Do you really think they would talk about performance or engine changes on stage at an event like the one this morning. The engine is old though, depending on how modular it is changing the underlying rendering technology might be possible, or it might not.
There is also no way they would go out of their way to talk about problems in their game or fixes to such problems at a huge PR event. Because it is not ideal material for drawing in new players or enticing returning players.
Do you really think they would talk about performance or engine changes on stage at an event like the one this morning. The engine is old though, depending on how modular it is changing the underlying rendering technology might be possible, or it might not.
There is also no way they would go out of their way to talk about problems in their game or fixes to such problems at a huge PR event. Because it is not ideal material for drawing in new players or enticing returning players.
You didn’t ask anything at all. You claimed something. It is a rather large difference.
It is also extremely unlikely that they would tell us stuff like this on the forums before they release the deep dive blogs in the near future.
So “?” means nothing to you?
To be fair your topic title was not phrased as a proper question at all, it could just as easily be seen as a punctuation mistake and your post itself didn’t really help in the matter.
At best your set up of the question was extremely loaded and your post reinforced this.
You didn’t ask anything at all. You claimed something. It is a rather large difference.
It is also extremely unlikely that they would tell us stuff like this on the forums before they release the deep dive blogs in the near future.
So “?” means nothing to you?
To be fair your topic title was not phrased as a proper question at all, it could just as easily be seen as a punctuation mistake and your post itself didn’t really help in the matter.
At best your set up of the question was extremely loaded and your post reinforced this.
It was an assumption yes, but that doesn’t make it less of a question.
You didn’t ask anything at all. You claimed something. It is a rather large difference.
It is also extremely unlikely that they would tell us stuff like this on the forums before they release the deep dive blogs in the near future.
So “?” means nothing to you?
To be fair your topic title was not phrased as a proper question at all, it could just as easily be seen as a punctuation mistake and your post itself didn’t really help in the matter.
At best your set up of the question was extremely loaded and your post reinforced this.
It was an assumption yes, but that doesn’t make it less of a question.
You were just after telling me it was not an assumption when I said that is what you did.
They are able to implement everything they want to so far in DX9. What is the benefit of spending resources on DX11? It doesn’t offer any support for platforms that DX9 doesn’t (Linux). If they were going to change the engine code to this extent, I’d rather have them make it OpenGL. It has better compatibility (all it needs is driver support, rather than a OS upgrade), and will allow them to release on more operating systems, increasing their user base.
Really though, the only major change in the client code that I see as necessary is an upgrade to 64-bit, as the current limits 32-bit causes crashes. I’d even be willing to spend more for 64-bit.
I understand dx9 let’s older hardware run the game as this older stuff doesn’t support dx11 or something. But dx9 is older than Guild Wars, by more than two years in fact. Even dx11 is already five years old.
I understand dx9 let’s older hardware run the game as this older stuff doesn’t support dx11 or something. But dx9 is older than Guild Wars, by more than two years in fact. Even dx11 is already five years old.
But, what is the benefit of going DX11? Being newer isn’t a direct benefit. GW2 looks better than some DX11 games. Also, it’s not so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
But, what is the benefit of going DX11? Being newer isn’t a direct benefit. GW2 looks better than some DX11 games. Also, it’s so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
The benefit is performance. Newer hardware and newer drivers have in theory at least concentrated their efforts to supporting newer versions of DirectX efficiently. Sure they are backwards compatible but the newer the card the more likely it is that there are performance boosts for using a newer version of DirectX.
Also, it’s not so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
Microsoft is offering win10 & DX12 as a free upgrade to win7 users so that point is moot.
The game needs improvements there, really! What’s a point of shiny new expansions if some issues still hit all the players.
The skill delays on WvW and big world events, and the European servers connection issues is something that already took thousands of players to suffer from this and complain so they would accept, that is there is a problem.
Microsoft is offering win10 & DX12 as a free upgrade to win7 users so that point is moot.
Keep in mind however that not everyone might want/be able to to upgrade. Also keep in mind that not everyone is using Windows 7 or 8.1.
The game still works on XP and (I assume) Vista after all.
Also keep in mind that many games (Most relevant example being WoW) can run with multiple API’s simultaneously, where each individual user can choose which one runs best (or at all) for them.
Meaning that the implementation of DX12 would be in addition to DX9 and only be a benefit to the game, not detrimental in any way.
