So after i investigated quite a time about the "new wonder" called Directx 11 i must say...
god this Version is even more of a letdown than Direct x10 was.
My concerns grew over the time since the first "so called" directx 11 supported games came out: StalkerCOP,DIRT2,AVP and METRO 2033. But Ive decided to wait til somehting really usefull and stunning will appear in a game which uses DX11 to create my final statement.

You know what? Im still waiting!
The visual improvements from features like tesselation are not yet to be seen like they were in the unigine heaven demo. Actutally even with heavy use of Dx11-features in total war shogun 2 or the Witcher 2, the differences are really hard to see. Some differences wouldnt even require the exclusive use of DX11.
Why? Because for these "minor" visual differences you have to spend a lot of performance and the effort it takes to imply it into a gamengine are not worth the time and money.







The most impressive DX11 feature usage was the samaritan DEmo from Epic...
It uses every single feature DX11 could offer and it looks groundbreaking...

I think we need a cut... its not enough to give us build in DX11 features in DX10/9 games.

There must be DX11 exclusive games to show remarkable changes.


for me the best I've seen DX11 is Battlelfield 3, the samaritan Demo needs 3 GTX580 to move and that the truth is much hardware, however the visual quality of Battlelfield 3 is awesome and only moves with a single GTX580 in maximum quality, I prefer the graphics engine DICE

your brain is on mute m8. You fail to see the truth. I;m not gonna explain this, because you clearly dont understand any of this
Now the sad thing is you are the one that lacks understanding but its ok.

I'm with the thread opener, but then again: who's supposed to buy hardware-intense software?
The PC platform doesn't sell enough copies as it is to justify expensive title development alone.
People with high-end hardware are a minority within that minority themselves.

PC gaming is not cool / hip / trendy anymore. Consoles are the way to go. That's where the real money is made. Why should the companies tend to develop titles with the PC in mind when it's economically more rational to just port them over. Who is to blame? EA for catering the most profitable platforms? Rather not. Microsoft for totally abandoning PC gaming for their Xbox portfolio? Maybe.

I would like to see it differently too, but there is nothing to do about it except bring your friends over to this platform, buy games instead of torrenting them. But does it look like that is going to happen right now? Looking at the whole crappy-buggy-games-VS-whiny-community dilemma status quo, I don't think so.

PC gaming is in a innovation-less coma.

has the dx11 patch come out yet? well i knew from the start a dx11 patch will not be a game changer. dx cannot simply just be patched, to look proper the game must be built around it. consolitis is the heart of the problem.

the way i see it, consoles are where the money is at and game developers will flock and cater to it. but is it good for gaming? now pc games are not being maximised to its full potential. why cater to consoles (larger audience, mostly kids and casual gamers) when pc's (more affluent, critical and hardcoe players) are capable of so much more? Money and even more $$$.

sadly pc gamers dont have the numbers to overturn the console market. pc gamers dont want to play console games. if we want a console game, we'd play it on consoles; hence poor pc sales of console ports.

@op you are somewhat stupid.

The most important features of DX10/11 do not directly result in better visuals but they are designed with efficiency in mind. As such if you correctly implement DX11 you can expect a substantial performance increase. This in turn can allow for better visuals because you have much more frame rate to play with.

But at the same time you have to keep in mind that most things (visually) do not scale in a linear way and that you cant expect X% of headroom to translate into the same amount of awesome on the screen.

First: Sorry i had old news about The Witcher 2. It is a DirectX 9 only title.
( And it proves me right by saying Dx11 isnt necessary for great optics)
Second: I didnt say Metro 2033 looks bad with dx11 its just no major step upwards to Dx10 and the loss of performance is really heavy. But look for yourselfs:

Third: Calling someone idiot or moron just because of 2 minor mistakes points to a very pubertal behaviour in my opinion. I didnt insult anyone of you guys and there was no reason for these rude replys. And crticising me for " Direct X11 instead of DX11 or Directx 11 is the most small-minded thing ive ever seen.

At last: I really dont wanna say anything about the Crysis 1 on consoles topic anymore... Only this: saying its "possible" doesnt mean it will look anywhere worth playing - on a current gen console.

EDIT:
@Rippy

So im stupid?...well thanks for being pointlessly insulting @ first.
So lets see... you say "if" Dx11 would be implemented correctly it would boost the performance.
So by saying that you must think all professional gamestudios and even the people who created the unigine heaven benchmark are moron`s who do not understand what Dx11 could be used for right?
The only thing Dx11 is famous for is tesselation. fact.
Truth is every DX11 mode of a featured game isnt relevantly visually superior to its Dx10 pendant.fact.
And Dx11 is more of a performance-killer and was never implemented to increase the performance so far. fact.

.....CRYTEK/EA; STUPID LAME ASS AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY
Just gently reminding you that Crytek is a German company. Also MAXIMUM CAPS.




Watch and learn.

This is not CE2 vs CE3, this is PC vs Console.... pointless attend to prove something since CE3 on PC can do more than on console.
CE3 is more like CE 1.5, that's the point of the video. The textures are 1/4th of the resolution, the draw distance is cut by more than half, scripted shadow falls instead of real time shadowing effects, whole screen motion blur as opposed to per object motion blur. The list goes on.
I'm speechless. I... I just can't find words that would accurately express the amount of pure BS that is contained in your post and that video. CE3 is as good as CE2. On top of that, Crysis 2 is awesomely optimized.
Watch THIS:

I'm with this video's creator, JustNameless. C2 is as good as C1, although C2 is less performance-hungry. They thrashed effects that ate too much FPS and put in beautiful lighting that covered up the little cracks.

