Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Valve HL2 Source Engine DX9 Effects Demo

Author
Message
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 15:06
If you don't mind a large download (100MB), Valve released an extremely hi-res video showing DX9 effects in use in the source engine:

- Bump mapping
- Environment mapping
- Soft shadows (Wish we could have those in DBP )
- Ludicrously detailed geometry

It's quite short though (only a few minutes).

http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?news=1063319154-65935800

When you see this, you'll understand why you need a ninja card for top FX.

Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 16:12
just out of interest is anyone else at all getting a little tired of video after video of new games (particularly HL2)?

just seems that the demos are being replaced by trailers which are oftenly 10x larger, quite frankly don't show titles in anything other than a graphical aspect, and you can't play them again and again without getting bored (or spending hours on the smallest of bits)

Quote: "- Soft shadows (Wish we could have those in DBP )"


you can, only problem is you can't use them on BSP, Matricies or Terrain... and it doesn't come pre-programmed

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 16:20 Edited at: 13th Sep 2003 16:20
Quote: "only problem is you can't use them on BSP, Matricies or Terrain... "


I'm not sure I agree. DBP has access internally to the geometry data of matrices and BSPs. Shadows work on matrices at the moment.

Quote: "just seems that the demos are being replaced by trailers which are oftenly 10x larger"


Not entirely. most games do have demos as well. (although HL2 won't) Trailers can be published whilst work on the game is still in progress though, and the availability of broadband makes it realistic to publish vids on the net.

Demos used to be published longer before release, whereas now they seem to accompany or come after the release of the game.

Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 17:06
Quote: "just out of interest is anyone else at all getting a little tired of video after video of new games (particularly HL2)?"


No.

"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Mentor
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 17:34
I agree with Raven, the only title I felt realy ripped off over was War of the Worlds, that was only available in preview as a video that had been cut to make it appear like it was a fast paced RTS, the real thing was so slow a slug on valium would have beaten it hollow, I now suspect anything that I can`t play before I buy, you can make anything look good on video, just show a well cut compilation of the best scripted bits from the original HalfLife and some of the cooler tricks from in game and it would appear to be a game that can beat anything out there right now or for the next ten years in way of AI and playability, my opinion is, no demo...no money, I will wait for six months and see if people are still ranting about it after the initial enthusiasm has worn off.

Mentor.
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 19:36
It is indeed true that developers make fewer demos than they used to - mainly because they can sell their games without. People are used to console games where often demos are not available.

Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 20:01
I miss actual demos. With those, the download may vary in size a bit up or down, but you can change the resolution and test speed on different computer rigs. Of course, if it'd run badly on old computers, a video would be neccesary for game promotion, but...

Anyways, I'm off the download. Ideally it won't take more than 15 minutes. But good download servers are so hard to find these days.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 20:23
Quote: "I'm not sure I agree. DBP has access internally to the geometry data of matrices and BSPs. Shadows work on matrices at the moment"


thats because TGC has access to the low level data of these things. Currently we don't, not even through the TPF SDK.
As currently the only cost effcient way to create softshadows is through Shaders - and we can't use terrain, matrices or BSP as shader fvf mesh, then technically for the community atleast it is impossible to create SoftShadows on these things.

They're also created differently to DBP's shadows as theirs use the stencil buffer, which i wouldn't be surprised if this was a pure hardware based thing using DirectX's builtin stencil shadows.

.. .. ..

and although the advent of Broadband is a nice thing, 650mb for a video still takes a fair wack of time to download ... admitidly the difference is 24hrs to only 2h30min but that is still a long time. Add to this not everyone are within broadband areas.
Only a very very small fraction of the US and Canada are a)in a broadband capable area or b)able to afford it ... as $40/month ain't cheap. If you go for the cheaper deals, your likely to be cut off every so often onpurpose (even more because of poor lines), for the companies to save more money they put MORE people on the servers - so where on AOL you'll know you'll only have 50 other people who can possible go on the same connection line as you which means at peak it can go as low as 448kb for a 512kb line, other companies jam upto 250 people to a server - this generally means you get speeds not that much better than dialup.
Not to mention the many kinds of "broadband" ... DSL, Terminal, OC, Cable.

add to this the ONLY places to get these things are on servers which never have enough mirrors which slowdown transfers as they que up people and double/triple them up sometime unless you pay something like $100-200/year.

