AMD Says There Will Be No DirectX 12 — Ever 305
mikejuk writes "This is a strange story. AMD Vice President of Global Channel Sales Roy Taylor has said there will be no DirectX12 at any time in the future. In an interview with German magazine Heise.de, Taylor discussed the new trend for graphics card manufacturers to release top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card. One of the reasons for this, he said, is that the DirectX update cycle is no longer driving the market. 'There will be no DirectX 12. That's it.' (Google translation of German original.) Last January there was another hint that things weren't fine with DirectX when Microsoft sent an email to its MVPs saying, 'DirectX is no longer evolving as a technology.' That statement was quickly corrected, but without mentioning any prospect of DirectX 12. So, is this just another error or rumor? Can we dismiss something AMD is basing its future strategy on?"
no DirectX 12 (Score:5, Funny)
... it only goes to 11
Re: (Score:2)
It's one more prettier.
Re:no DirectX 12 (Score:5, Funny)
... it only goes to 11
Obviously:
DirectX10
DirectX11
DirectX11R2
...
DirectX11R6
DirectX11R6.1
DirectX11R6.2
...
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't get the joke.
X11 is the X window system.
Re:no DirectX 12 (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously didn't get the "Spinal Tap" reference...
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't believe me, dust off your VHS (I personally have it on Blu-Ray nowadays) and watch it again. It is still hilarious and one of the best fake "reality" show ever made. And still being referenced in this day and age. Just look at my sig for further proof of Spinal Tap's staying power...
We did it! (Score:5, Funny)
We did it everyone! OpenGL won, good job everybody. Highest of fives all 'round.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only Microsoft uses DirectX, everyone else on the planet uses OpenGL.
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only Microsoft uses DirectX, everyone else on the planet uses OpenGL.
Except, you know, most top-selling games and other 3D applications on the market which all use DirectX - even if some also use OpenGL.
Even if the numbers don't keep ticking up, as long as it is the preferred graphics/multimedia API for Windows and XBox, it will stay relevant. Discounting it and saying the other common option 'won' is only demonstrating your lack of understanding and versatility as a developer.
When it comes down to it, OGL and DX are about the same thing, just with different platform-specific options. At some point, both will inevitably cease to progress. Given MS's propensity to push toward tablet-style computing and discontinue functional, widely-loved software, I am not surprised they cut out of the race first.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, most top games are primarily DirectX. Even if a game supports both, usually it will opt for DirectX if available.
DirectX was kind of an after thought addition to Windows anyhow, when they shut out the low level access that was being used previously for game graphics. I suppose that is where the name "Direct" came from, to emphasize it was the replacement that gave them similar direct access.
Hopefully this will shift things towards OpenGL and we can see more+better frameworks in more languages available for OpenGL.
On the other hand, you hit on potentially another reason for the decline of DirectX, and possibly OpenGL: the "demise of the PC". I do NOT believe the PC will die off anytime soon, but I can't deny that there are alot of casual users that no longer have any desire to put themselves through dealing with a PC, especially if they sit in front of one all day at work. A declining user base will mean commercial efforts shifted elsewhere, which won't be a good thing for the rest of us PC users.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Informative)
A few CPU bound DirectX games had about 98.6% scaling with multi-threading. The reason for the CPU bound performance is mostly the number of objects being rendered. Any time you have lots of objects, you need lots of system calls and general computation.
OpenGL is pretty much a dead-end for video-games, unless they add threading.
Before someone says "but OpenGL supports mutil-threading". No it doesn't. It supports multi-threaded worker threads for the drivers, but it does not support multiple threads communicating to the same context. DX11 does and it makes a huge difference.
I know AMD announced a while back that they were working on a cross-platform driver interface that used command-buffers like DX11 to drastically reduce context switching, while scaling nearly linearly with cores. They were going to have this for Linux first, but I'm not holding my breath for AMD to finish anything for Linux as they keep cutting employees and scrapping projects.
I am sick of being thread bound for games. 25% cpu load, sub-60fps, and my GPU at 5% load. Really.. wtf? Use the other 75% of my cpu.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. Unless you change the context of the process in some other thread via wglMakeCurrent/aglSetCurrentContext/glXMakeCurrent, the context is the same in every thread.