Here's what Cry-Adam has to say:

It's unstickied because we can't have 100 stickies on the first page. The latest/most crucial information gets stickied and the DX11 announcement has been up there long enough for most people to have heard about it.

DX11 is coming and there will be more info on that soon.

funny how they twist the definition of soon to never.

.....CRYTEK/EA; STUPID LAME ASS AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY
Just gently reminding you that Crytek is a German company. Also MAXIMUM CAPS.




Watch and learn.

This is not CE2 vs CE3, this is PC vs Console.... pointless attend to prove something since CE3 on PC can do more than on console.
CE3 is more like CE 1.5, that's the point of the video. The textures are 1/4th of the resolution, the draw distance is cut by more than half, scripted shadow falls instead of real time shadowing effects, whole screen motion blur as opposed to per object motion blur. The list goes on.
I'm speechless. I... I just can't find words that would accurately express the amount of pure BS that is contained in your post and that video. CE3 is as good as CE2. On top of that, Crysis 2 is awesomely optimized.
Watch THIS:

I'm with this video's creator, JustNameless. C2 is as good as C1, although C2 is less performance-hungry. They thrashed effects that ate too much FPS and put in beautiful lighting that covered up the little cracks.
Post a comparison where you can at least run Crysis on the highest setting, not medium >.>

@Clockwork0nion:
1. It's not my video.
2. I can run Crysis Warhead at Very High options at somewhere around 30 FPS.(Not DX10 though)

@Clockwork0nion:
1. It's not my video.
2. I can run Crysis Warhead at Very High options at somewhere around 30 FPS.(Not DX10 though)
Then the comparison is useless.

Good day.

@ Hyperion110

Please dont try to convince anyone...

Its just a fact that Crysis 2 uses only textures half the size of Crysis 1 and the lighting can be modified so heavily that it surpasses Crysis 2`s effects by far. just an example




But all that is nonense now... we will all see if C3 can really perform better and deliver the same optics at the same time when the Editor and the development kit will be released.

ALL OTHER STATEMENTS ARE PURE SPECULATION!

- because the current Crysis 2 even with extreme settings is "technically" inferior to Crysis 1 with or without modifications .

-fact-


EDIT:
Ah shiat...i did it again...

.....CRYTEK/EA; STUPID LAME ASS AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY
Just gently reminding you that Crytek is a German company. Also MAXIMUM CAPS.




Watch and learn.

This is not CE2 vs CE3, this is PC vs Console.... pointless attend to prove something since CE3 on PC can do more than on console.
CE3 is more like CE 1.5, that's the point of the video. The textures are 1/4th of the resolution, the draw distance is cut by more than half, scripted shadow falls instead of real time shadowing effects, whole screen motion blur as opposed to per object motion blur. The list goes on.
I'm speechless. I... I just can't find words that would accurately express the amount of pure BS that is contained in your post and that video. CE3 is as good as CE2. On top of that, Crysis 2 is awesomely optimized.
Watch THIS:

I'm with this video's creator, JustNameless. C2 is as good as C1, although C2 is less performance-hungry. They thrashed effects that ate too much FPS and put in beautiful lighting that covered up the little cracks.

Obviously a Console fanboi.. Dont worry, this PC gamer Has already Realized Crytek is now a Console Gaming company.. Enjoy your new franchise. Keep buying DLC and Achieve through Compromise !!

Watch and learn.

This is not CE2 vs CE3, this is PC vs Console.... pointless attend to prove something since CE3 on PC can do more than on console.
CE3 is more like CE 1.5, that's the point of the video. The textures are 1/4th of the resolution, the draw distance is cut by more than half, scripted shadow falls instead of real time shadowing effects, whole screen motion blur as opposed to per object motion blur. The list goes on.The textures are not the fault of the engine, they're independently created outside of the engine and is different between games. Draw distance is also something that can be changed by the developers and it different per game, it's not a set in stone value that represents the engine across the board. But the non-realtime shadows and motion blur I'm not entirely sure of.

I believe that Crysis 2 in it's current state isn't the full use of CE3. As some people have mentioned, all the Crysis 2 games were designed to work with the hardware limitation of consoles, as they don't have the memory to handle many huge textures, long draw distances, real-time shadows at long distances and the complex motion blur.

obviously severe cuts were made for fit this game in dvd players. Crysis 2 is not as epic as the first 1. I now what crysis 3 would look like
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/05/24/mw3-trailer-is-live/comment-page-5/

@ So Crysis 3 should have looked like a game with an 6 year old engine and have strict linear gameplay?

Call of Duty MW3 is a deadborn baby for me... because they are just not willing to use a new-gen engine. It will not stand a chance against BAttlefield 3 or Crysis 1/2.

Also what is it with the DVD critc?

Crysis 1 and warhead came on DVD too.
And they still use some of the best looking textures in videogames.
If you allude to Blue Rays and the ps3.... No game needs a blue ray... and the ps3 couldnt handle higher res textures than the one used in crysis 2. So why should a dvd limit the games optical quality?

I meant 360 and ps3 whcih are nothing more than glorified dvd players