.. .. ..

and i know people are getting more and more used to consoles, only problem is unlike a console a PC is not a SET NEVER TO BE CHANGED peice of hardware.
particularly this new wave of games, people just don't understand the hardware requirements.

If there was never a Demo of Half-Life i would've gone out and bought it only to find that my computer of the time just wasn't upto playing it.

320x240x16bit on my Cyrix6x86 150+ w/Trio64v2 gx - it ran on my system at a sturdy 10fps, went down to around 4-5 at points.
now i know what HL2 will do on a good few setups, and no doubt sites will release what they recommend as the rig.

Problem is rig's speeds change from machine to machine, and people REALLY do need to start getting downloads now more than ever.

It's wonderful to see what HL2 is possible of, no doubt alot of people are thrilled witht he current graphics - however to get anywhere close to that people have to one ONE HELL of a rig...
and as you said more and more are from consoles, and they'll be thinking thier system can run this.

Niether nVidia nor ATi are advertising on TV or in Magazines about what thier cards are capable of - and have you ever tried to by a peice of hardware to do something from CompUSA or PCWorld and actually come away with what you wanted without alot of bull about what it CAN do?
I mean christ i've even come away from PCWorld thinking "what the hell was that geek on about!? 54million gigplops per second, it was a modem!!"

games need more technical hardware, and quite frankly no one but a gamer will know what the technical things are or where to get them.

.. .. ..

not to mention, i miss interactivity
without a demo quite frankly the game will stay on the shop shelf.
i've only bought like 8games in the past 12months, at one point i was getting atleast 1 game per format per month.
Simple reason being is, i don't want to spend $50 just to find out i have to spend another $100-200 on upgrading my system just for it to work. (which is another reason why i'm begining to get annoyed with the laziness of PC developers again - it was alright a few years ago before the last generation of consoles.

Since the XBox and PS2 and GC though - PC Games have gone from requirements of a P2-266mhz upto a P3-800mhz ... HL2 & AoD actually require atleast a 1.5Ghz system (thats IF you have a decent 3D Accelerator)

Mattman
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jun 2003
Location: East Lansing
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 20:46
sorry to sound dumb, but what are soft shadows?

Got a knack for finding secrets??? Jingot Racing --- A new brand of Racing --- Only from Nightwatch Studios
"hey, it's tomorrow" --- Hamish
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 21:05
This is actually just a guess, but, most games have very sharp, unrealistic-looking shadows... I'm assuming soft shadows will, along with looking more realistic, apply taking into account all of the light status around them...

But I don't know what I'm talking about

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Preston C
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th May 2003
Location: Penn State University Park
Posted: 13th Sep 2003 21:12
Quote: "I'm assuming soft shadows will, along with looking more realistic, apply taking into account all of the light status around them...
"


Sounds like thats what it is to me.


Dark Basic Pro has arived! I can feel the power!
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 01:25
look at the video...
essentially though Stencil Shadows like Shadow mapping in DBP are a single black (or very dark grey) almost never transparent to see anything through and very rough looking.

SoftShadows are very realistic shadows, these can be from Angel of Darkness's simple Light Transparency with 8bit Blurring - right upto Luma and Doom3's Essential Materialing.
Which means you can choose what varies the shadows appearance, light depth, colour, type ... Luma even features distace of the shadow which can be seen by GeForceFX users in the "Last Chance Gas Station" demo, where you can see how the lights affect the shadows and how they appear to fade over distance.

It can also give the developers the oppertunity to create multiple shadow instances, the stencil buffer this is EXTREMELY costly (except for nVidia Hardware Shadows, but very few hardware supports them or even in great ammounts)

It also gives developers the chance to cast the shadows over everything including reflected surfaces to some very great effect

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 02:05
The most noticeable difference between normal stencil shadows and DX9 soft shadows, is that the edges of softshadows are blurred and fuzzy like real shadows, not straight lines.

Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 03:41
It was a neat video. I felt a bit cheated at the size-- they could have put two times that much stuff in if the camera hadn't just sat there so much, well after I'd surveyed everything in the scene-- but it still showed off some neat effects. Good indication of what a kick-... excellent engine the game will have. The game itself is another story of course... we shall wait and see

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Preston C
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th May 2003
Location: Penn State University Park
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 03:47
I cant download it, 100MB is too large.
It takes me 3 hours to download 15 MB, and I have a 10 hour limit before my ISP cuts off my connection, and I have to reconnect.


