for the battle and the messages. Before any other UI improvements which the Vista client will get.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:47:00 +0000

Edited by: SengH on 14/04/2006 00:47:39

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 00:36:17
Locke DieDrake, your arrogance is assuming that your way is the only way is really getting old. Nothing has been "proven", very few people in this thread who are pro-Vista are even grasping why I dislike the idea of a two-tier Eve.

Stop the rubbish about "keeping a current PC running". The predictions from all sides is that Vista will have a slow uptake rate. This isn't even contravercial!

THE GAMES WHICH MICROSOFT MAKE AND A FEW OTHERS WILL BE DX10 ONLY. Period. It's a way to isolate yourself from a vaste swathe of the gaming community and is unequivicable a BAD IDEA. YOU are calling for the vast majority of eve players to be forced to stick with the current Eve graphics for years to come, to create a two-tier system which will seriously hurt Eve both in terms of gameplay and in terms of subscriptions.

YOU are being selfish and short sighted when a DX9c could do everything CCP want (so few games are even begining to explore the potential of DX9c, LET ALONE DX10) AND be accessable to 95%+ of its players. That you and your spotty-nosed young adult crowd can afford to blow a lot of cash on your PC is fine...and it'd be true in most MMO's. However, Eve HAPPENS to have a far more diverse customer base

SengH, you know as well as I do that client lag is significant in fleet battles. And the UI will be even moreso. And yes, the Vista client would perform better. See: "You use the crappy client, you can't join us".

From all the different powerpoint/fleet optimization vids. The portion that causes client lag isnt the "renderer" or direct FPS lag. Its the "scheduler" (or for the lack of a better term the code that assings what goes on in the scene) overloading and not being able to process all the data before the next cycle. You are only as fast as your slowest part and thats where it is being held up (or why some ships just never appear in fleet battles). Thats a different section of code, something a 64-bit client (more memory allowing more data to be sent to the CPU faster) would be able to fix, but not DX10.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:35:00 +0000

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 00:36:17
Locke DieDrake, your arrogance is assuming that your way is the only way is really getting old. Nothing has been "proven", very few people in this thread who are pro-Vista are even grasping why I dislike the idea of a two-tier Eve.

Stop the rubbish about "keeping a current PC running". The predictions from all sides is that Vista will have a slow uptake rate. This isn't even contravercial!

THE GAMES WHICH MICROSOFT MAKE AND A FEW OTHERS WILL BE DX10 ONLY. Period. It's a way to isolate yourself from a vaste swathe of the gaming community and is unequivicable a BAD IDEA. YOU are calling for the vast majority of eve players to be forced to stick with the current Eve graphics for years to come, to create a two-tier system which will seriously hurt Eve both in terms of gameplay and in terms of subscriptions.

YOU are being selfish and short sighted when a DX9c could do everything CCP want (so few games are even begining to explore the potential of DX9c, LET ALONE DX10) AND be accessable to 95%+ of its players. That you and your spotty-nosed young adult crowd can afford to blow a lot of cash on your PC is fine...and it'd be true in most MMO's. However, Eve HAPPENS to have a far more diverse customer base

SengH, you know as well as I do that client lag is significant in fleet battles. And the UI will be even moreso. And yes, the Vista client would perform better. See: "You use the crappy client, you can't join us".

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:25:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 00:21:38
MysticNZ, It requires DX9. If you do not have DX9 installed, it won't run. How many times do you need it repeating?

SengH, SO WHAT? So many people chant that like it's meaingful. It's not. CCP should not serve the small minority of their playerbase who will have Vista/DX10 in the foreseeable future, and instead the supermajority who will be using 2k/XP and DX9c.

As I said, when you have 2 clients you rapidly get the 2-tier effect seen in every other attempt at this (mostly 2 1/2D clients in MUD's, but also in UO). The people on the "poor" engine have lower frame rates and a worse UI. PvP corps start demanding that their recruits use the "good" client, people feel that they cannot survive in risky space without the "good" client, (true or not) and it goes downhill from there.

How mant times do I need to repeat that? Sigh.

Ranger 1, you can only work with the avaliable data at any time. I'm sure you're pretty enough to come back to 2 year old threads based on the data they had THEN (Feel free to look back and find my threads on how T2 amo would suck if it used the placeholder stats from 2 years ago btw...THAT is useful, not this kind of thread).

Actually HL2 has separate 64bit client/32 bit client which runs significantly faster (30+ FPS) if you tweak it correctly. You dont see CS:Source / DOD:Source clans running around demanding than all their players use the 64bit client. Net latency/fleet battle scaling will be bigger factor in pvp over some shiny visuals.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Locke DieDrake

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:23:00 +0000

Maya and the rest of you that are doom saying... I've got a few things I feel I need to share with you.

