Yes and yes.

And please.

DX11, because I'd like to finally own a game which takes advantage of it, so I don't feel like I wasted too much money on my Graphics card.

DX11 Tessellation, yes please :cookie:

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQ5Vy_5MP0
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l5dCkWd4Wo&feature=channel
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZHGKTpS6I

That's what I meant. Non-DX11 cards should be able run games that have DX11 features but they won't see/have access to said features. My reply to the other post was made because it sounded like DX10 cards have access to DX11 features which isn't true.

I think it's safe to assume that adding DX10-11 support takes some extra time but IMO it's worth it. I'd wait another 6 months for example if necessary Although graphics aren't the "make or break" deal for me, so even if they don't use DX10 or 11 I won't be that disappointed, I value gameplay more.

OpenGL, please. That way you don't have to switch up to vista/windows 7, and you can play it easily on WINE, or if they make one client for Linux specifically.

Also, you don't have to change your graphics card as much with OpenGL, as with DirectX you have to change your hardware to be able to work with the newest version of it (In my oppinion very stupid).
OpenGL has had tesselation for like 4 years now. Why is it so big for the DirectX community all of a sudden, like it's a new feature that has never been seen before.

Also, opensource software ftw!

(I do not want TES V to be opensourced by any means)

I do not know if anyone else has raised this I am sorry.

OF COURSE THERE SHOULD BE DX!! SUPPORT!!
I don't know why it is made into a topic...

I take it highly annoying and dumb, for a next gen game (which I am sure that es5 will be) to not have such support.

P.S. I will feel really stupid if I am talking about something that is totally not meant in this topic

Later

I, personally, see absolutely no reason for them to support any iteration of DirectX when OpenGL exists.

M$ cash?

Will tessellation do for Skyrim what my n-patches used to do for Morrowind before those twits at ATi stopped supporting it?

The game looked so much better with smooth curves instead of all those straight lines and hard angles.

n-patches were the first iteration of tesselation-like features. Current tesselation is advertised to be something like 8th gen tesselation architecture on ATi-cards (PR-talk) and it's pretty far more advanced since back in the day. The difference would be noticeable, for example, check Uniengine-videos from YouTube.

See no reason why it shouldn't be DX 11.

Lots of more possibilites and a lot better performance.

It's a laptop, m17x RE. Well... I built it myself, it was cheaper to buy the individual parts and chassis and put it together than having dell build it. Then I just used the Alienware recovery disc to flash the AW GUI. It's very satisfying not having to worry if the company made a mistake. If there is a problem with a computer you built yourself then you have a better idea of what it will be. That's why I encourage people to build their own gaming rigs.

I'm not sure why there are so much talk about tesselation in this thread? Considering it's a multiplatform game, I don't think it's particulary likely that Bethesda spend a lot of resources on using functions that not all platforms can take advantage of. I would say it's pretty non-existent.

If done correctly, DX10.1 offer noticeably better performance than DX10 and DX9 though, so that would be nice to see.


Agreed, while it would be nice to have DX10.1, I also want the game to use DX9 so people on Windows XP can play the game.

Back when DX10 was new there was a lot of DX hype going on, and lots of people started to request DX10 support for various games on their official forums. But DX wasn't that much of a hit, and then the hype quickly died and in the past 3 years I never seen any complaint about a game because it "only" support DX9.

No.

Considering they need a different renderer just for the PS3, it's not out of the question to support DirectX 10/11. But if they support DX10 they should just jump to DX11, because of what I've already previously mentioned in this thread. Because DX10 lacks backwards compatibility, and 11 does not with its "Feature Levels", and thus as long as a user is on Windows Vista/7 they can still have a DirectX 9 card and play the game, the DX11 features will just be turned off.

The "extra code" is a one-time shader deal. You code it and it's done, and of course there may be some maintenance on it. The only thing really needed from the artists for tessellation is bump maps which the models already have.

So, you've got:

Xbox 360: Different code
PC: Different code
PS3: Different code

If they could scrap XP support they could have just one PC codebase. Otherwise, a DX9 renderer and a DX11 one for Vista/7. The renderer is probably one of the smaller portions of the game engine, code wise.

