Exactly. And graphics are always scaleable.

So when people say "Oh I hope for DX9 with not many graphical improvements so my old comp can run it!", it's pretty ignorant.

There is no need for dx11.
Tesselation make it able to change the number of polygons of a mesh on the fly,based on an option to use more complex meshes,which means more polygons.
But someone could just create one very complex mesh from the beggining and add it to the dx9 version of a game.

And please,stop talking about dx10,there is no dx10.
All dx10 "features" can run on a normal Windows Xp computer with dx9.
"Dx10 support" means that dx9-native features are locked only to be used on Windows Vista,and that was being done under special aggreements between Microsoft and developers,because Microsoft wanted to force gamers to buy Vista.

Everything dx10 related can run very well at a Windows XP computer if you just unlock the features,and usually to unlock those features is very easy.

For example to unlock the dx10 features of Crysis the only thing I had to do was to open a .txt file with wordpad and change some lines from "false" to "true".

DX10 IS A LIE

No, DX10 is not a lie. I'm sorry you haven't done even the slightest research into the topic. DX10 is perfectly justified in its existence, what it does *not* do is bring many new features to the table.

It's a reworked version of DX9 based upon the new driver infrastructure in Vista/7. It's faster, it's more stable, and it cannot work on XP. There are a handful of features it actually does enable over DX9, but most of crysis' were indeed marketing, and the less we talk about halo 2 the better. However, DX10 is quite real, and quite justified - it doesn't make anything shinier for you, but that does not mean it's pointless.

I just don't see the reason..
Why to buy Vista if I can run the same thing with the same effects and everything at xp ?
O.K. there might a dx10,but if it's not necessary to use it to get the "dx10 features" running,then what's its purpose anyway ?
(other than selling Vista that is)

Yeah, but this methode is CPU intense.
The additional polyones with Tessellation are computed by the GPU.

So a game as detailed as a game with tessellation wouldn't perform very well even on the best CPUs.

Its purpose is being much more efficient, and faster. Speed is a feature too. You should have bought vista because it was a better OS, not for any gaming benefit, DX10 saw little adoption, so there was little benefit there.

But I had Vista..
A friend borrowed to me his Vista dvd and I installed it on my computer.
Everything was slower instead of faster,and half of my programs and games wouldn't run on Vista,and I had to buy new alternative programs if I wanted to keep Vista.
For example I have a copy of Cubase 3SX.If I had Vista I would have to buy Cubase 5. Do you know how much I payed for 3sx ? 600$.
Do you know how much #5 costs ? 750$

Vista isn't a better OS.
It's an OS that demands you to buy again every single program you had on XP.
And since every single program that comes out even today runs on XP,why to change XP at all ?

Thats the same discussion like 11 years ago.
"I have windows 2000, why do I need to buy Windows XP? Everything works fine for me."
:)

Just wait a few years and you will buy Win7, I'm sure of that.
At the moment XP is supported by every company. In a few years XP won't be supported (that much) anymore.
First, pc games will only work on Win7, then other programs will follow.

Wasn't Win7 the "ok, yeah... we screwed up with Vista. Here's a real OS" release?


(I recall that a good number of IT departments and organizations recommended to their users not to do the XP-Vista switch......)

So one application doesn't work on vista, thus none of them do? Any OS that makes large changes is going to come up against compatibility issues with software that was written hackishly, but to say that /every single application/ broke? Well, that effectively invalidates your opinion, unfortunately!

In any case, while vista may have been the worst thing since ever, windows 7, which is basically vista with a new shell (No, seriously, the core has effectively not changed. Better support for multi-CPU systems and uh, that's about it) is the best thing ever. So I guess one of those things must be false.

edit: Yeah, I wouldn't reccomend going to vista /now/, win7 is better in just about every way, by virtue of pretty much being vista. It did have a shaky start, mostly due to very poor graphics drivers, but that was solved within months.

