GW2 DirectX 11 support?

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Praffy.4091" said:> i have one good reason now for dx11 support. > DXVK and wine.> of course a linux version will be awesomewhy would they bother when they dont officially support linux? it's just gonna be additional cost for them so support something < 10% of the install base1. Windows = 81.77%2. OS X = 13.49%3. Unknown = 1.97%4. Linux = 1.68%5. Chrome OS = 1.08%6. FreeBSD = 0%

Source: StatCounter Global Stats - OS Market Share

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

GW2 is based on a modded GW1 engine, which was a custom game engine they decided to use, rather than using another game engine. As such this limited options, without writing a whole new game engine AND game, best option would have been to use one of the many game engine choices at the time that already supported DX11, however that would cost licensing money, and probably more than modding a (much older) game engine they already paid for.

 

At this point it would mean swapping game engines, and everything involved in that...So not going to happen. You might see that swap with GW3 etc, but I doubt anything is going to happen with GW2 on that end. New engines can help for sure, many are more multi threaded friendly, but even still, there are some processes that just do not work in parallel.

[Trizt.5290]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > @"Praffy.4091" said:

> > i have one good reason now for dx11 support.

> > DXVK and wine.

> > of course a linux version will be awesome

>

> why would they bother when they dont officially support linux? it's just gonna be additional cost for them so support something < 10% of the install base

>

> 1. Windows = 81.77%

> 2. OS X = 13.49%

> 3. Unknown = 1.97%

> 4. Linux = 1.68%

> 5. Chrome OS = 1.08%

> 6. FreeBSD = 0%

 

The numbers are based on a subsection of web sites, so I wouldn't use those for looking how big market share an OS has, then it would be better to look at Humblebundle and Steam to see a more proper numbers, but do not forget that there are far more games for MS-Windows than for Linux or MacOS which can have some impact on the numbers. In the gaming sector Linux is on it's climb, at Steam they will soon have a market share over 1% and at Humblebundle when there are Linux version of the games the market share is closer to 10% (if I remember it right) and they do pay more for the games than MS-Windows users do.

 

They can do things a lot better, use Vulkan and keep as much of the game as possible platform independent, this would lower the cost to port things for other operating systems, sure you have to do a bit more in the beginning, but with little effort you suddenly could have at least 3 OS:es on one architecture covered, but sure money from M$ will always be interesting for some companies, so they will stick with yesterdays technology.

 

No matter what ANet does, there is some serious issues in their code which they need to sort out unless they want to loose players.

 

 

[Trizt.5290]

> @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

> GW2 is based on a modded GW1 engine, which was a custom game engine they decided to use, rather than using another game engine. As such this limited options, without writing a whole new game engine AND game, best option would have been to use one of the many game engine choices at the time that already supported DX11, however that would cost licensing money, and probably more than modding a (much older) game engine they already paid for.

 

I wonder what they messed up, GW I can get over 400FPS while GW2 is falling down to 18FPS, today it's so bad that it's not playable for me any more

 

 

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

> @"Trizt.5290" said:

> > @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

> > GW2 is based on a modded GW1 engine, which was a custom game engine they decided to use, rather than using another game engine. As such this limited options, without writing a whole new game engine AND game, best option would have been to use one of the many game engine choices at the time that already supported DX11, however that would cost licensing money, and probably more than modding a (much older) game engine they already paid for.

>

> I wonder what they messed up, GW I can get over 400FPS while GW2 is falling down to 18FPS, today it's so bad that it's not playable for me any more

>

>

 

Well, the engine was designed with GW1 in mind, GW2 adds lots of other things the first did not have, or had to deal with. And GW1 was mostly instances, only outposts were not, and those had hard player caps, and even how many minis could be out, and weapons etc were not rendered, along with many other things that reduce the load on the CPU rendering pipeline.