Do you really think they would talk about performance or engine changes on stage at an event like the one this morning. The engine is old though, depending on how modular it is changing the underlying rendering technology might be possible, or it might not.
There is also no way they would go out of their way to talk about problems in their game or fixes to such problems at a huge PR event. Because it is not ideal material for drawing in new players or enticing returning players.
Actually saying “Hey this will be fixed/improve along with all this stuff!” is a great PR move when people are already hyped and is exactly what some vets might want and need to hear first before returning.
and is exactly what some vets might want and need to hear first before returning.
That’s exactly why I’m here. I haven’t played the game in over two years because of the performance problems I was having. I heard about the expansion yesterday, and it sounds really cool! If they add on top of that an upgrade to DX12, I will be back on my necromancer in a heartbeat.
Also, it’s not so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
Microsoft is offering win10 & DX12 as a free upgrade to win7 users so that point is moot.
I didn’t realize that, thanks for the info. I might give Win10 a try on my laptop first, because they’re still shooting for one OS for all devices, which worries me that there will still be touch screen optimized garbage on it (I’ve read that they are fixing current complaints about Win8, but they might put new annoyances in. Its good that they are asking the community for their input this time though).
But, as lordkrall said, not everyone will be willing or able to upgrade. I still think OpenGL is a superior option, if they were going to change the engine to that extent. OpenGL can offer everything DirectX can, in addition to more platforms being supported.
That being said, can’t it be agreed that 64-bit is more important than rendering format, since the current 32-bit actually causes crashes, whereas DirectX/OpenGL upgrades are just about performance/appearance.
and is exactly what some vets might want and need to hear first before returning.
That’s exactly why I’m here. I haven’t played the game in over two years because of the performance problems I was having. I heard about the expansion yesterday, and it sounds really cool! If they add on top of that an upgrade to DX12, I will be back on my necromancer in a heartbeat.
They actually did increase performance a bit over the past 2 years. The patch during the marionette time-period doubled my zerg fps in that event on an AMD FX-8150 (OC to 4.0). There were other smaller performance increases a few times too.
Also, it’s not so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
Microsoft is offering win10 & DX12 as a free upgrade to win7 users so that point is moot.
I didn’t realize that, thanks for the info. I might give Win10 a try on my laptop first, because they’re still shooting for one OS for all devices, which worries me that there will still be touch screen optimized garbage on it (I’ve read that they are fixing current complaints about Win8, but they might put new annoyances in. Its good that they are asking the community for their input this time though).
But, as lordkrall said, not everyone will be willing or able to upgrade. I still think OpenGL is a superior option, if they were going to change the engine to that extent. OpenGL can offer everything DirectX can, in addition to more platforms being supported.
That being said, can’t it be agreed that 64-bit is more important than rendering format, since the current 32-bit actually causes crashes, whereas DirectX/OpenGL upgrades are just about performance/appearance.
opengl is not an superior option. Microsoft has invested so much time and money into direct x that it is currently better than opengl.
if you looking around articles about the current state of opengl. It is bad. A much better target is opengl next, mantle, and direct dx 12 since there is much less overhead and I think anet devs can pick it much more esaily than direct x 11
Well Guild Wars 1 had changing system requirements as time went on if I recall some things increased substantially between GW1 and EOTN so its not impossible. HOT will be near three years after GW2 I’d expect engine changes simply because of how fast technology has moved on.
Also, it’s not so much a matter of the hardware as it is the software. Microsoft won’t release newer versions of DX on older OS, so DX12 that someone mentioned is a very bad idea because it won’t work on Win7. OpenGL and 64-bit isn’t controlled by MS.
Microsoft is offering win10 & DX12 as a free upgrade to win7 users so that point is moot.
I didn’t realize that, thanks for the info. I might give Win10 a try on my laptop first, because they’re still shooting for one OS for all devices, which worries me that there will still be touch screen optimized garbage on it (I’ve read that they are fixing current complaints about Win8, but they might put new annoyances in. Its good that they are asking the community for their input this time though).
But, as lordkrall said, not everyone will be willing or able to upgrade. I still think OpenGL is a superior option, if they were going to change the engine to that extent. OpenGL can offer everything DirectX can, in addition to more platforms being supported.