Yes, I think you can say that.
Vista is a Win7 demo

Sure,eventually XP will truly become obsolete.
I'm just a costumer that is hard to convince and I want strong reasons to change something that ain't broken :celebrate:
Do you remember the saying "if it's not broken,don't fix it" ?
I think it goes very well with OSs.
I don't see the reason to pay 300$ every two or 3 years for a new version of Windows while the the one I have now fulfils my work and gaming needs. :unsure2:

Perhaps I exaggerated,but that was my main negative point with Vista. I just have lots of software that would either work with problems that never got fixed with Vista or wouldn't work at all. :sadvaultboy:
I also found the fact that a dialogue window pops up for almost every double-click you do very annoying.

Yeah, I hate it when the default options set in an OS for good reasons are mildy annoying. That is literally something that ruins the OS, especially since it can be turned off. Hey microsoft, if your things were truly great you wouldn't *need* options, huh!

I think some people in this thread are very short sighted.

If Skyrim follows in the footsteps of Morrowind and Oblivion, it will have a lifespan of years, if not decades. Morrowind is almost ten years old, now, but people are still playing it. They are still modding it. As computers have improved, they have done their best to push its graphical fidelity forward. However, they can only push it so far until they reach the limits built into the core engine.

Now, let's consider Skyrim and DX11. Yes, it may be true that only a small number of gamers have rigs that can handle DX11 right now. That will change, though, especially as DX11 games become more available. But what does that mean for Skyrim? It means that if you only make it for DX9, it will be left behind very quickly. Considering how old DX9 is, they are probably already pushing the limits of that tech. There will be very little that anyone could do to push it forward. Including DX11 will increase the longevity of the game. It will allow people in the coming years to push it to heights only dreamed of by DX9 games. As such, I think it should be in. And I would still think it should be included (since it is possible to support multiple versions of DX) even if I didn't have a DX11 capable rig.

Thats why I think that DX11 or a DX11 support is included.
A completely new engine in the year 2011 without DX11 support. Thats just not right ^^.
The engine will be used in Fallout 4 and the TES add ons too (most likely). So why shouldn't they implement such features?

If DX11 is not included... it would be because of lack of money to upgrade it? Or lack of will (they don't care about it or think it's not necessary)?

One could ask why the graphics-king Crysis 2 didn't include it from the start and instead by a patch.
It's probably money related, which is in turn related to time.
Still Crysis 2 looks absolutely amazing on DX9.

DX11 would surely be good for the possibility of tessellation though. Skyrim would benefit loads from it.

Well, by all accounts, they're doing well financially. At least well enough to higher a bunch of new people and spend five years on game development.

As for a lack of will, I hope not. That sort of short-sightedness would not bode well for the company. You spend years developing a new engine and base it entirely off old tech. Didn't Sega do something like that?

There may be other reasons of course, but that would be the only ones I can think of. We're just randomly speculating before we get some real confirmation from Bethesda ^^

But as I said before, DX 11 isn't necessary for a game to look amazing. Just look at those Crysis 2 videos I posted. Holy crap I say

Well, you might want to look at that new IGN interview for the answer to this question. Specifically on http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1158651p2.html.




So yes, Skyrim does support DX 11, but it's not fully utilizing it.

So yes, but no tesselation?

I wouldn't say that, but we really don't know at this point. Though, if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure our wonderful modding community can make Skyrim support that and all the other DX11 features.

They basically turned Morrowind from a DX8 game to a DX9, so I don't see how they can't add in some features.

I said no tesselation because their work is to keep things looking similar. Tesselation would result in distinctly more complex environments or objects. One can hope, though, that it is supported, even if not implemented. Then at least modders can make use of it.

That's been my take on it from the beginning. They've always said that they want them to look just as good. Now, I was wrong when I thought it meant there wouldn't be DX11, because he just said there would be. He also said, though, that they won't be taking advantage of all of it's big features. Tesselation is not only a big feature, but it's one that would have a major impact on the visuals of the game. So I think it's reasonable to guess that it's the big feature not being taken advantage of.

It would be amazing if tessalation is in and well done :drool: Even without it though I'm really happy DX11 is confirmed :thumbsup:

I wouldn't worry about Beth not fully using DirectX11 because Modders can work on that.