Will you please stop whining? It's been shown COUNTLESS TIMES that you people don't know what you are talking about. And whining about it constantly, and insesantly has NEVER changed anything.

Vista isn't for the "elite few" Nor is the EVE vista upgrade. It is simply not CCP's fault that you can't afford to keep a current PC running. And the fact that CCP is going to allow the older version of the engine to operate under the new system is a boon and a pretty big one at that.

2 years from today, most people playing eve will be doing so on a vista machine. The fact that we are seeing the upgrade soon is simply future proofing, and if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the phrase.

The bottom line is Vista will be adopted by home users at the same or faster rate than XP was. Which, despite your opinion to the contrary was faster than any previous operating system in HISTORY. The reason for this is clear in this thread. Because THE BIGGEST, BADDEST GAMES ARE GOING TO WORK ON VISTA. PERIOD.

You want the big toys, you gotta play with the big boys. And us big boys upgrade every 6 months.

For the record, a top flight gaming computer costs about 1100$ if you can build it yourself. Twice that from Dell. And when vista hits, it's still only going to cost about 1100$ to build a gaming rig.

If you can't afford the hobby, thats fine, but please don't complain and try and get the hobby nerfed for the rest of us. What you should be doing is singing the praises of CCP for allowing you to continue to play under xp/2k with DX9, and upgrading even that experiance. Not whining because your mom's Dell can't run vista.

___________________________________________
The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain.
___________________________________________

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:20:00 +0000

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/04/2006 00:21:38
MysticNZ, It requires DX9. If you do not have DX9 installed, it won't run. How many times do you need it repeating?

SengH, SO WHAT? So many people chant that like it's meaingful. It's not. CCP should not serve the small minority of their playerbase who will have Vista/DX10 in the foreseeable future, and instead the supermajority who will be using 2k/XP and DX9c.

As I said, when you have 2 clients you rapidly get the 2-tier effect seen in every other attempt at this (mostly 2 1/2D clients in MUD's, but also in UO). The people on the "poor" engine have lower frame rates and a worse UI. PvP corps start demanding that their recruits use the "good" client, people feel that they cannot survive in risky space without the "good" client, (true or not) and it goes downhill from there.

How mant times do I need to repeat that? Sigh.

Ranger 1, you can only work with the avaliable data at any time. I'm sure you're pretty enough to come back to 2 year old threads based on the data they had THEN (Feel free to look back and find my threads on how T2 amo would suck if it used the placeholder stats from 2 years ago btw...THAT is useful, not this kind of thread).

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Ranger 1

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:17:00 +0000

This is one of those threads you bookmark, just so you can rub the persons nose in it a couple of years from now.
Patch day always brings out the same 2 types of people.
1: "I'm an IT expert in RL, and they have done this all wrong" type.
2: "I'm a paying customer, fix it immediately or I quit" type.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, you're getting confused. What I am saying is that a "DX9" engine can work with older cards. A DX10 one CANNOT.

The DX9 engine will still be there for older cards to fall back on? Whats the big problem then? Its not like their getting rid of the old one. VISTA IS NOT DX10 only. There is DX9L included for backwards compatability.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by MysticNZ

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, you're getting confused. What I am saying is that a "DX9" engine can work with older cards. A DX10 one CANNOT.

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/04/2006 23:58:36
I repeat, it requires DX9.

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:10:00 +0000

No, you're getting confused. What I am saying is that a "DX9" engine can work with older cards. A DX10 one CANNOT.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer

Will the new engine be optional content? - by SengH

Fri, 14 Apr 2009 00:08:00 +0000

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/04/2006 23:58:36
I repeat, it requires DX9. Also, in DX9 you can chop and change what is supported and what is not. You can cut out the fancy and let cards with only basic DX9 support work fine.

DX10 is not like that. It's new graphics card - EXPENSIVE graphics card - time. That cuts down on your player pool.

your getting confused. EVE does not require any DX9 support in hardware to work. It just requires some form of Hardware T&L which is DX7

Will the new engine be optional content? - by Maya Rkell

Thu, 13 Apr 2009 23:58:00 +0000

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/04/2006 23:58:36
I repeat, it requires DX9. Also, in DX9 you can chop and change what is supported and what is not. You can cut out the fancy and let cards with only basic DX9 support work fine.

DX10 is not like that. It's new graphics card - EXPENSIVE graphics card - time. That cuts down on your player pool.

"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer