Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI Gallium3D Now Supports GL4 Indirect Drawing Too

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    A game that is written with DX11 can use all three profiles 11.5 or 10.4 or 9.3, a DX10 game can use 10.4 or 9.3 or 9.2, somewhere at compilation time. So a DX11 or a DX10 game can target a D3D9.3 state_tracker upon a DX11.5 or DX10.4 or DX9.3 compatible GPU. I hope you now that!
    I don't know how did you come up with 11.5 and 10.4, but that's okay for now . Yes, a DX11 based graphics engine will run on older DX10 and DX9 hardware, but that's only possible when developers write multiple fallback versions and do limit their engine to that level of hardware features.

    So why invest in rewriting the whole thing in DX11 but limit yourself to DX9 level hardware again? How many (real) games with a DX11 (only) based graphics engine do you see in market which don't list their minimum hardware requirements as a DX11 level GPU?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by artivision View Post
      A game that is written with DX11 can use all three profiles 11.5 or 10.4 or 9.3, a DX10 game can use 10.4 or 9.3 or 9.2, somewhere at compilation time. So a DX11 or a DX10 game can target a D3D9.3 state_tracker upon a DX11.5 or DX10.4 or DX9.3 compatible GPU. I hope you now that! Then i was asking for the continuation of development of the state_tracker, because one person with two years work on state_tracker can cover what five people can do in five years with shader and calls translation, an order of magnitude difference. Then i was saying that the state_tracker must be compatible with Catalyst to. You can use Mesa state_trackers and extensions with proprietary drivers even on Windowz, when you install Mesa. Just write the analogous Gallium patch and maybe a Catalyst patch.
      unless game requires feature not present in 9. something like tessellation.

      IMHO, state tracker would be much more accepted if developers made it separated from mesa as sort of separate package and not requiring you to recompile something that works and you don't really want to touch.

      i know i don't touch it for exact that reason, especially when knowing d3d state tracker will never will come in mesa. mesa and wine developers were clear about that. if provided as extra package... that would change the story

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
        If you had actually looked at the date of the patches you'd have realized they were written 3 months ago and only committed now..
        There's nothing in the article stating (or even implying) otherwise. What is your point?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by siavashserver View Post
          I don't know how did you come up with 11.5 and 10.4, but that's okay for now . Yes, a DX11 based graphics engine will run on older DX10 and DX9 hardware, but that's only possible when developers write multiple fallback versions and do limit their engine to that level of hardware features.

          So why invest in rewriting the whole thing in DX11 but limit yourself to DX9 level hardware again? How many (real) games with a DX11 (only) based graphics engine do you see in market which don't list their minimum hardware requirements as a DX11 level GPU?


          I don't now any such game. Some DX11 games wants you to have DX11 installed but they don't require a DX11.5 GPU (0.5 compiler profile = shader model 5). Those games can be measured with just one hand. Also this legacy compatibility writing is part of a game engine profiles, so is not so much extra job, it is always there. Also a game with legacy support it's only limited with older hardware, you don't have graphics limitations with new hardware. For example tessellation can be ON or OFF to older hardware.
          Last edited by artivision; 07-18-2014, 10:41 AM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by DanL View Post
            There's nothing in the article stating (or even implying) otherwise. What is your point?
            It's just confusing because Michael keeps bouncing between announcing new features that are posted on the ML, and new features finally committed to master.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
              It's just confusing because Michael keeps bouncing between announcing new features that are posted on the ML, and new features finally committed to master.
              I guess that could be confusing, but I think he only announces mailing list patches if they are exciting or bring a long-awaited feature.

              Comment

              Working...
              X