Dark Basic Pro has arived! I can feel the power!
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 12:40
Quite frankly the more HL2 videos I see, the more excited it makes it. Demos are nice, but at least in-game footage movies there's no messing around installing stuff. I know my system will run HL2 at the spec shown, so I'm happy and wait eagerly for my pre-order to arrive once it's released.

Cheers,

Rich

The sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead channel.
Your brain's just like any other appliance: it works better if you plug it in...
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 12:59
Screen shots if you don't want to download the video
http://mcdonalds.nm.ru/hafalafa/halflifemasturbation/newpics/

I see the point of a video after looking at those screen shots. If people download a demo and run it on a slow computer it will look worse. Show them a video and the know what it looks like if they had better hardware.
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 14:51
I think the main point is that there are still demos today, movie/videos aren't taking over, they're just increasing in number. You can still download a demo and test the game yourself.

Plus, videos allow people like myself with crap gfx cards to drool over what they're missing.

"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 14th Sep 2003 14:57
I totally agree that a playable demo of HL2 would be much better than a video, but still, before a proper demo is actually possible a video is a good way to whet people's appitites. Plus maybe this video will encorage people to upgrade their PCs or graphics cards especially to play the game on release, and that can only be a good thing

Quikly Studio Pro. Soon. Honest.
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 04:48
problem with videos is it get peoples hopes up...
Rich is oki, he has some dog naggers of a system to play it on so really he'll be able to have graphics just as good.

unfortunately Rich is about 1% of the gaming population who actually have State of the art systems.
most people can't afford to constantly keep up with the times, its just not feasible for most gamers...

it is wrong to get thier hopes up with video after video of stunning graphics just to buy the title for £35-40 or $55 get it home and realise thier system just cant' bloody handle it.
or if it can, they can ONLY JUST handle it with minimum graphics which looks NOTHING like the screenshots.

I'm all for people upgrading thier computers, and a video can be used to encourage this - but they STILL need to know aht the minium system requirements are!!

think about it... how pissed would you be if you rushed out after the video got yourself a fancy new Radeon 9800pro, then found out that on your currently system because your not using AGP8x and your processor is only 1.2Ghz which maybe is the best your system can handle running on old SDRAM that it just doesn't hack the game... to find out you've just spent $350 on a new graphcis cards and then you'll need another $350 on a new motherboard, cpu and ram just to actually use them at the capacity which will suite the game.

-- -- --

i'm not against the rolling demos, just saying they're replacing the playable or benchmark demos - and right now that just isn't right ... the rolling doesn't show you the performance on multiple systems, they're edited specifically to show the program off AT its best.

I've edited up a good 10 of these things myself, i know not just what goes into their development ... but the fact your suppose to play UP how good it looks and reacts.
Make it seem more than it is.

a Benchmark and Playable demo CAN NOT LIE to you!
the rolling demos are NEVER at actual game resolutions - that 650mb one of HL2 for example, 30mins of film ... yeah thats all well and good - but for 650mb you could've had a benchmark demo that shows your REAL ingame fps for your system, and rather than an NTSC resolution of 768x512 you'd have a REAL game resolution to see suchas 640x480 / 800x600 / 1024x768 / etc...

Rolling might be nice to show off features, but what the hell good are features if people don't get to sample the game for themselves.
HL2 is not HL - sure it feel exactly like HL, and quite frankly if you could turn the graphics down to the point of looking like HL - you'd be bloody hard pushed to see the difference.
But quite frankly the Quakes changed in all areas, HL is simply a bigger and more graphically amazing story (hardware permitting).

Sure this is a great thing, but the adverage gamer is going to be a little more than 100% f**ked off if they buy the game and then find out that to actually see it in its true colours they need to spend the better part of a $500 on upgrading thier computer.

-- -- --

this is what killed on Glides support in the mid-90's ... the fact that people are just NOT willing to buy a game then buy hardware that costs them an arm and a leg just to play it.
Until there is a selection of atleast 20-30 titles with it being more of an upgrade rather than a nessesity.
people are just not going to buy it ... HL2 will certinaly sell simply because of the hype - and i can guarentee you around 50% of them will come right back to the store from customers pissed of that they can't play it at a decent speed.

sorry but valve are just cocking this up every step of the way, if this was a console relase then find a rolling demo is cool.
but this isn't - its a PC release.
id software have deliberately stayed away from this sort of publicity for the pure fact of the matter ... they don't want people to thing of Doom3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it out of the hype and then be disappointed they can't play it.
(and doom3 has almost HALF the system requirements that HL2 does!)

