[Suzy Santana]

I hope to see better MOD managing utility. Like better sorting and compatibility check.
And a better NPC/creature AI maybe? I hate taking care of companions and escorting VIPs. They always seems to get lost or walk right into the battle.

But you know what, less error/glitch/bug/crash(whatever you call) would be very fine enough for me. I mean it.

[Amber Ably]

Tessellation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdvZPIQpsQo

This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8

This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D9oINHI11E

[dell]

Skyrim will not require DX11, it's too soon. It would be like making it require 64bit and both requirements by themselves would cut out more than half the potential buyers. Not going to happen.

[Oceavision]

The graphics need to have a small increase in themselves. So it isnt TO intense. So then im not buying a 60$ skyrim PC DVD + a damn 1000$ computer to barely run the svcker!

[David Chambers]

I seriously doubt it will take advantage of DX11, as much as I would love it to. It needs to be perfectly compatible with current consoles. I am currently playing through Metro 2033 and Crysis Warhead to see how well they play on my 6970 (extremely well). I love the features that DX11 puts in for Metro 2033, it looks amazing and especially with Heaven Benchmark. It would be nice, but not necessary for it to be in Skyrim. I would rather the time and money be spent on ironing out bugs.

there is no reason why they couldnt put it in the PC version like metro 2033 did and then just take it away from the console versions. why should a developer design the game around those archaic boxes......design it for the high end PC and remove stuff like shadows and physics for the console versions. people can turn their settings down to medium if they dont have a cutting edge rig and it will still look 10x better than the console versions. all future graphics cards are going to use dx11 and since we wont get another TES game for 5 or 6 years that means everyone is eventually going to be getting a dx11 card at some point.

[pinar]

Engine 'could' support multiple body meshes but they locked out (or failed to provision) the ability. I can understand cause you'd have to re-model each clothing/armor item for each body type which multiplies the assets needed and then flag PC/NPC so they use the right mesh on-equip. Would probably want to have alternate anim groups as well which compounds the assets again.

But then the engine could have supported static shadows but they hardcode the shadow caster list.

I think it would be easier if they used body "morphing" rather than completely alternate meshes. Look at games like The Sims 3 and Smackdown Vs. Raw's Create-A-Wrestler, they allow you to change the shape and proportions of a character and all the clothing and such morphs with the body. Obviously, this would all need to have been implemented from early stages of development because every clothing and armor asset would need to be created with the morphing elements in place. It would be interesting to see morphing techniques could work somehow for beast races with Morrowind-style "bow-legs", although alternatively they could simply have different meshes designed to conform to that shape similar to how they have "male" and "female" versions of certain clothing/armor meshes.

The facegen component also needs an overall as well obviously. I'd like to see the ability to add a certain number of layers of "topical details" like scars, freckles, wrinkles, etc. Perhaps even the ability to map your own face into the game somehow.

[Mariaa EM.]

Skyrim will not require DX11, it's too soon. It would be like making it require 64bit and both requirements by themselves would cut out more than half the potential buyers. Not going to happen.

I don't think anyone wants DX11 to be required. Aren't there games that have all three DX9/10/11?

[Genocidal Cry]

I think it would be easier if they used body "morphing" rather than completely alternate meshes.

Actual 'morphs' require an extra mesh (morph target) for each variation anyway.

[Chloe Yarnall]

Skyrim will not require DX11, it's too soon. It would be like making it require 64bit and both requirements by themselves would cut out more than half the potential buyers. Not going to happen.

It will be DX 11

Think of it this way! When Oblivion came out hardly anybody was able to max the game out at all, Skyrim will push our systems just like Oblivion because they use it as a Flag Ship for their new engines.

[Richard Dixon]

Skyrim will not require DX11, it's too soon. It would be like making it require 64bit and both requirements by themselves would cut out more than half the potential buyers. Not going to happen.

I don't think there is a game out right now that requires DX11... Developers can use DX11 capabilities to add upon DX9/10 games, entire games will not require DX11 for many years with how long hardware lasts these days. The market needs to keep pushing forward and great progress will continue to follow. Just imagine in a few hardware generations what our computers will be capable of :mohawk:

Also it would not surprise me if there was a 64 bit install for pc, being on a new engine and released in 2011, but it will of course be optional, just like the DX11 features that the new engine should be capable of.