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Informative)
Each thread can write to its own queue without blocking, which OpenGL can not do.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the GPU is notified by the primary context, there is effectively one context switch to offload a lot of data. The driver knows where these command queues are and will read from them.
DX11 even allows the CPU to help the GPU. GPUs are great for certain types of calculations, but not as great for others. DICE had a nice blog many years ago about how they can send data to the GPU to be processed for one stage, then stream the data from the GPU as it completes, back to the CPU. The CPU then starts working on the data one one 16x16 tile at a time and streams the changes back to the GPU as each tile is completed.
They were able to keep the CPU and GPU well-loaded, while increasing efficiency and reducing memory pressure by data streaming.
They had the classic latency vs throughput issue. Because each stage was only dependent on the prior stage, they were able to keep streaming input into the engine to keep both the GPU and CPU busy. While the CPU was busy crunch special pixel shaders that ran slowly on the GPU, the GPU would be working on physics on the upcoming scene. etc etc
DX11 effectively made the rendering pipeline modular and customization, allowing data to be shifted back-and-forth, but hid the latency by allowing the stages to be done asynchronously.
OpenGL doesn't care about latency vs throughput because professional rendering does not have a latency issue, like video-games do.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want two separate threads to draw to the same window then you are doing it wrong. I think you do not understand what is going on in your game. If your 25% cpu load is because you have four cores and only one is being used that means there are zero dedicated rendering threads. The ai, game logic, content loading, physics, networking, user input, and rendering are all taking place within the same thread. That is not an openGL problem. They likely designed the game to render frames synchronized wit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You should qualify that. PC games. If you bin a little bit and say the XBox uses Direct3D while the Playstation and Wii use OpenGL, most of the modern best selling games use OpenGL. Note that all the smartphone and tablet games are also OpenGL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games [wikipedia.org].
Since Microsoft is trying to focus on the table/smartphone market, which is pretty much exclusively OpenGL, you're right, it's not that surprising they're bailing on DirectX.
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Informative)
> while the Playstation and Wii use OpenGL
FULL STOP. Why do people keep perpetrating these lies??
I _wrote_ an OpenGL implementation for the Wii on TOP of the Wii's GX library a few years back. The Wii's GX graphics library was definitely _inspired_ by OpenGL, but it is NOT OpenGL.
We also had a PS2 version of our in-house mini OpenGL which was a WRAPPER for setting the GS registers. (The "GPU" on the PS2 was called "GS" aka Graphics Synthesizer.)
While the PS3 provides _2_ graphics libraries, LibGCM and PSGL, I am not aware of any _shipped_ games using PSGL.
Facts. Try checking them.
--
The truth worth of a community is not only what you receive from it, but you can also give to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you good sir. I don't understand why people keep thinking GCN/PS2/etc used OpenGL.
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell yeah!
Seriously, this could be what it means. DirectX was the awful glue sticking gaming to Windows!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. I have no clue why you would think it is in any practical manner.
'fraid you're the clueless one here. (Score:3, Interesting)
OpenGL was multithreading capable from the get go. DirectX until 11.2 was single threaded only.
DirectX uses a very different object graph proposition that puts the scene as the major component and for most indoor FPS, that is an easier concept, but those choices mean taking it outside where the scene (in a 3D construction context) is not the primary container for the "world" realised, you've got a much worse system to program. OGL was much better at the open world 3D and a little worse at the enclosed box-r
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Informative)
You're mixing up the API and the SDK. Microsoft makes nice DirectX development tools. There are also nice OpenGL development tools. The difference is that DirectX ONLY works on Microsoft platforms so Microsoft is pretty much the only one that makes development tools for it. OpenGL works on everything else so there are lots of manufacturers who make tools.
