@thajoker

If the DX11 patch comes out running at 30fps on a 560ti over clock then you know you will have been owned. i like the idea of all this extra stuff with no fps price tag though I know you can get alot of extra stuff for not much cost with DX11 but no cost?

If you step back and look what he said, he was referring to PCs being capable of 60fps where consoles only muster 30/24fps (32/xx ms). In that extra/less time...more processing can be done without dropping to unaccaptable framerates. If you added DX11/intense features to consoles the frame rate would be below 30/24fps.

All he said was they are STILL developing for PC while the console versions are finished.

Ok so i kinda verified the info so it looks good! i'll merge the infos with the first post so people can know what they are waiting for

Thanks for the info thajoker! very useful!

@thajoker

If the DX11 patch comes out running at 30fps on a 560ti over clock then you know you will have been owned. i like the idea of all this extra stuff with no fps price tag though I know you can get alot of extra stuff for not much cost with DX11 but no cost?

Read the post again. right now it runs at 30fps cause thats all they could fit in rendering-wise as thats all the consoles are capable of. but if my friend on OCN is right and i understand correctly that means they are going to bring all that rendering time up to 60 fps to fit in all of the good stuff, in otherwords YES you WILL get a performance hit.

This is a direct quote from the user "SoilentBlue" on OCN,

"milliseconds. It means that using the DX11 API, there's a huge overhead of unused compute time that gives the engineers the ability to add in more features, content, etc. It's great because it means that PC will have much more than consoles. It's horrible because that shows just how much consoles held back the PC version. Console developers fight tooth and nail just to scrounge an additional ms for anything.

Basically, the video card takes time to preform the tonnes of computations to render out a single frame. With a millisecond being a unit of time, it goes to show you just how much a computer can do in that duration. The minimum spec for PC has the video card shelling out over 500 gigaflop/s and it's not even a DX11 card. If memory serves, the first DX11 cards came three generations later (9k series, 200 series, and arriving on the 300 series).

According to the CE3 autopsy posted a couple of days ago, water ripple propogation took only .2 milliseconds on consoles. The 16 ms in comparison would be akin to adding water propogation 80 times and not having any hindrance on performance, we still have to wait and see how much they will cram in but yes it's a VERY VERY good thing. to give you an idea of it sun shadows(very demanding) take between 2-5ms. they are talking about a good chunk of overhead before damaging your current fps. the new engine is quite impressive so we will see just how far they go now that they are not having to cater to consoles. "

understand?... I think this should be added to OP with a referance to the twitter post.

Can you give me the link ?? i'll update the thread!

@ leeham720

Thats what I said! Except as far as I can see the way you said it doesn't make sense. Because if they have 16ms to play with it either means an extra 16ms (just like I said) or it means that even on the DX11 version the fps will be approximately 60fps (which is what thajoker said).

An fps of 60fps equals a rendering time of about 16ms but they are not the same thing. You don't seem to understand this. If you had a total rendering time budget of 16ms "to play with" then that means you will not accept fps below 60.

If you had a rendering time of 16ms in DX9 and were prepared to sacrafice another (additional) 16ms (32ms total) to enable DX11 effects that would put you at around 30fps.

At least thats how I understand it and I don't think I've missed anything.

Seems pretty effing simple to me 1000/by rendering time in ms = frames per second

gives us some real information then, so we can stop spreading rumors.

gives us some real information then, so we can stop spreading rumors.

the real information is on the first post

@ leeham720

Thats what I said! Except as far as I can see the way you said it doesn't make sense. Because if they have 16ms to play with it either means an extra 16ms (just like I said) or it means that even on the DX11 version the fps will be approximately 60fps (which is what thajoker said).

An fps of 60fps equals a rendering time of about 16ms but they are not the same thing. You don't seem to understand this. If you had a total rendering time budget of 16ms "to play with" then that means you will not accept fps below 60.

If you had a rendering time of 16ms in DX9 and were prepared to sacrafice another (additional) 16ms (32ms total) to enable DX11 effects that would put you at around 30fps.

At least thats how I understand it and I don't think I've missed anything.
He said 'we have 16ms or more' to play with'. Not '16ms MORE'. Consoles do not have 16ms to 'play with'.

16ms = 60fps.
32ms = 30fps.

PCs @ max performance run at 60fps.
Consoles run at 24 or 30fps.

Okay it's getting clearer!

@ leeham720

Thats what I said! Except as far as I can see the way you said it doesn't make sense. Because if they have 16ms to play with it either means an extra 16ms (just like I said) or it means that even on the DX11 version the fps will be approximately 60fps (which is what thajoker said).