[Anna Beattie]

there is no reason why they couldnt put it in the PC version like metro 2033 did and then just take it away from the console versions. why should a developer design the game around those archaic boxes......design it for the high end PC and remove stuff like shadows and physics for the console versions. people can turn their settings down to medium if they dont have a cutting edge rig and it will still look 10x better than the console versions. all future graphics cards are going to use dx11 and since we wont get another TES game for 5 or 6 years that means everyone is eventually going to be getting a dx11 card at some point.

Exactly no reason it couldnt turn out like Metro 2033. A great looking game on consoles but something really special on PC.

As far as saying DX11 wont be required you can make a DX11 based game and have DX10 cards run it, just without Tessellation and certain effects. DX11's compute shader will work generally on DX10 hardware. AVP is a game that does this. It doesnt have a DX10 mode but DX10 cards can use the DX11 .exe and get things like anti ailaising. DX9 is horribly restrictive (its behind what you can do with consoles) and its flat out old. The last high end DX9 cards were Geforce 7900 and Ati 1900. These cards were around the time Oblivion released FOUR years ago. No reason they can build a game around DX10/11. It would be easier to port to consoles and easier for Bethesda to create. It will have to have DX11 if its a late 2011 title. That would be ridiculous. DX11 cards are selling incredibly well and something like a dirt cheap GTS450 can pump out the frames from a DX11 title.

[Naomi Lastname]

I don't think anyone wants DX11 to be required. Aren't there games that have all three DX9/10/11?

There are but generally to have the most efficient optimized engine and actually get any real benefits you have to cut the DX9 render out. Its too restrictive on your base line. Xbox and PS3 are actually more capable than that API when it comes to ease of coding, and incorporated feature set.

[Josh Trembly]

wow some of you guys are incredibly knowledgeable

[Lyd]

I don't think there is a game out right now that requires DX11... Developers can use DX11 capabilities to add upon DX9/10 games, entire games will not require DX11 for many years with how long hardware lasts these days.

As far as saying DX11 wont be required you can make a DX11 based game and have DX10 cards run it, just without Tessellation and certain effects. DX11's compute shader will work generally on DX10 hardware. AVP is a game that does this. It doesnt have a DX10 mode but DX10 cards can use the DX11 .exe and get things like anti ailaising.

Conceded. :thumbsup:

[Dezzeh]

Conceded. :thumbsup:

Microsoft actually recommends making your game around DX10 then DX11. Technically DX11 is a subset of DX10. Thats why game devolpers can focus on DX11 but still give DX10 users a playable game. Its pretty great in that regard. Thing I worry about is if they support DX9. As one that takes a lot of effort to port from DX9 to DX10/11. Then on top of that you have to make so many restrictions, and optimizations so that DX9 works the DX10/11 version suddenly becomes very slow. Thats what happened with most DX10 games, and the reason they ran so slow with little visual improvement. Now take a game like Just Cause 2. Made for DX10 from the get go. It runs really well even on lower end hardware, while providing nice effects, large amounts of geometry and a really high quality renderer. It was also easier (according to the devs) to make the game multiplatform. Because Xbox and PS3's APi is more in line with that of DX10 than DX9. Thats why a DX10/11 game would make more sense for Bethesda. Easier for multiplatform and you get a great experience on PC. That scales with hardware as far back as 2006.

[BethanyRhain]

Btw, separate skeletons for male and female.

[Charleigh Anderson]

Possible OpenGL 3.5/4.0 support like Rage? Portable to Mac? Could happen.

Btw, separate skeletons for male and female.

I'd say this is guaranteed. FO3 had this.

[Elisabete Gaspar]

The one thing I care about most is a new lighting system. The one in Fo3/NV and TES:IV is GARBAGE. Very few shadows are realtime, and lights go through walls. YOu cant even light a level, then bake it so it knows where all the static/environment lights shine and can do accurate shadows with those... It would be SO nice to have realistic shadows. That would make it so much easier to create much more in depth interiors, and you could get so much more immersed in a game like that.