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Funny)
naw. DirectX is TOTALLY cross-platform man! It works on Windows XP, it works on Windows Vista, It works on Windows 7, it works on Windows 8, it works on X-Box, X-Box 360 - and it's gonna be the premier platform for the greatest games coming out on the hottest new platform, the X-Box 720. You guys just don't know what you're talking about and if your'e not developing in DirectX (TM), you're really missing the boat, and I feel sorry for you, because you're going to be left behind in the great new future that's ahead of us all in the world of Microsoft(TM) 3D(TM) Game(TM) Programming(TM). I am not even joking(TM).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is multiplatform, but from a developers perspective, DirectX gives a nice SDK with documentation, samples, debugging tools, detailed error messages, and produce a clean code. OpenGL is like a "here is the header files, sort yourself out".
I'm a developer, I've written code that uses DirectX, and to a lesser extent I've dabbled with OpenGL. I would never call any code based on a COM API "clean" - ever. Heck, most of the DirectX samples provided by Microsoft that I've seen still use goto statements!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Informative)
That article is wrong - they misinterpreted Sony's comments that the PS4 GPU would have a "DirectX 11.1+ feature set." NOT that it would actually use the DirectX API. (not to mention calling DirectX the "industry standard"... huh??)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean when he said this?
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/ [bit-tech.net]
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
more gamers use OpenGL today then Direct X
[citation needed]
Actually, if you're going to give credit to someone for OGL, Apple is about the LAST company you should be thanking. Other than the fact that OGL was the only graphics API that worked on Mac, Apple has done ZERO to help promote, regulate, or stabilize OpenGL in the market. They have not contributed useful code, or participated in the ARB in any meaningful way.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games [wikipedia.org]
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Insightful)
more gamers use OpenGL today then Direct X
[citation needed]
Well if you're counting things like playing Angry Birds on iOS/Android, then almost certainly yes. Perhaps not in complexity or number of hardcore gamers, but in screen time I think yes. There's not a whole lot of games that are PC/Xbox exclusives anymore, and if you're doing any other platform you're probably doing OpenGL. It's probably only a matter of time before game makers tell Microsoft they'd rather code to one graphics system rather than two, and that one won't be DirectX. The world has changed drastically over the last 5 years in this respect, people game on smart phones and tablets not just consoles and PCs anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple had absolutely nothing to do with it...other than being the first major computer manufacturer to standardize on it and make it viable for peripheral makers to start building for thereby overcoming the chicken/egg problem fairly efficiently.
Not even close. Apple ditched ADB to standardize on USB for keyboards and mice, and that's about it. ADB was a crappy apple-only thing that nobody missed.
It did maybe potentially slightly encourage PC makers to eventually drop PS/2 ports for keyboards and mice but
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Informative)
No. The great Wiki says:
"A group of seven companies began the development of USB in 1994: Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC and Nortel. "
Re:We did it! (Score:4, Informative)
No, Apple developed IEEE 1394. Apple were quite resistant to USB initially.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We did it! (Score:5, Informative)
OpenGL was crap in the 90's but Apple
Uh, I remember OpenGL being fairly amazing in the 90s. I saw stuff on the O2s that no one else was doing. The 90s were when John Carmack made his famous rants about how much better OpenGL was than DirectX.
You're probably thinking of the mid 2000s, when OpenGL lost its way and was kind of directionless.....
Re: (Score:2)
why spend money on your own API when someone will do the work for you?
If Microsoft thought like that, DirectX never would have happened in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> why spend money on your own API when someone will do the work for you?
Lock-in? It's not like the first few version of direct X were better than the current version of opengl.
OpenGL existed before DirectX. So, it's not like DirectX was ever actually needed anyway, other than for Vendor Lock-in.
Re: (Score:3)
Cut that crap. Look at the list of Khronos Group member and tell me again that there is no interest in gaming with OpenGL!
And about multithreaded rendering: OpenGL absolutely *does* support it. It's just a model that's slightly different from DirectX.
Get a clue.
Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:5, Funny)
July, 2013: AMD Says 'Okay, There Will Be A DirectX 12, But We're Not Supporting It'
September, 2013: AMD Says DirectX 12 Support By Next Year
March, 2014: New AMD Cards' Poor DirectX 12 Performance Disappointing
May, 2014: AMD Boss Complains About Being 'Left Out' Of DirectX 12 Development
August, 2014: Struggling AMD Says 'Just Wait For DirectX 13!'