That being said, can’t it be agreed that 64-bit is more important than rendering format, since the current 32-bit actually causes crashes, whereas DirectX/OpenGL upgrades are just about performance/appearance.
opengl is not an superior option. Microsoft has invested so much time and money into direct x that it is currently better than opengl.
if you looking around articles about the current state of opengl. It is bad. A much better target is opengl next, mantle, and direct dx 12 since there is much less overhead and I think anet devs can pick it much more esaily than direct x 11
Alex St John was the creator and prime evangelist for DirectX, so I think his opinion is slightly biased.
if you looking around articles about the current state of opengl. It is bad. A much better target is opengl next, mantle, and direct dx 12 since there is much less overhead and I think anet devs can pick it much more esaily than direct x 11
from the website you listed:
the company I founded, WildTangent Inc.
I’ll believe all the other sites, which state that OpenGL is typically 1.3x faster code that DirectX, before I listen to the founder of a spyware company (WildTangent). It is also stated in various places that OpenGL is easier to code. IdSoftware (now owned by Bethesda) still used OpenGL in RAGE and it looked great (OpenGL had megatextures before DirectX).
They actually did increase performance a bit over the past 2 years. The patch during the marionette time-period doubled my zerg fps in that event on an AMD FX-8150 (OC to 4.0). There were other smaller performance increases a few times too.
Yeah I’ve read about that, might have to boot up the game again just to see how things are. I’m on an FX-8350 @ 4.4GHz so things might be good.
64bit support is what you want. And then you can start from there. It’s not going to happen any time soon, sadly.
Doesn’t that just give you extra ram? Is that needed? What we want is better low-level use of our components. Guild wars 2 is a good looking game… aesthetically but not graphically (technologically). So it makes no sense that it runs like tosh. It seems like (given the early performance reports by Microsoft) if it was running on DX12, this problem would be almost completely absolved.
Doesn’t that just give you extra ram? Is that needed? What we want is better low-level use of our components. Guild wars 2 is a good looking game… aesthetically but not graphically (technologically). So it makes no sense that it runs like tosh. It seems like (given the early performance reports by Microsoft) if it was running on DX12, this problem would be almost completely absolved.
Targeting DX12 doesn’t magically fix things. It opens up the ability to more efficiently use the cores available on the processor, and appears to have more low-level adjustments available. This means that a lot of time spent and optimizing would be necessary. Yes, it would in theory be nice, but the upcoming content looks good and should be enjoyable regardless.
A change to DirectX can wait for years to come, what we really need is a change from 32-bit code to 64-bit code because the 32-bit code severely limits what you can do and how much RAM you can use when its become standard to have 8GB-16GB RAM nowdays.
Currently with 32-bit code the maximum it can use is 4GB RAM as state to the Guild Wars 2 System Requirements.
Targeting DX12 doesn’t magically fix things. It opens up the ability to more efficiently use the cores available on the processor, and appears to have more low-level adjustments available. This means that a lot of time spent and optimizing would be necessary. Yes, it would in theory be nice, but the upcoming content looks good and should be enjoyable regardless.
I’m no graphics programmer, but I would assume that many of the actions that (Guild Wars 2’s implementation of) DX9 attempts to do, would be done more efficiently with a later DX, especially DX12 which has been rewritten from the ground up to give drastically improved performance across the board.
These are APIs, these are what communicate with the hardware and tell it how to render things. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d assume that DX12 can communicate more efficiently, regardless of what’s being asked.
A change to DirectX can wait for years to come, what we really need is a change from 32-bit code to 64-bit code because the 32-bit code severely limits what you can do and how much RAM you can use when its become standard to have 8GB-16GB RAM nowdays.
Currently with 32-bit code the maximum it can use is 4GB RAM as state to the Guild Wars 2 System Requirements.
Guild Wars 2 has been made from the ground up with the 4GB RAM requirement in-mind. If they’ve managed to do what they have so far with that limit, I think they’re fine. You’d have to ask the developers if they ever came across a scenario where they were saying “oooh, if only we had more RAM to use here.”
As for “the 32-bit code severely limits what you can do and how much RAM” mind being more specific on these limits? Because it sounds like something made-up. I’ve only ever heard that x64 offers extra RAM over x32, nothing else.
<= I want Dx11/12 as well. With all its benefits, including both graphics and performance.
