I hope i could have written the title a little bit more sarcastically, but the truth is, the probably not done with dx11,Der, and are still finishing up the game, maybe thats there whole bet, that this game will make the current generation "DX11" benchmark and steal it from metro. Maybe this is they re whole gig, but us anxious Pc gamer want it now.....did we all forget the game was delayed from last year? I bet they didn't want to go trough this whole thing again and just said screw it, well finish it with a patch later. In my opinion, yes the demo was a disappointed, but all we can do now is wait,wait for the patch, maybe then when dx11 kiks in,

1. Objects will be smoother
2. Tessellation
3. Finer detail
4. World panic, people eyes are melting

And ultimately, i'm not sure if anyone has realized, but there is really "no" deference in the modes in the demo, because, its only adding AA and motion blur. I dont think, and remember this is a theory, Crytek is that selfish to not push boundaries, again.

They have it all ready. Look at shogun 2 total war in fact most demos only include dx9 because it is not the final version of product and takes a lot more time to insert dx11 in the demo. Stop being greedy and be happy they gave us a demo I understood this a few days ago when i was ranting about stuff like this. Im glad that they did not add dx11 in the demo so people will BUY THE GAME AND SEE FOR THEM SELVES

They have it all ready. Look at shogun 2 total war in fact most demos only include dx9 because it is not the final version of product and takes a lot more time to insert dx11 in the demo. Stop being greedy and be happy they gave us a demo I understood this a few days ago when i was ranting about stuff like this. Im glad that they did not add dx11 in the demo so people will BUY THE GAME AND SEE FOR THEM SELVES

It really is the time for them to clarify this issue. I really hope you're right and they put me to shame for doubting them. Just curious, how are you so sure that they have dx11 ready for the final version? Did someone from Crytek confirm with you? Or are you just basing this on blind faith?

It is a rhetorical question the whole thread.Ofc they dont come up with dx11 cause they havent finish it yet.

It is a rhetorical question the whole thread.Ofc they dont come up with dx11 cause they havent finish it yet.

I agree, I just want to understand the thinking process of the people in denial, the people who still strongly believe that they have it ready. I'm asking them how are they so sure. Everything so far points to the fact that they don't have dx11 ready.

When you see the official response then all the ppl that say it is ready ,they gonna get pwned:D.I prefer having dx11 even later by not having it at all(rhetorical also)

My guess is that EA is rushing for identical releases on all platforms to ensure they get their bags of money on time. The release now and patch later mentality is one of their greatest downfalls.

they not showing full graphics so the console players wont say this game just about graphics
crytek is saying we have theh hottest super model on the planet
but she also can make einstein look noob

Who cares about DX11? Neither DX10 nor DX11 have completely changed the game on DX9.

I've yet to see an ingame screenshot comparison where anything popped out at me as being better looking than DX9.

The problem with the patch with DirectX11 is that by the time it comes out, most of us will probably beat the game already, unless we all want to replay the game or the game has high replayability.

There is another reason why not to make it dx11. Since there seem to be many rendered cutscenes, dialogues and stuff like that the game is already taking up 2 discs. Now tesselation makes more sense with higher-res data. It ultimately means that the size of the game would increase significantly.

Anyone thought about that?

Who cares about DX11? Neither DX10 nor DX11 have completely changed the game on DX9.

I've yet to see an ingame screenshot comparison where anything popped out at me as being better looking than DX9.
well i can tell which version of DX is crysis 1 using dx 9 or dx 10 just by looking at it with my bare eyes there is a big diference

Who cares about DX11? Neither DX10 nor DX11 have completely changed the game on DX9.

I've yet to see an ingame screenshot comparison where anything popped out at me as being better looking than DX9.

Thats because you are looking at screenshots of console ports that are merely pretending to give a crap about PC gamers instead of things like the Unigine Engine Heaven 2.1 benchmark or Nvidias endless city (these is mouse and keyboard controlled exploration in both of these) which actually use DX11.