Re: (Score:2)
You've stumbled onto some something here...
AMD doesn't make Directx, never has never will.
It also sounds like TFA is trying to pimp TressFX.
You know what though, I'm going to say I HOPE there's no directx12 because directx 9 -11 aren't worth upgrading hardware for:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?s=0b835fb5dd2f2d73098918d134f47441&t=2312514 [anandtech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But we are propably very close at the end of the line for what the API DirectX can do for 3D graphics. We can do more polys, more lighting, higher res textures and that's it. Trouble is this is very expensive to create for games and AAA games have a lot of trouble recouping production costs.
In the other corner we have Intel beavering away on real-time rendering.
And the bugbear around the corner is that we are approaching
Re: (Score:2)
I HOPE there's no directx12 because directx 9 -11 aren't worth upgrading hardware for
This is so true it hurts. Even though my graphics card is DX11-ready, I still only use at most DX9.0c as I am loving my XP experience until they unfuck newer editions of Windows.
Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:4, Insightful)
what's wrong with 7?
Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft just re-names it; and everyone'll be using DirectY-2014 or Vista Display API or Direct-ME.
Re: (Score:2)
And we already know the name.
Direct Wayland.
Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:5, Insightful)
So Windows 9 is going to have Dx12 baked in, and it'll be called "GraphicsNew" instead of "DirectX" so we can't say "Hey, why teh fuck won't you release Dx12 for Windows7?" like we did with XP and Dx9/10. "Oh, sorry, but GraphicsNew is too fancy for poor Windows7, its completely different from DirectX!"
Yeah fucking right.
Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:5, Informative)
Dammit. It's been 6 years now and I'm getting tired of this stupid falsehood. Direct3D 10 wasn't limited to Vista for superficial business reasons. There are some extremely important technical factors that required overhauling parts of Windows alongside D3D10.
The graphics stack below the API was almost entirely overhauled, as per the Windows Display Driver Model [wikipedia.org]. Context switching, multithreading, virtual memory, splitting up the driver into user-mode and kernel-mode components, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. People forget just how broken Direct3D 9 was (and is); it was created at a time when the term "GPU" didn't exist yet and a video card was little more than a texturing unit and a raster op pipeline, and then brutally extended over the years to incorporate functionality like T&L and shaders. The whole thing predicated on a driver model that basically treated the video card as nothing more than a special class of peripheral, whereas with WDDM the GPU was finally promoted to a special class of processor within Windows.
Direct3D 10 in turn takes advantage of these low-level changes, particularly the changes to memory management. As a result, you can't have D3D10 without WDDM and the modern graphics stack it brings.
So the only way to bring D3D10 to XP would have been to create a cutthroat version of it that had little in common with Vista's version, or to backport the entire Vista graphics stack to XP, At which point you would have Vista whether you liked it or not, since you just brought over one of the biggest changes in the OS, and all of the bugs, growing pains, and incompatibility that brings.
Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, then tell me why modern OpenGL drivers can provide the equivalent of all DirectX 11 features on Windows XP? The implementation of DirectX 10 and newer may not have been portable to XP, but the interface would have been. There are even libraries that translate DX10/DX11 to OpenGL!
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Microsoft bought one of those Iranian 'future-looking' boxes.
It has to be said (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
DirectX means your program cant be open source?
*confused*
Re:It has to be said (Score:5, Informative)
But OpenGL right now does not seem to be geared towards games in any way.
I think some folks at Valve would have something to say about that.
Re: It has to be said (Score:2)
Re:It has to be said (Score:5, Interesting)
Well how about we hear from some others (Score:3)
The thing with Valve is that they are not exactly an unbiased source. For one, their engine is pretty outdated. They are all DX9 stuff in their games. Now fair enough from a market point of view (though there are been more than a couple very successful DX10+ only titles) but talking technically that is looking at things in a rather outdated fashion. DX10 changed the way you deal with graphics cards and most developers seem to think quite a bit for the better.
Also there's the fact that they are pushing Linux
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unsure of how it would perform with something as dynamic as a video game.
