Is this a DX11/10 or just a DX9 game (PC)
Most people would have a really, really hard time seeing the differences DX11 would make in a game like this, and DX10 was basically just a stepping stone from 9 and provided very little. DX9 is still capable of making the best looking games around.
MoH is not a better looking game than CoD. The things that really make the graphics - textures, meshing, particle effects - aren't any bit better for being run in DX11.
Crysis uses DX10, it was one of the first games to do so
Crysis was originally DX9, but was upgraded to DX10 with the release of Warhead.
Sorry, just being nit-picky, I know.
Metro looks good with dx11
DX9 is still capable of making the best looking games around.
Technically DX11 supports far more complicated (and better looking) effects than dx9, but its a power hog.
the fact that you had to ask if it's dx9 or dx11 means it's not a very obvious difference.
sure it could look better with dx11 but calling it 'utter crap' after knowing it's dx9 is prob just a placebo effect (that works in the opposite way)
From: Master1Chef | #015
True. Metro is sporting the best graphics, technically speaking. DX11 allows "tessellation" (which I don't pretend to understand) and other new features. It definitely is bigger and badder, I wouldn't argue otherwise, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
My point, which I didn't phrase correctly, is that Metro is the only DX11 game of any note so far (Civ 5 uses DX11, but no one cares). Some of the best looking games are still DX9. And as you say, DX11 is a power hog, and even with Metro, the differences DX11 provide aren't going to be too obvious to most people.
I don't mean to come off as defensive, I own two DX11 Xfired cards which I would love to put to rigorous use. But I still don't mind a well-designed DX9 game like Call of Duty. Certainly looks a lot more impressive than Civ 5, for example.
Alright so there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about DX11. Let me clarify for you (BTW I do 3D modeling and animation in my personal life, so yes, I know what I am talking about.) DX11 is good. There is absolutely no reason that developers should not use it. Lets start with Tessellation.
This is probably the single most important thing for improving graphical quality without hurting framerates. Normally, polygons are kept relatively lowon models that are background characters or objects that the developers do not intend for you to spend a lot of time looking at. Computers can only renderimages so quickly, and the more polygons you attempt to have it render, the more time it takes (hence bad fps).This feature allows a standard 3D model to have much, much more polygons, which in turn means higher quality objects without really hurting the render times.
The second feature DX11 has over DX9 is Compute Shader. This allowsthe CPU and the GPU to work together much more effectively than before (which, again, in turn allows higher fps) Probably the best example of this is HDAO (High Definition Ambient Occlusion). Compute Shaderto be rendered much more effectively. HDAO deals with how the computer renders shading on objects. With HDAO on, objects will have much more detailed shadow effects than without it. This of course means that frames will drop.
DX11 is also much better at incorporating multi-core processors than DX9, which allows computers with multiple cores to fully utilize those cores, unlike DX9.
Now, as far as games go, obviously DX11 is relatively new and not a lot of games have jumped on the bandwagon yet. However, Metro is not the only one to use it. BF:BC2 also supports DX11 on the PC and believe me, there is a very noticeable difference when running in DX9 vs DX11. PCs have FAR, FAR surpassed the graphical capabilities of the nearly 6 year old Xbox 360. It would be a joke to try and run any modern game on a 6 year old computer with 6 year old graphics cards, yet the 360 is still hailed by many as one of the best looking gaming choices out there... The vast majority of games are developed for the 360, and PC gaming has suffered because developers are too lazy to actually put forth the effort to push the graphical boundries of video games.They settle for using 8 year old rendering techniques (Yes, DX9 was released in 2002 - back when the Playstation 2 and the originalXbox reigned kings) because it is easier and they know that most people don't understand just how lacking the consoles are as far as graphical ability is concerned. No, there is absolutely no reason in the world that this game should not have DX11.
If you aren't sure what I am talking about, or were too lazy to actually read what I wrote, here is a link for a video that AMD put out to demonstrate the main features DX11 has.
From: mx01 | #007
lol im sorry, did you just try to supplement your "the game looks good" argument by posting a cell phone of your monitor to show us?
im not saying the game loko sbad, infact its looks plenty good, but graphics whores will be graphics whores, but your post was just hilarious
The only issues with DX11 as it stands is that when you start to incorporate DX11 effects it puts a definite strain on your hardware (metro is a perfect example), it will always run lower fps in DX11 vs DX10. But once hardware catches up it will be pretty impressive.
And I have an OC'd c2d at 3.6 ghz, 4 gb ram, 1gb 460 oc'd....and it still chugs at 1680 x 1050 with DX11 sometimes, so I just play it with DX10.