There is another reason why not to make it dx11. Since there seem to be many rendered cutscenes, dialogues and stuff like that the game is already taking up 2 discs. Now tesselation makes more sense with higher-res data. It ultimately means that the size of the game would increase significantly.

Anyone thought about that?

I'd much rather they chop out the cut scenes and just have a screenshot with subtitles than cut out something like tessellation but seriously how much space do you think a displacement map takes up?

Depends on the amount of textures. Yeah, I could care less for cutscenes and story aswell. It has never been a strength of Crytek.

First off, this whole no dx11 at launch **** is a **** rumor. Second off, pretty much all game developers get silent when approaching up to a little after launch day of their game. Crytek isn't being silent because they want to, it's because they are busy as **** -_- This is something you people should know but I'm guessing most of you are tweens and teens....

And third off, about the random ignorant and non-true-PC-gaming-or-Crytek-fan people will eat their words on March 22nd/25th (depending if they live in North America or Europe). That's it.

Why not develop the game in DX11 and then patch it to dx9, that is made for consoles, because I have to buy a console game if I have a high end PC .Because Battlelfield 3 will be developed in native DX10-11 and then ported to console, because there all have their proper PC version a good level console graphics and theirs, and everybody's happy, I think it is less work to develop a high-graphics version, and then cut it to console, console upside down to PC level up is a crock, I already bought the game on Steam, but if you would not keep DX11 at launch do not buy it. how much to take in getting the update for DX11. PC users here are the past...

Who cares about DX11? Neither DX10 nor DX11 have completely changed the game on DX9.

I've yet to see an ingame screenshot comparison where anything popped out at me as being better looking than DX9.
well i can tell which version of DX is crysis 1 using dx 9 or dx 10 just by looking at it with my bare eyes there is a big diference
yes there is difference between high (high is max on dx9 if you dont change settings in config files) and very high settings in crysis1, but you can set graphics to very high in dx9 by changing config files and very high on dx9 looks the same as on dx10, you wont notice difference, so until now no developer showed us anything that will make difference on dx10/11, dx10 is now really old, it was released more than 4 years ago! and nobody did with it anything interestig, that's a shame, now look at best looking games like crysis1 & 2 & warhead and they are only dx9, building game from ground on dx10 or 11 could make difference, but not patching dx9 version

I hope i could have written the title a little bit more sarcastically, but the truth is, the probably not done with dx11,Der, and are still finishing up the game, maybe thats there whole bet, that this game will make the current generation "DX11" benchmark and steal it from metro. Maybe this is they re whole gig, but us anxious Pc gamer want it now.....did we all forget the game was delayed from last year? I bet they didn't want to go trough this whole thing again and just said screw it, well finish it with a patch later. In my opinion, yes the demo was a disappointed, but all we can do now is wait,wait for the patch, maybe then when dx11 kiks in,

1. Objects will be smoother
2. Tessellation
3. Finer detail
4. World panic, people eyes are melting

And ultimately, i'm not sure if anyone has realized, but there is really "no" deference in the modes in the demo, because, its only adding AA and motion blur. I dont think, and remember this is a theory, Crytek is that selfish to not push boundaries, again.

It Is Quite Possible That You Are Right.

PS: When I Play I Hope My Eyes Don't Melt To Much

Why not develop the game in DX11 and then patch it to dx9, that is made for consoles, because I have to buy a console game if I have a high end PC .Because Battlelfield 3 will be developed in native DX10-11 and then ported to console, because there all have their proper PC version a good level console graphics and theirs, and everybody's happy, I think it is less work to develop a high-graphics version, and then cut it to console, console upside down to PC level up is a crock, I already bought the game on Steam, but if you would not keep DX11 at launch do not buy it. how much to take in getting the update for DX11. PC users here are the past...