OzBot
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Feb 2003
Location: Sweden
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 11:21
yeh, but isn't it nice if you have a state of the art system and are able to find games out there that make use of that power. What's the point of getting top systems and never being able to find a game that actually make use of it. I find that more disturbing.

As long as game developers bare in mind that not everyone has a state of the art system and have options so lower spec machines can play than the should suffice.
I don't believe you should remove features because some people might not get to enjoy it. Removing those features would just result in the same outcome for those people i.e. they won't see it. All that will accomplish is to take away from the people who are able to play a game with all the graphical features.
Those people will have to upgrade at some point anyway whether they like it or not.
The IT Industry is a fast moving industry, technology is advancing at an extreme rate whether we like it or not.
Me I am all for it, bring it on..
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 16:07
Quote: "yeh, but isn't it nice if you have a state of the art system and are able to find games out there that make use of that power."


and how would a playable demo take away from that?

Quote: "What's the point of getting top systems and never being able to find a game that actually make use of it. I find that more disturbing."


i'm not saying they shouldn't support the new features of current systems ... but for sound cards even the top end games (HL2 included) they don't FORCE you to use EAX3.0 only available on Audigy2. Infact they don't even force you to use EAX2.0 or any other 3D - they're UPGRADES.
However when it comes to graphics this is different.

Sure use Direct3D and T&L technology by all means, why? because EVERYONE supports it now. This is the major difference, if this was 2years ago when TnL was relatively new then they should support it but not make it a NESSESITY.
Infact even Angel of Darkness doesn't make TnL nessesity, it support Fixed-Function Shaders (which means older cards when shaders were just comming in), then it supports Hardware Shaders.
But in the end it STILL has Software for all of the advanced features.

I'm not against developers using the next generation graphics, what i'm against here is HOW they're trying to force everyone to include it ... even more by waiting until people have bought thier game before they know it won't run.

as i've said only 1% of ALL gamers have State of the Art systems... even less only around 10% have been reported to have Shader Capable computers.
i'm not just against HL2 here, this is with ALL new games.
Rolling demo's are great for showing off features and are good for consoles which have perminant hardware optimised for each other.

unfortunately the PC has no standard, there is no guarentee a game WILL work let alone work how you want it to. A console user doesn't have to worry about if they have too many reflective surfaces tunred on - and infact not to be funny but even i've gotten confused with the pure number of graphical options in most of the new DirectX9 games. I know what all of them do and it is still a confusing affair - let alone someone who only gets the game out of the hype.

Quote: "Those people will have to upgrade at some point anyway whether they like it or not."


Radeon 9800pro & GeForceFX 5900ultra are around $450 this year, by this time next year they will be $250 if that!
As technology improves prices drop ... there will always be titles that will show you what your cards can possibly do, and by all means games should SUPPORT them.
but they should never give the end user a choice of either having the expensive technology else not play.

Currently all games have to go on to know how fast this game will run on thier system is a chart released which is pinning GeForce with very low speeds.
Be this true or not, it is ALL the gamers have to go on.

How you do you those people who've run out and bought GeForceFX feel to see that apparently the card they just bought isn't going to cut it with this new game?
Sure you can turn the graphics down, but new gamers will want to know why they have to have the graphics so bad ...

Sorry but a traditional game look ONE HELL of alot better than a poor settings shader game. Shaders are being used specifically for graphical updates right now - sure graphics are nice, but they are not the most important thing!

Personally I think that companies are being very irrisponsible.

Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 16:38
What's the difference between someone looking at a video and going to by a game and them looking at the back of the box and buying it? Both show off graphics they may or may not be able to handle. From your logic Raven, we should ban every form of screenshot and visual preview of a game in existance so some fool can't buy it thinking he'll get good graphics when he has a bad video card.

As a rule of thumb, everyone should play the demo before buying the game. If someone's gfx card can't handle it then they'll find out when they install the demo and since these demos are still available I don't see the problem.

"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 18:59
'problem with videos is it get peoples hopes up...'

'it is wrong to get thier hopes up with video after video of stunning graphics just to buy the title for £35-40 or $55 get it home and realise thier system just cant' bloody handle it.'

