Technical survey

Which Shader Model is supported by your graphics card?

  • Shader Model 1.1 - 1.4

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Shader Model 2.0 - 2.1

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Shader Model 3.0

    Votes: 15 71.4%
  • Shader Model 4.0 - 4.1

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21

DaBrain

Spaceman
I'd like to know how many of you have a Shader 3.0/Shader 4.0 card.

Maybe you've noticed that the FS2_open engine has recently moved on to Shader Model 3.0.
(Some impressions: )
click
click
click
click

I'm interested in this, because new content is required for this. Such as normal maps, parallax maps, or other maps for custom shaders and of course, the shaders too. ;)
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
You can install DirectX 9.0c, but a given hardware may not necessarily support all of its features. Video cards supporting DX9c/SM3 include Radeon X1000 series and later, and GeForce 6 series and later.
 

Max Gene

Spaceman
Huh, I never realized. Still, though, my main problem is slowdown and uglyness- getting a new card for christmas that should do it all.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Yeah, generally integrated video hardware is generally on good for displaying 2D desktop stuff, not the 3D environments of even modestly taxing games.
 

DaBrain

Spaceman
@Wedge is correct. The DX level equals the Shader Model.


Well, this isn't bad so far. 9 of 10 people can use the pixel shaded version of FS2_open.
I seriously expected less.

So WCS has to move on and I have to complete some normal maps for it... :p
Well, at least it will be the best looking game with "Wing Commander" in the title. ;)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Well, at least it will be the best looking game with "Wing Commander" in the title.

You're forgetting about Wing Commander I, II, III, IV, Prophecy, Secret Ops, Arena, Privateer, Armada and Academy.
 

Aginor

Vice Admiral
Well, at least it will be the best looking game with "Wing Commander" in the title.
You're forgetting about Wing Commander I, II, III, IV, Prophecy, Secret Ops, Arena, Privateer, Armada and Academy.

I think that depends on what you like personally. I would say we can call WCS "technically more advanced" (although I don't know what Arena's engine is like, have to check that. So maybe Arena is technically more advanced) but it is not necessarily "better looking". As I said before, it is a matter of taste.
Whatever.

@ topic:
I was expecting that result, most people I know have DX9 cards (at least here in germany).
 

DaBrain

Spaceman
You're forgetting about Wing Commander I, II, III, IV, Prophecy, Secret Ops, Arena, Privateer, Armada and Academy.

I love Wing Commander. And I'm really nostalgic about the graphics.
But even I have to admit that we look bad compared to modern titles.


And I think it's unfair to compare an XBLA tile, with all it's restrictions, to a modern game engine.

The only space game that looks clearly better than the current version of FS2_open is X3.

@Aginor I don't know the specs, but afaik, Arena is also using a SM 3.0 engine, but isn't using complex shaders with that many map slots, except for a few things. (Proabaly because it wouldn't make sense to use more textures with the XBLA memory limitation.) The asteroids obviously use a shader with normal map support.
On a sheer tech-level comparesion, the engine is about the same I guess.


@Kevin Caccamo
If it's a Geforce 8xxx or a Radeon X2xxx, X3xxx, you have a SM 4.0 compatible card. ;)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Look behind you! Remember that you are but a man!

The quality of art is not defined by how many hyperpixels you can megajoule into your premium-grade whatchamacallit. I'm sure I have a million technologies available to me that can help me make a more exact image of something than a thousand years of master painters and sculpters and so forth - but what I create will not automatically 'look better' than something hanging in a museum.

By its very nature, Saga can never look better than the original games - you're a tribute, not a replacement. You're using their designs, their concepts, their world... the minute you forget that is when you should be making your own video game rather than a Wing Commander fan project.
 

Max Gene

Spaceman
In a sense, I can hear your logic, LOAF, and I can agree with it.

The geek in me that read Maximum PC while he still had a subscription has some difficulty, however. True, it is a tribute, but Wing Commander throughout history has gone with the maximum power available in the market, and done everything so you would be _required_ to have a gaming hotrod- if Saga does the same, yippee skip. The thing being that WC3 ships did look better in a sense could never dislodge the WC1 art thats taken a certain place in my heart and visual enjoyment- but the other side of me likes actually shooting at something that's 3D.

True, they have to remember that what they are doing is a tribute to something else- but as to which one looks better, I suppose that does have to be left to taste. Heck, I don't really have a side on that one- but I have quite a lot of respect for your side of it in a gaming world that's flooded by "ZOMG TEH NEW GAME HAS T3H GRAPHICS HAAA" instead of looking at gameplay.
 

DaBrain

Spaceman
The quality of art is not defined by how many hyperpixels you can megajoule into your premium-grade whatchamacallit.

Exactly! That's why I carefully used "tech-level" in my last posting.

The tech-level only determines the maximum possible graphic quality of a game, not the actual quality.
That's why I think that UT3 looks better than Crysis, even though it's using less features. They simply used the features they had better and maybe because I simply love the style. ;)


By its very nature, Saga can never look better than the original games

I do see your point, but I actually didn't mean it like this. I was talking about pure visual quality. Like running a game in a higher resolution, makes it look 'better'.
Or just like how some people think that a few Arena figthers look better than the original fighters, although they're remakes.

And I think that's the whole point about remakes. (Ok, actually neither WCS or Standoff are 'real' remakes, but you know what I'm talking about.)
Remaking a game/movie to get it up to current standards.


And yes, I have a very technical view of visual quality stuff.
 

gevatter Lars

Vice Admiral
Where is the "I vote for DaBrain doing the maps" vote ?

And yes, I have a very technical view of visual quality stuff.
I can't think of a reason why ^_^

As for Art...one could write lots and lots of pages about it but I leave that to others. Personaly I like seeing games that use the best of what is technological possible to create a unique style to fit there needs and please the eye of the viewer with beautifull worlds.
So its mostly a matter of taste in the end. You could like it or you don't...or somehting between.

A good example of the use of "upgradeing" was for me Eve-Online. I have tested the game just to see halfe of my testphase with the older engine and the other with the new one.
I must say that they did a greate job. They use the new posibilitys to get the game to be technological on part with modern games but it still "feels and looks" like it belongs to the same universe.
In that way they did a greate job to combine tech and art to a beautifull game.

PS: I must say that I am also quite a tech fetishist ^_^
Still I am allways impressed by the work of older games. I couldn't imagne how to create games with limited colors and diskspace they had. So these are also some form of art for me. They are in their very own way technical wonders of art.
 
Top