Really? Valve ported Left 4 Dead 2 to Linux and it came out faster. I'm at work so I can't exactly get to the page, but I pulled this reference [valvesoftware.com] from the Wikipedia article about Steam [wikipedia.org]. Since I'm at work I can't verify that Valve is using OpenGL for the Linux port of Steam, but I'm going to assume that's the case.
Re: (Score:2)
They compared a version of the engine for Linux that had optimizations done that were not available for the Windows version they compared to(And still haven't been released)
Ergo, it was a rigged comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to name a few. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you program anything using OpenGL? Because it's pretty game-friendly if there ever was a game-friendly graphics API. CAD and games use largely the same type of code to get their objects on the screen. It's how you're able to manipulate those objects (which is actually in data/memory, not in the graphics API) which makes CAD or gaming unique.
When you create a sphere in Blender, it's drawing to the screen the same way it would if you created a sphere in an OGL game and rendered it. If you build(or find) yo
Re: (Score:2)
2001 called, they want their post back.
The majority of bestselling games today are written in OpenGL or a close relative. When you count the ports of PC games to other platforms, it's even more.
Skipping it? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what, are they going to skip 12 and go to 13? They've done it before, with DirectX 4, so it's not a new idea. Maybe 12 turned out to be a huge mess.
I don't see DirectX being discontinued in favor of OpenGL/OpenAL/etc, since the GUIs in their latest products and frameworks all seem to use DirectX to some extent.
(asbestos underpants on) Or maybe they switched to FOSS-style versioning, and just don't see anything new that would demand a major version number. We're going to see abominations like DirectX 11.1.25.4-r6.3 for the rest of time.
Re:Skipping it? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac OS X is stuck on 10. And for a long time Street Fighter was stuck on 3.
The Count: Today on Sesame Street, we have two new friends Tim Cook and Ryu. Ryu can you start counting.
Ryu: one, two, three, three-second impact, three-new generation, three...
The Count: How about you Tim, can you count to eleven?
Tim Cook: 10.cheetah, 10.puma, 10...
The Count: Screw both of you, where's my gun? I'm going shoot both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
they should have just stuck at making 10.x releases.
so they could call it DIRECTX X2 etc.
the shit does amd know about microsofts naming schemes though. they can't know. MS themselves don't fucking know what they will name their next point maintenance releases or whatever they will call their 3d apis in metro later.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the comparison is quite interesting. DirectX has DirectSound, DirectInput, and other OS-tied and platform-specific functions within it. OpenGL has....graphics.
As DX handles everything from keyboard and joystick input to sound management, it seems like this comparison and article should be focusing on Direct3D instead of DX as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. DX is the whole kit and parts of it come and go. DirectMusic, remember that?
I keep wondering, what about the Direct2D and DirectWrite components? It's still fairly new technology, being used for more and more GUIs as time goes by, and could be a huge deal for graphics performance during normal non-gaming computer use. IE and FireFox use them... You never hear about them, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds about right. DX11.1 is the top of the line right now, is for Windows 8, and is not even going to be fully backported to Windows 7. Is anything even using the new features? The way I see it, demand for new features won't really happen until people are using the advanced features of the current version, which requires people to install the current version, which requires Windows 8. So it could be a long, long time given the lack of movement to Win8. There also has to be a big change to the API to cause
Do a little research. (Score:5, Informative)
If memory serves this was also linked in the related article above. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee663275.aspx [microsoft.com]
DirectX is just becoming part of the Windows 8 SDK. Then presumably the Windows 9, etc, SDKs as well. On until death.
Maybe just adopting Apple's versioning strategy (Score:3)
I am sure 10 years ago someone could have easily said there would never be an OS 11.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean XI?
DirectX Imbecile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is also true. I can't count how many copies of DirectX 9.0c I had to install...for reasons I have never really ascertained. I started to say 'no' when it asked if I wanted to install DX, and the games ran fine. Guess it was just precautionary? Limit of the older Windows Installer systems?
question (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly does "top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card" mean? Have I missed something else in this conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
dunno. probably that you would get the game if you buy the card. or alternatively that you'll purchase will be tied to that card if you buy the game(they're asshats).