An fps of 60fps equals a rendering time of about 16ms but they are not the same thing. You don't seem to understand this. If you had a total rendering time budget of 16ms "to play with" then that means you will not accept fps below 60.

If you had a rendering time of 16ms in DX9 and were prepared to sacrafice another (additional) 16ms (32ms total) to enable DX11 effects that would put you at around 30fps.

At least thats how I understand it and I don't think I've missed anything.
He said 'we have 16ms or more' to play with'. Not '16ms MORE'. Consoles do not have 16ms to 'play with'.

16ms = 60fps.
32ms = 30fps.

PCs @ max performance run at 60fps.
Consoles run at 24 or 30fps.

Actually I think you'll find it's

16ms=62.5fps
and
32ms=31.25


You need to explain yourself better what do you think the fps will be with DX11? And why are you repeating the approximate figures I just gave you as if I don't know them? These figures are right there in my post for anybody who understands this to see. If you do understand how did you miss them?

Look:

"If you had a total rendering time budget of 16ms "to play with" then that means you will not accept fps below 60."

"If you had a rendering time of 16ms in DX9 and were prepared to sacrafice another (additional) 16ms (32ms total) to enable DX11 effects that would put you at around 30fps."

Look it's freaking simple but this argument is building on the basic knowledge to try and speculate (thats why it seems complicated) if you just want to know what MS is it's freaking simple.

ms is rendering time in milliseconds

1000ms in a second

therefore
-------------------------------------------------------
1000 devided by rendering time in ms

Equals
frames per second
--------------------------------------------------------
Nothing could be more simple

AND THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING BECAUSE THE TWITTER MESSAGE IS STILL UNCLEAR

PCs @ max performance run at 60fps.
Consoles run at 24 or 30fps.


are you stupid. hahah "PCs @ max performance run at 60fps." my pc runs @ 90fps maxed in HEAVEN!! and @ 140fps in dirt 2 both of which are DX11.

WELL explained with the milliseconds. You explained it better than I could.

WELL explained with the milliseconds. You explained it better than I could.

Thanks.

WELL explained with the milliseconds. You explained it better than I could.

Thanks.
dude you know your stuff. i think that leeham guy is about 12 years old, so i wouldnt let him bother you.

@Thajoker LOL I'm 14 and a programmer.

Hopefully Crytek doesn't pull their censorship **** and delete this thread. I applaud Tiago for letting people know what's going on, unlike the retarded PR team is doing here.

@Thajoker LOL I'm 14 and a programmer.

Hopefully Crytek doesn't pull their censorship **** and delete this thread. I applaud Tiago for letting people know what's going on, unlike the retarded PR team is doing here.

Knowing Java doesn't make you a programmer. Especially at age 14.

This is another thing I hate seeing. Script-kiddies that think they're uberleet programmers/developers because they took a C++ class in junior high.

Well said sir.

@Thajoker LOL I'm 14 and a programmer.

Hopefully Crytek doesn't pull their censorship **** and delete this thread. I applaud Tiago for letting people know what's going on, unlike the retarded PR team is doing here.

Knowing Java doesn't make you a programmer. Especially at age 14.

This is another thing I hate seeing. Script-kiddies that think they're uberleet programmers/developers because they took a C++ class in junior high.


yeah i know .. haha . you cant call yourself a programmer till you actually have a job programming.

Read through the entire thread. There is nothing definite. Nothing even close to being confirmed. No rumors with any hint of credibility. What does all this mean?

There will never be DX11 for Crysis 2.

Fixthatgame, I think that joke has worn itself out pretty thoroughly through repeated uses, don't you?

There will never be DX11 for Crysis 2.

I suspect that if this were true the folks over at nVidia would be mighty upset that all of the money they sunk into the game to become a sponsor has largely gone to waste.

In other words, we have your money and paid off the team. There aint nobody here to fix it. Im off to buy a new car, oh and yea.....
Thnx svckers!!
(Jumps in car, flips us all the finger,and speeds off into middle distance)

@Thajoker LOL I'm 14 and a programmer.

Hopefully Crytek doesn't pull their censorship **** and delete this thread. I applaud Tiago for letting people know what's going on, unlike the retarded PR team is doing here.

Knowing Java doesn't make you a programmer. Especially at age 14.

This is another thing I hate seeing. Script-kiddies that think they're uberleet programmers/developers because they took a C++ class in junior high.


yeah i know .. haha . you cant call yourself a programmer till you actually have a job programming.

I didn't say Java.

I use C++ and I'm writing a speech-operated program with the Speech API (SAPI) that everyone thinks is amazing. I didn't take a class, I taught myself. So please don't treat me like I'm stupid.