[Kelly John]

The one thing I care about most is a new lighting system. The one in Fo3/NV and TES:IV is GARBAGE. Very few shadows are realtime, and lights go through walls. YOu cant even light a level, then bake it so it knows where all the static/environment lights shine and can do accurate shadows with those... It would be SO nice to have realistic shadows. That would make it so much easier to create much more in depth interiors, and you could get so much more immersed in a game like that.

This x1000.
And Open GL support would be nice. PS3 uses OpenGL ES so Im assuming it wouldn't be that hard to port. 4.0 is basically the DX11 version of OGL right?

[Nathan Risch]

As far as the graphics go, all I want is for it to run fast. I would be plenty happy if it looked just like Oblivion but ran much better. My computer is about three years old now and I plan to get another three years out of it. So... if I can get some scalable graphics that would be greeeeat.

[Melis Hristina]

As far as the graphics go, all I want is for it to run fast. I would be plenty happy if it looked just like Oblivion but ran much better. My computer is about three years old now and I plan to get another three years out of it. So... if I can get some scalable graphics that would be greeeeat.

I now its poorly optimized but Oblivion's engine runs pretty fast now. The only thing I could see is better multi GPU support and better multi threading for CPU cores.

I'd be surprised if Skyrim didnt run though.

[Cartoon]

As far as the graphics go, all I want is for it to run fast. I would be plenty happy if it looked just like Oblivion but ran much better. My computer is about three years old now and I plan to get another three years out of it. So... if I can get some scalable graphics that would be greeeeat.

The market is so spread out right now because so many people have 3-4 year old hardware, all the new games that are coming out should be/are able to scale things down and run fine on that hardware. It should also be optimized seeing how thats the hardware which is in the consoles that are older than your pc. a good engine now-a-days needs to be awesomely scalable. it needs to fully utilize the cores of a processor and fully support multiple cores/threads.. realistically optimization for 4 cores is enough for current games but after this year it should be 4+. the only thing you may have to upgrade is your graphics card simply because textures generally become more detailed and needs faster graphics cards with more ram to accommodate them. You have to think of it like this: in order for the hardware industry to continue to improve, the people who make software that runs on that hardware have to continually push the limits of the hardware. otherwise there will be no innovation or progress.

[roxanna matoorah]

The market is so spread out right now because so many people have 3-4 year old hardware, all the new games that are coming out should be/are able to scale things down and run fine on that hardware. It should also be optimized seeing how thats the hardware which is in the consoles that are older than your pc. a good engine now-a-days needs to be awesomely scalable. it needs to fully utilize the cores of a processor and fully support multiple cores/threads.. realistically optimization for 4 cores is enough for current games but after this year it should be 4+. the only thing you may have to upgrade is your graphics card simply because textures generally become more detailed and needs faster graphics cards with more ram to accommodate them. You have to think of it like this: in order for the hardware industry to continue to improve, the people who make software that runs on that hardware have to continually push the limits of the hardware. otherwise there will be no innovation or progress.

True. I think a good DX10 GPU will have enough shading power and VRAM for the game at least on low settings. When it comes to CPU's I agree completely. The way Quad cores are now mainstream and hex and octo core CPU's making there way into the market CPU utilization is a must. PC could truly pull off some large scale AI battles, physics, physic simulations and much more. Metro 2033 is even able to run Nvidia's PhysX on a 6 core CPU just fine. Because they took the time to optimize it and have the engine scale to number of cores. Im sick of playing a game that just game out, having no physics or environmental destruction with a max of 30% CPU usage. For instance tonight: Fallout New Vegas on the Vegas strip, 10% CPU usage.

[dean Cutler]

I say forget those with a wimpy system, anything older than 4 years is a no no.

Minimum: Dual-Core processor, 2Gb RAM, 512Mb RAM DX 9 graphics card around Nvidia 8800 / ATi 4670 performance.

Recommended: Tri / Quad-Core system, 4Gb RAM, 1Gb DX11 graphics card around Nvidia 460 / ATi 5850 performance.

So effectively the minimum spec machine would operate at XBox360 / Playstation 3 performance and graphics level but it can perform better and support DX11 features.


However that's because my system is good, if we check Steam and see what most users have as a system you'll notice that even my minimum specs request is above average.

[Minako]

If they can achieve Just Cause 2 level graphics, I will be amazed and more than satisfied. Does anyone who knows what I'm talking about think that is a likely scenario?