Re: (Score:3)
It refers to AMDs "Never-Settle-Bundles [tomshardware.com] ". You buy an AMD card and you get a bunch of free games.
Re:question (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't and that's not even what the AMD exec said but the dumb articles are running with an idiotic interpretation of what he said. He was only saying that there is no new version of DX currently in the works so in order to differentiate their products they have to bundle pretty looking games instead of implementing new features because there aren't any new features left for the to add right now.
Re: (Score:3)
The OP and article are taking an offhand comment way out of proportion. The quote in the article from the AMD exec is basically saying that they need to bundle top quality games with their graphics cards in order to showcase what their cards are capable of because there is no new graphics card/api features in development currently. ie. they can't say "hey buy our new cards because they support X, Y, and Z new features" so instead they are bundling games and saying "hey buy our cards and you get these games
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention that sometimes when they do these bundles then the game is locked so that it only plays if your graphics card is the one that it was bundle with by checking the serial of the card. Other times the game isn't locked and then you can just sell it on ebay if you don't want it.
Game locked to Video Card Serial Number? (Score:2)
Taylor discussed the new trend for graphics card manufacturers to release top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card.
Are they already doing this with their current bundles? I just recently bought a Radeon 7770, but wasn't particularly interested in the Far Cry 3 game that came with it, was was planning to sell the coupon to someone who could make better use of it.
Hmm... (Score:2)
DirectX is not just for games (Score:2)
No "DirectX 12" Maybe... (Score:3)
But there will surely be a Direct3D 12 inside the Windows Platform SDK.
Microsoft is basically removing the individual "DirectX" brand and absorbing it into the platform SDK. Now Direct3D is just another Windows component like GDI. The idea that there will never be an update beyond what we have now is positively absurd and I feel he was either misunderstood or the translation is inaccurate.
Re: (Score:3)
You're clearly not making the market. DirectX has been the "talking to the graphics card" layer for years. I think the summary is actually right in that the past 5-10 years, developing your own graphical/physics engine is dead. Unreal, unity, havok, source, whatever, it's all cheaper than developing something from scratch and building in the DirectX/openGL core features of the latest generation.
Yeah, you still write shaders, do optimization, whatever, but how you do that will depend on what Unreal suppor
Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (Score:4, Informative)
developing your own graphical/physics engine is dead
Interesting. So I should stop coding this new OGL-based engine from scratch because it's easier to use a pre-made engine? Because you think it's 'dead'? Let alone your coding ability going down the toilet because all you do is drag-and-drop 'component blocks' in your engine of choice, what do you do when you hit the looming brick wall that is the engine's limitations?
"Hey guys, let's pack it up. This random dude on the 'net says the custom and one-off engines we've been making for years are dead, and we should just use Unity or Unreal."
Re: (Score:3)
There is a time and a place for GC. If you don't understand BOTH the Pros AND Cons you really don't understand a subject in detail.
i.e.
_IF_ one could specify the maximum milliseconds allowed the GC is allowed to run (i.e. 2 ms) per frame THEN it would be acceptable for game development. Currently GC has no place at run-time DUE to its non-deterministic nature.
Relying on GC is like relying on the compiler to guarantee safe array access. Sure it works but one must always remember the cardinal rule:
TINSTAAF
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it drove it for high end cards. That's a very tiny market niche, but probably with fat margins. There used to be some games that would only work with the latest DX versions and that drove sales of cards; even as late as DX 10 there were games that supported DX 10 (but were still perfectly good in DX 9) that caused some people to upgrade. DX 10 actually caused some people to upgrade to Vista or W7. DX 11 didn't cause as much interest though I think, though probably the guys with a $2000 gaming ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That is a filthy lie (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand what that means. It means directX has moved from a versioned API with new features all the time, to a stable API that they feel safe tying to the OS and pushing updates for through windows update. It's like when an open source project has reached the point where its no longer worth it to pull the latest from git. It's "done".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is probably just syncing its DirectX development cycle to the Xbox development cycle. So some time before the Xbox 4 MS will develop and release DirectX 12.