Thank you very much for your time in explaining all this
Thank you very much for your time in explaining all this
Again thanks for your time....
I see, so the driver itself mplements the actual API function's behavior based on what *should* happen in a reference DirectX implementation?
I guess I previously imagined that the driver opened a very basic interface to the hardware, and that somehow a DirectX library was responsible for translating an API call into some sort of low level code for the driver to run on bare hardware (sort of how binaries are x86 CISC bytecode, and those x86 CISC instructions are translated into an even lower level instruction set internally and then finally executed in whatever way the silicon actually works inside)
But most of the heavy lifting of translating the API call into machine instructions is actually done in the driver directly? So DirectX is just a spec... I guess I was confused because there is software called "DirectX" which installs libraries to the system, now I'm wondering what that huge install is, just basic SDK framework stuff like headers?
Thanks, hopefully I am catching on
"I'm not quite sure what you mean specifically on how this relates to DirectX (or what you are implying is fundamentally different between it and say OpenGL), it in fact does help with compatibility in that you aren't coding for a specific GPU"
Then why are there often fixes on the game dev's end to fix issues with a specific graphics card? Shouldn't the patch notes say "fixed improper DirectX call" instead of say "fixed issue with lighting on Radeon 480" or "added support for Intel HD"... If the game is just asking DirectX to interpret calls, why should it have to worry about specific chipsets?
"Of course you do, that's where the implementation of the interface is. The driver provides the interface between the application and the hardware, "
But DX/OGL are between the driver and the user application, the software asks DX to throw something up on the screen, and DX sends those calls to the driver. All the driver should have to worry about is properly handling DirectX requests, not about specific functions one game is trying to perform. Why do driver patch notes then say "improved compatibility with game X" instead of "improved compatibility wit DirectX"... why would only one game benefit instead of all DirectX compatible software? Why is the driver tested only against specific games and not some sort of reference DirectX implementation?
"DirectX and OpenGL meant that the code could be written for those APIs and the manufacturers just needed to provide an implementation in their driver"
This is basically my point as well! Yet as you figure, "of course" drivers are updated for specific games and also somehow games are implementing discrete fixes for specific GPUs instead of just for the broad implementation of DirectX... This is where I start getting confused and my understanding falls apart...
Thanks for addressing my post btw and any info would be helpful, there are things here that just don't seem to align properly in my understanding...
It added a lot to the immersion IMHO, and is also the best way to experience Virtual Boy and Master System 3D emulation. On the desktop PC, 3D LCD glasses came with many 3D accelerator cards since the 90s and it always blew me away to play games that way.
It's an interesting idea but emulation of GPUs is a significant undertaking, and games on PS4 and Xbox One go low level enough to the hardware that it won't be possible to just trap high level API calls and execute those on newer hardware. The Xbox One especially has a unique architecture with eSRAM management that will need to be handled somehow, as games use many tricks to acheive performance on that platform.
Direct hardware lineage makes more sense, but then console manufacturers are tying themselves to one vendor, and one basic architecture that can't vary as much as might make sense in the future. The beauty of a new generation of consoles is that everything is out the window and we get to make the best decisions for hardware from scratch with no compromises.
Otherwise we might just end up with what we have on PC with a lot of cruft in for the sake of compatibility and lower return on hardware upgrades.
Curiously though DirectX does not seem to help with compatibility. Games on Windows still have major issues with different hardware, and interestingly on the GPU side we have Nvidia and AMD modifying their drivers to aid with game compatibility!! It seems like DirectX barely does anything to help with the situation... if at all.
As you pointed out the PS4 has a giant installed base, with the X1 costing more and selling less, despite promises of enhanced games for free using the cloud to power some physics and graphical elements in games.
Again the Scorpio will be more expensive, and despite promising more power, it will not be used as developers target the much larger installed PS4 and Xbox One user base. Why should developers spend money and resources enhancing games for a tiny market segment? They don't really do that now with the PS4 Pro.
We'll have to wait until the next generation and a break in compatibility to get games that are significantly different from what we have now. No matter how much punch the Scorpio packs, it will only get minor enhancements like resolution and frame rate. This may well anger gamers who spent a lot of money on a new box where MS is marketing the sheer hardware performance that doesn't manifest in actual practice.
My guess is only MS's own games will take any real advantage of Scorpio's hardware, while third parties continue to target the base PS4 and Xbox One. Just wait until the next generation, these half step consoles are expensive and offer little benefit in practice. Their advantages are paper-only.