Like i said, they didn't take the time to quickly change a few UI options for PC in Oblivion and FO3. They most likely won't include any DX10/11.


yeah other devs do this, but beth don't.

But it's a new engine. They have to code everything for the PC from scratch anyway so why wouldn't they?

Several multiplatform games use tesselation, it's not the most difficult thing to implement and they could leverage that to XB360-GPU's somewhat more limited tesselation engine as well. Maybe it could be done at some different way with PS3 too. And of course, tesselation is made for games like Skyrim.

Yes, it's not just about making objects look better, it's about having near-constant LOD control, instead of stratified LOD like in non-tessellated games. Not everything should be tessellated, of course, but saving from making 3 or more different LOD meshes for most things would be a boon to development.

Bump maps are not displacement maps. And are used in completely different ways.

The only bump mapping technique relevant to displacement maps, is parallax mapping, which tbh are not that common, basically you only really see them on landscape and some architecture.


I agree. cept that the game is developed for xbox, and they have to make an LOD system, and using tessellation is not even an option.

I am lead to believe that Beth is using a tiered LOD system in asset creation. :S which is a bad sign for those wishing for tesselation.

DX 10 support is useless as it is DX9 make upped.
Since Consoles doesn t support DX11, no you can t have it as, like Oblivion, SKYRIM is a console to PC port.

All this is so sad.

And again THE company USE DX9 BECAUSE CONSOLES CANT HANDLE MORE THAN THAT at this state of things.

... A bump map is a black and white height map. A height map is a black and white bump map. See what I did there? Maybe you think the separate names mean something, but it's simply to connote what it's being applied to. Since Oblivion already used bump mapping, in the form of normal mapping (yes, normal mapping IS considered bump mapping), and we assume they will continue to use some form of bump mapping, they already have the displacement information available to them. Again, you can go between normal, bump, and height maps. And bump and height maps are completely identical.


They can still write tessellation shaders with the already-included bump map information for the highest-LOD models.



That's not true at all. They have to, you know, WRITE CODE in the process of porting it. They have to write PC-specific renderers no matter what, so it's their decision which DirectX to support.

some people posted that they used windows xp. generally businesses only upgrade their operating systems when they upgrade their computers. more than likely they have been using the same computers for the last few years and probably got them at the tail end of XP being sold and supported. also the programs they use might not have been compatible with windows 7 right away and having to stop production just to wait for a company to release a 64bit version of their software would be a major waste of time and resources.

Do you know much freaking time cost of money they would have to waste to make the game worthwhile in DX11 from DX9 ?
Do you think people knowing that its a DX 11 game would accept some as old as it can look DX9 features ?
Please stop and think before asking.

It would be almost cheaper for them to do a new game in DX11 if they want to bring the worthwhile feature in. And above all do you really think CONSOLE MARKET would allow that ? A plain show that their sistems svcks, and whoever has them is eating dust for years ? As if modding for PC ain t enought...

And anyway don t you know Companies works with the less effort possible to the more sellable result possible ?

So it will be DX9 because as it is a Console game ported to PC (Again) it will stay with console limitation. Be happy is your able to configure a moderm mouse to its fullest AND a moderm keyboards as well. Remember Oblivion ?

Now what next? You will come to ask Dragon to act and fight in a smart way and not like any other assinine monster that just rush in or isnt even able to work its magic correctly ? Or maybe a Radiant AI that perform smart and actually gives interesting non repetitive dialogs ?

Bethesda aren't, late console lifespan (this also being around the time we originally expected to start seeing some form of new console hardware), going to spend ~5 years producing an in-house engine which isn't going to take advantage of the next generation of consoles, which will probably use DX11, or some later derivative thereof. It would show an uncharacteristically supreme lack of foresight not developing this engine in a way such as the Source Engine (id est, modular) or with some degree of Direct X flexibility, DX11 being something which isn't especially difficult to implement (DX11 modes having been added late in development, or even through patches, to a number of other titles), considering its late lifecycle release, so as not to waste costs in producing a totally new engine for a grand total of perhaps 2 games.

I think this is the main reasons we should expect dx11... but I wont believe it till I actually see it tbh. A new engine not taking advantage of some of the best technology out there and readily available? Sounds pretty dumb to me too.