Because barely even 10% of the PC market has DirectX 11. Most people are still on DX10/9 cards. A game built very well on DX9 that caters to most of the makret and makes 90% of people happy will work better than something catered for 10% of the market and watered down for the majority.

I mean sure the GTX 580 owners will bich but what about us with 4870s and GTX 260s? We're the priority here...not the DX11 people.

Why not develop the game in DX11 and then patch it to dx9, that is made for consoles, because I have to buy a console game if I have a high end PC .Because Battlelfield 3 will be developed in native DX10-11 and then ported to console, because there all have their proper PC version a good level console graphics and theirs, and everybody's happy, I think it is less work to develop a high-graphics version, and then cut it to console, console upside down to PC level up is a crock, I already bought the game on Steam, but if you would not keep DX11 at launch do not buy it. how much to take in getting the update for DX11. PC users here are the past...

Because barely even 10% of the PC market has DirectX 11. Most people are still on DX10/9 cards. A game built very well on DX9 that caters to most of the makret and makes 90% of people happy will work better than something catered for 10% of the market and watered down for the majority.

I mean sure the GTX 580 owners will bich but what about us with 4870s and GTX 260s? We're the priority here...not the DX11 people.


+1

I'm A GTX 260

They have it all ready. Look at shogun 2 total war in fact most demos only include dx9 because it is not the final version of product and takes a lot more time to insert dx11 in the demo. Stop being greedy and be happy they gave us a demo I understood this a few days ago when i was ranting about stuff like this. Im glad that they did not add dx11 in the demo so people will BUY THE GAME AND SEE FOR THEM SELVES

Er I have Shogun 2 and DX11 for Shogun 2 is also delayed 2-4 weeks look it up. And with that they still had DX11 screen shots and videos months ago. At least I assume thats why I don't have any waves in my seas when I max out the retail copy.

I mean sure the GTX 580 owners will bich but what about us with 4870s and GTX 260s? We're the priority here...not the DX11 people.

One day even you will upgrade. But that argument is flawed anyway.

I can think of 200003 reasons off the top of my head

1) The 2000000 dollars Nvidia gave Crytek
2) The fact that low end hardware means more pirates
3) Everybody upgrades
4) Cryteks Engine will be sold on it's reputation and that reputation cannot be maintained on console

edit: forgot to mention

5) The Dx9 version is already finished

Why not develop the game in DX11 and then patch it to dx9, that is made for consoles, because I have to buy a console game if I have a high end PC .Because Battlelfield 3 will be developed in native DX10-11 and then ported to console, because there all have their proper PC version a good level console graphics and theirs, and everybody's happy, I think it is less work to develop a high-graphics version, and then cut it to console, console upside down to PC level up is a crock, I already bought the game on Steam, but if you would not keep DX11 at launch do not buy it. how much to take in getting the update for DX11. PC users here are the past...

Because barely even 10% of the PC market has DirectX 11. Most people are still on DX10/9 cards. A game built very well on DX9 that caters to most of the makret and makes 90% of people happy will work better than something catered for 10% of the market and watered down for the majority.

I mean sure the GTX 580 owners will bich but what about us with 4870s and GTX 260s? We're the priority here...not the DX11 people.

It's true only a small portion of players (going by Steam's hardware stats) are using DX11 cards but DX11 is backwards compatible with DX10.
You'll be able to run a GTX 260 in DX11 and get the benefit of a more efficient renderer and better visuals, like in BF3. Although tessellation won't be available as it's hardware specific.
According to Steam the biggest proportion have a DX10 system (DX10 with Vista/Win7), so it will be the majority that would benefit from DX11 version.
Check out DICE's talk on DX11 (http://repi.blogspot.com/2011/03/dice-at-gdc11.html). Looking at BF3, the results speak for themselves.

Tesselation makes sense in Hawks, less in Crysis 2 if you already have high-res textures. People are just monkeys jumping on every hype and media-stuff. The best way to stay clean is not to watch tv...?hhh youtube.