Stone Giant DirectX 11 Demo

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you have a DirectX 11 video card, I highly recommend you download the 395mb Stone Giant DirectX 11 demo. For those of you without a DX11 compatible GPU, the demo also supports a DX10 fallback path with tessellation disabled.


Stone Giant is a DirectX 11 demo produced by Fatshark in collaboration with BitSquid using BitSquid Tech. It has primarily been developed to test the BitSquid tools and technology in a real-world production environment. The demo showcases how DX11 hardware tessellation can be used to achieve a high level of geometry detail in close-up shots.
Click to expand...
 
A tech demo using tessellation in an attempt to push DX11, even though we know the devs wont bother with it, as usual. This is new and exciting.

Onward to DX12 !
 
PornoSatan said:
A tech demo using tessellation in an attempt to push DX11, even though we know the devs wont bother with it, as usual. This is new and exciting.

Onward to DX12 !
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you see the next console using for it's DX implementation. If it is going to be 11 (which would make sense based on scheduels) then you could expect to see a wider adoption of DX11 vs DX10.
 
The demo was too dark to enjoy the full benefit of tessellation, but it still looked pretty good.
 
Looks like an awful lot of wasted polygons to me. Atleast in those screenshots, most of the geometry is still quite flat, and in the areas where the polys are thickest, they didn't seem to take advantage and create extra detail.

If I correctly understand the way tesselation works, it's just like meshsmooth in 3dsmax, right? So no matter how much you increase the tesselation, you never really get any new detail, you just make the model smoother.

IMO, tesselation is just wasted if they can't map it to some detail texture (displacment mapping comes to mind) which will modify the geometry as the tesselation increases. And this increase should be based on view distance. Furthest distance would be base model, and point blank would be highest level of tesselation. All of this within reason and subjective to importance of the surface or model of course.

While the video was cool, good ambiance, nice characters, neat location and a bit of action too; I didn't really see anything that made me think "OMG I need DX!!". Lol, oops that was a typo but I'll keep it! DX!! zomg!
 
I always smile when I see people think heavy tess Heaven 2.0 and this shows the future of gaming, the future of screenfuls of 64x tessellation.
 
PornoSatan said:
A tech demo using tessellation in an attempt to push DX11, even though we know the devs wont bother with it, as usual. This is new and exciting.!
Click to expand...
There's a good reason developers aren't spending the effort.

horse said:
Dood had a tree growing on his back! Coolest stone giant evar!
Click to expand...
Jealous? His name's Herbert. I talk to him when I get lonely. Just kiddin' — his name's Bob!
 
I don't remember Shale having cool weapons, or a hatred for crab bugs. Pretty sure it was pigeons.
 
phide said:
There's a good reason developers aren't spending the effort.


Jealous? His name's Herbert. I talk to him when I get lonely. Just kiddin' — his name's Bob!
Click to expand...

Lol, good one. I just couldn't kill him. Played FO3 many times and I always say this is the time I do it but I can't. I'm just too attached to Harold. Sad I know :D

As for the demo, couldn't really see the details even at 720P.
 
Personally, I think DX11 tesselation is pretty much useless without some kind of API function to enable bouncing boobs.
 
Bummrus[H]a;1035626155 said:
If I correctly understand the way tesselation works, it's just like meshsmooth in 3dsmax, right? So no matter how much you increase the tesselation, you never really get any new detail, you just make the model smoother.
Click to expand...

The unigine dx11 demo showed clear geometry detail that was added from tesselation. All the roofs, stone paths, and stairways are completely flat in that demo until tesselation is turned on. I'm not sure if this is purely tesselation, it's probably a combo of tesselation and displacement mapping. cloths, fabrics, and water all look better tesselated even if no detail is added.

The screenshots posted for the stone giant demo don't have much detail, but i think the video looks much better in action, especially when it zooms in on the giant's back and the spider drops down on him.
 
Bummrus[H]a;1035626155 said:
Looks like an awful lot of wasted polygons to me. Atleast in those screenshots, most of the geometry is still quite flat, and in the areas where the polys are thickest, they didn't seem to take advantage and create extra detail.

If I correctly understand the way tesselation works, it's just like meshsmooth in 3dsmax, right? So no matter how much you increase the tesselation, you never really get any new detail, you just make the model smoother.

IMO, tesselation is just wasted if they can't map it to some detail texture (displacment mapping comes to mind) which will modify the geometry as the tesselation increases. And this increase should be based on view distance. Furthest distance would be base model, and point blank would be highest level of tesselation. All of this within reason and subjective to importance of the surface or model of course.

While the video was cool, good ambiance, nice characters, neat location and a bit of action too; I didn't really see anything that made me think "OMG I need DX!!". Lol, oops that was a typo but I'll keep it! DX!! zomg!
Click to expand...

insert IDTECH 5 here
 
Looks very interesting. I'll download it tonight and check it out in DX10 mode since that is all I have.
 
PornoSatan said:
A tech demo using tessellation in an attempt to push DX11, even though we know the devs wont bother with it, as usual. This is new and exciting.

Onward to DX12 !
Click to expand...

You hear this every version of anything :-P

Enjoy your DirectX 1.0 games.
 
While it's cool MS is innovating, the hardware requirements of the different DX cycles is becoming more painful than usual. Furthermore, locking this technology to one platform (Windows) offers less to the user than say OpenGL or OpenCL or other cross-platform technologies.

Considering engines like the SOURCE engine are porting to cross-platforms DX runs the risk of becoming antequated if it remains a platform lock.
 
BloodyIron said:
While it's cool MS is innovating, the hardware requirements of the different DX cycles is becoming more painful than usual. Furthermore, locking this technology to one platform (Windows) offers less to the user than say OpenGL or OpenCL or other cross-platform technologies.

Considering engines like the SOURCE engine are porting to cross-platforms DX runs the risk of becoming antequated if it remains a platform lock.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is just bunk. How many people seriously by hardware to run this stuff that don't run Windows? Seriously? How many people buy one, two and three 480s and run Linux exclusively on those steups?

Sure you can do stuff for OpenGL, that gives you like 3 people who would actually buy gaming level hardware on Macs and Linux.

Look if the audience was there people would use OpenGL more, that's just the market reality of it.

Did a quick bench of this, here's what I got on my sig rig:, SLI picked it up:

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
19980 128651 111 281 155.304
 
I am curious why windows firewall needed to pop up a Block/Unblock warning when I ran the program?
 
There can be only 1 rock biter!

52308889.jpg
 
vengence said:
It really depends on what you see the next console using for it's DX implementation. If it is going to be 11 (which would make sense based on scheduels) then you could expect to see a wider adoption of DX11 vs DX10.
Click to expand...

Indeed, why bother with new versions of DX when almost every PC game is a console port, just make a new version of DX when the the new console generation comes out.
 
I'm glad they are finally beginning to push technology that makes use of more geometry, rather than just depending on shaders to give the illusion of depth. High-polygon scenes look so much better than low-poly, high-shader scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top