This current Dx9 32bit structure makes my high-end PC struggle at MAW/huge WvW encounters. :S
Game Designer || iREVOLUTION.Design \\
“A man chooses; a slave obeys.” | “Want HardMode? Play Ranger!”
I’ll believe all the other sites, which state that OpenGL is typically 1.3x faster code that DirectX, before I listen to the founder of a spyware company (WildTangent). It is also stated in various places that OpenGL is easier to code. IdSoftware (now owned by Bethesda) still used OpenGL in RAGE and it looked great (OpenGL had megatextures before DirectX).
I’ve used several versions of both APIs and if the year was 1997 I’d agree on the easier to code part; early versions of Direct3D were notoriously complicated for the simple 3D hardware of the time. But D3D has been redesigned several times by now, while OpenGL is still stuck with silly antipatterns like its global resource binding system that has been complicating libraries, middleware and assorted abstractions for almost 20 years (I think the whole bind-to-edit clusterkitten started with EXT_texture_object around 1995).
GL 3.0 was supposed to fix things in 2007, but the ambitionless review board couldn’t agree on a solution and it took until mid-2014 until many of these issues were solved in OpenGL 4.5. Right now only one vendor’s driver implements it, though.
It’s certainly possible to write GL code that runs with any OpenGL 3+ capable device (basically everything made in 5+ years) and uses certain newer features when available to absolutely destroy D3D9 and possibly even D3D11 in performance while being about equal in graphical quality, but nobody wants to do this because the API is such a pain to work with, a lot of middleware doesn’t support it and the coolest features are only well implemented by Nvidia.
It is also stated in various places that OpenGL is easier to code.
Coding in OpenGL is a nightmare compared to modern DirectX. OpenGL is just a standard implemented by various vendors which makes it incredibly fragmented. On the other hand DirectX is a complete framework centralized and completely governed by one company which makes it far more unified than any other solution in gaming industry. Not to mention it comes with support for far more things than just graphics (D3D). If OpenGL wants to join the race it needs to provide far better development experience and convince the gaming industry its worth their time.
Targeting DX12 doesn’t magically fix things. It opens up the ability to more efficiently use the cores available on the processor, and appears to have more low-level adjustments available. This means that a lot of time spent and optimizing would be necessary. Yes, it would in theory be nice, but the upcoming content looks good and should be enjoyable regardless.
You realize that Anet probably spends lots of time optimizing driver behavior for direct x 9.
The reason why I want anet to code in mantle and etc is because I want better minium frame rates. Civ 5 is a nice demostration of a cpu bottleneck game benefit from less driver overhead.
I love this game but the performance of it is the monster under the bed. Server wide events and WvW cripple any computer. New content is really nice but I really would like stable FPS during chaotic battle. 64 bit and dx 11 pretty pretty please, with sugar on top.
I love this game but the performance of it is the monster under the bed. Server wide events and WvW cripple any computer. New content is really nice but I really would like stable FPS during chaotic battle. 64 bit and dx 11 pretty pretty please, with sugar on top.
Huh? I wonder what I play on then, because it is rather unusual for any of that to “cripple my computer”.
As was discussed in another thread….considering DirectX12 will soon be released (with the release of Windows 10) i actually prefer them going for that instead. What i would love instead is to see a confirmation they will indeed change the directx in the future even without an ETA.
That will at least give us a peace of mind knowing it’s coming. It would be a huge improvement both visually and from a performance pov even tho the work they have to put in it am sure is huge, the rewards are almost a fresh game that will stay fresh for a very long time and that can attract a lot of new customers.
I personally know of one other mmo which did this change in the past…AION. The difference was extremely noticeable.
I love this game but the performance of it is the monster under the bed. Server wide events and WvW cripple any computer. New content is really nice but I really would like stable FPS during chaotic battle. 64 bit and dx 11 pretty pretty please, with sugar on top.
Huh? I wonder what I play on then, because it is rather unusual for any of that to “cripple my computer”.
I find this difficult to believe. Nobody gets a steady 60 in this game. Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote on another thread:
Bear in mind that the frame-rate drops below 60 at times, even in this relatively empty city area. As soon as you start going to places with high densities of people, you will never see 60 on this machine. A machine that has arguably the best CPU money can buy for GW2.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 4790k could handle the game perfectly well, only the engine makes poor use of it. Most people with CPU bottlenecks on multi-core CPUs report low CPU usage when playing GW2 (from say, task manager’s resource monitor).