Exactly, upping the resolution, fps, and anti aliasing are minor upgrades on basically the same game. Scorpio games won't really poush the hardware with more detailed models, physics, AI, bigger worlds with more going on, etc... and they won't be able to either since Scorpio gamers will be matched up with Xbox One gamers online, so they can't even have different physics and AI models going on if they wanted to.
Haha DirectX and Compatible are funny to have in the same sentence!! Right now on PC they can't even get games to work well across Nvidia and AMD GPUs, games that release perfectly playable on console launch in a broken state on PC, including MS's own games using UWP like Forza Horizon 3 and Quantum Break! Nothing is going to change here.
Please go figure.
- Scorpio is 6 tflops
- Nvidia 1080 already outclasses it at 10 tflops (yet Scorpio is touting VR as a pro? It will be stripped down VR like we have now)
- 2 years is a long time in tech
- even low end GPU in 2 years will easily outclass high end options now
- PS5 expected 2 years after Scorpio, will break hardware/software lineage where Scorpio needs to maintain hardware/software compatibility
Why would it not outclass Scorpio is a better question
They did not know the PS4 Pro was coming, so they had nothing ready in time... but had to counter with something. They couldn't say they weren't doing anything with sales already languishing.
Did you look at the link? This is confirmed. http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
Why would MS cut off their legs? Scorpio will have an install base of 0 until end of 2017, PS4 and Xbox One will have at least 100m combined by then (about 80m now combined). Why would devs give a system that will have such a low ownership for such a short time before the next real generation the money and resources required to significantly improve games?
VR experiences don't matter, wonder why you never see reviews of VR games? VR has been out for about a year but there are no amazing games, and it's not due to lack of hardware power, games are no better on PC (which already has 10 tflops w/Nvidia 1080 vs Scorpio's 6)
Specs for Scorpio? As I said, 6 tflops, going to be AMD GPU due to compatibility with Xbox One, the rest doesn't really matter because it's already outclassed on PC and certainly will be with PS5, why wouldn't a system 2 years later have better tech? http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one...
Sure get a Scorpio, your money
Scorpio software will be hamstrung by mandatory compatibility with Xbox One hardware. http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
Scorpio's higher price will slow adoption, developers will still focus on the much larger install base of PS4 and Xbox One onwers, meaning developer resources won't be put into significant enhancements for Scorpio compatible games. http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
Scorpio's hardware will be outclassed 2 years later when the PS5 is released. http://www.gamezone.com/news/a...
It will be an expensive flop, not a good way to start a new generation.
Scorpio, an upgraded Xbox One, is said to have about 3x the power of the PS4, 1.5x the power of the PS4 Pro. And 5x the power of the Xbox One, which it has to be compatible with. Scorpio software must run adequately on the Xbox One despite the huge power gap.
This is a premium system with a rumored high price tag, launching about 2 years before the expected next generation of consoles debuts.
Having to compete with the installed base of PS4 and Xbox One so late in the game, developer focus is expected to reflect this, leading to only minor updates to games such as higher resolution, framerate, and anti aliasing. Not expected are more complex models, more detailed worlds, significant shader and texture differences, increased complexity in physics models, or AI differences (especially since Scorpio gamers are expected to match with Xbox One gamers online, and the games are supposed to remain basically the same, only superficially different).
Bottom line is they expect knowledgable gamers (casuals won't care about this) to pay a high price for minor cosmetic differences not long before newer powerful machines come out that aren't resterained by compatibility with older less powerful systems. It doesn't seem like this will do much to bolster the Xbox brand, and may even make adopters upset. Probably only Microsoft's own titles will bother to put the resources behind making any significant improvements to games, especially considering how much games already cost, and how much testing will have to be done specifically for a significantly different version, and that's only 2-3 games a year?
It does not seem like Scorpio will help MS....
Nobody cares about graphical power, they just care about fun. The point is to make something other than a traditional console, to offer different ways to play, that can complement the other consoles, if you even want that. Only hard core gamers start caring about these things (luckily many Nintendo first party games do please the hard core gamer while remaining accessible).
Nintendo did make an updated 3DS by the way, the New 3DS. The Switch seems to be taking the Wii U concept much further. And everyone already has a Wii so why make that again. Making something different and unique is a smart way to provide a distinct experience. Making a me-too console will automatically make them a footnote.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (3) Ha, ha, I can't believe they're actually going to adopt this sucker.