Hehe, wrong from a consumer's point of view, perfect for the companies. See, then the people are more likely to upgrade their hardware-- and they see that Valve is working with ATI on the box, so they think 'hey, it'll work better with ATI' and buy from them. Wonderful advertizing schemes.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 19:00
Oh, and just a little question...

Was it just me, or did the video seem to have a low frame rate? Starting up and when looking out over the buildings of the city the frame rate seemed to drop to single digits... side effect of running a high-detail recording along with the game?

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 20:00
Nope - worked fine here.

Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 20:16
Must be my system choking at the size of the video. Funny... you'd think a 1 GHz + 384MB RAM system would be able to handle smooth video playback ... that's Windows for ya...

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 15th Sep 2003 20:28
yeah but mouse, quite frankly video or not ... i'm not going to rush out and buy a new graphics card just to play a game.
Sorry but i'm not spending $50 on a game just to have to buy a new $350 graphics card soon after just to play the bloody thing at a decent speed.

I'm a pretty hardcore gamer i do try my best to keep up with the times, and thanks to my job i do tend to get alot of hardware free so that i can keep up - but seriously i've upgraded my graphics and processor around 4 times in the past 2years, and it isn't cheap.

I'm not against screenshots to show off graphical content here, and i'm not against rolling demos period. What i'm against is a rolling demo REPLACING a playable demo.

-- -- --

and mouse your right, there are quite a few areas in the recent demo where it slows down far beyond the monitor refresh.
this isn't to say the FPS are down too low (however there is one bit in the demo where it seems to hit around 12-14fps) the major problem in Dx9 is the Render Frames Sync <-> Monitor Sync

now Dx has a serious problem when you render using the windowed desktop, because although yes it appears your FPS are much higher which to a developer this seems great & fantastic more FPS means more speed ... the problem is that so many developers are now removing thier fullscreen-exclusive support in for support of fullscreen-windowed.

Problem being is the game has one sync, the montior has another sync, the desktop has another sync.
This means that your desktop size will DIRECTLY control the speed of your game, it also DIRECTLY controls the sync rates.

what does that mean exactly?
well i run a DT of 1260x1024x32 @ 65hz which is the max my CTX monitor is capable of.
however my graphics card is capable of 150hz at this resolution.
now say i'm running a cube in DirectX thats all that being rendered 800x600x32 XRGB 24S8, so it'll be around 1,600fps.

now this won't be a problem, but say we do something which kills the fps ... like put in cube mapping (815fps) oki not a big change.
so then what we do is put in a second cube, (814fps) no real change.
Now we put a metal brushmap effect on one of them (148fps) oki now we see a big change.

however in Fullscreen-Exclusive this would still be a very smooth 100hz (100fps) - in Fullscreen-Windowed however VERY different story, the game is rendering at 150hz which means it can render in realtime with the cube mapping, however unfortunately now the graphics card's rendering fps is slightly under they now have to compress the FPS/65 = DROPPED FRAMES.
Unfortunately rather than being DROPPED FRAMES/TOTAL FRAMES = SKIP EVERY THIS FRAME... what DirectX does is drop these frames at the end of the render cycle.

what does this mean?
well does anyone remember playing quake on a 486? or Doom on a slow 386? It means that games suffer from attack of the jerkies again.

Now with a synced GFX Hz and Monitor Hz, this isn't a problem because DirectX is capable of determining the skip (although OpenGL has a FAR FAR FAR superior skip frame buffer, makes it smooth as hell even at low fps down to 15)

so although you could be getting an FPS of around 100fps, the game will still play like you're getting 10-15fps.
really its the only peeve i have with DirectX because all hardware syncing is terrible as hell and most developers do nothing to combat this.

this is all examplified with Shaders because they run to thier own sync rate as well - which means triple problems that most developers aren't even willing to issue.

personally i don't see the big deal about having fullscreen-windowed as opposed to exclusive.
although sure you can run a game at over the hz of the monitor or vsync you set, its no even close to as smooth and really if your game runs at 60fps at 640x480 upto 1600x1200 then really who the hell gives a crap that at 640x480 it can't go upto 1,800fps.
not like it makes any sodding difference.

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Sep 2003 18:56
The FPS in the demo never noticeably slows. Normally I can tell if it is below 25FPS. I'll double check, but considering the huge amounts of data being recorded by the BINK tools whilst the demo was being played, it is amazing that it ran at all.

My spec is P4 1.6Ghz / 512MB RAM btw.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-23 21:47:07
Your offset time is: 2024-11-23 21:47:07