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Trizt.5290" said:> They can do things a lot better, use Vulkan and keep as much of the game as possible platform independent, this would lower the cost to port things for other operating systems, sure you have to do a bit more in the beginning, but with little effort you suddenly could have at least 3 OS:es on one architecture covered, but sure money from M$ will always be interesting for some companies, so they will stick with yesterdays technology.> Vulkan wont do much, probably would make the performance worse porting 10 year old code[Reply from Lead Engine Programmer Johan](

"Reply from Lead Engine Programmer Johan")

> No matter what ANet does, there is some serious issues in their code which they need to sort out unless they want to loose players.sorry, but I dont agree your point; MMO is about content, not FPS like first person shooters or action RPG where FPS could mean life or deathif players are leaving game just because the game cannot hit 60fps over content, then they should for feeling so entitled to 60fps

Rather than only purely looking at GW2, we should also look at the progress of CPUs... ... we have not had any great leaps in terms of single core speed, which is the most important part for MMO and RTS gamingBoth Intel and AMD are focused on making chips are energy efficient and throwing more cores

[Laila Lightness.8742]

The thing this game needs is the abillity to use more cores than it does now. Directx 11 wouldnt improve performance alot due to its mostly affect graphics. This needs to fix so gw 2 can use more cores of cpu to reduce the load

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

> @"Praffy.4091" said:

> i just found out that neverwinter has dx11 for a few years now and man it works so nice on DXVK. everything at max with 60fps (im guessing that somehow its cap at 60fps on wine/whatever)

> too bad that guildwars team are too lazy to create a dx11 or better a vulkan version

 

It has already been talked over and over, doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Since you mentioned Wine, I'm guess your aim is Linux. If that's the case, I can direct you to this thread: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/31192/playing-guild-wars-2-on-linux-performance-optimizations-and-more/p1

 

DX9 to Vulkan in Wine is in the works but it's in a very early state, you can follow the project here: https://github.com/Joshua-Ashton/d9vk

[vesica tempestas.1563]

> @"Leamas.5803" said:

> > @"WereDragon.6083" said:

> > Devs popped in and explained a while back that DirectX 11 would provide very little benefit for an incredible about of dev time. This game is built off Gw1's engine it is a mess of spaghetti code and patches to keep it running they'ed need to rebuild the engine from the ground up. Vulkan would be a better API choice then directX anyways which is garbage when it comes to making calls to the GPU.

> >

> > Lamens it's the engines problem not the API's problem. Newer API's aren't a magical cure all to a games performance issues.

>

> The some time ago was over 2 years ago, a lifetime ago in software. Mr Fayth kindly posted a link to it. That was before HoT or the 64-bit client were released. They also claimed in the same statement that a 64-bit client would provide little improvement, yet here we are. Yes, the engine would obviously have to be rebuilt from the ground up. It was done for both WoW and FFXIV, which both started their lives on DX9, so it's not an impossible task.

 

and yet gw2 still is a lot more beautiful than WOW. The devs have already said the cost would not out-weight the benefit - that cost increases over time not the opposite in software development.

 

What we are really talking about here is no investment in GW2 for many years while they build GW3. Not gonna happen for 5 years+ and the GW2 population would be in arms over this. This change will happen where there is demand for it, not before.

[Anime.2895]

I just wish gw2 could make use of extra cores/threads, my pc runs the game phenomenally, but it's much more expensive than your average users pc, I think for people with lower end hardware it would be nice for gw2 to use more threads/cores.

 

It's a fantastic game, and I'm extremely grateful that it isn't subscription based, my wife and I try to put 20$ each into the gemstore a month in hopes that gw2 will continue improving, we love this game and it deserves some qol improvements

[Mack.3045]

> @"Anime.2895" said:

> I just wish gw2 could make use of extra cores/threads, my pc runs the game phenomenally, but it's much more expensive than your average users pc, I think for people with lower end hardware it would be nice for gw2 to use more threads/cores.

>

> It's a fantastic game, and I'm extremely grateful that it isn't subscription based, my wife and I try to put 20$ each into the gemstore a month in hopes that gw2 will continue improving, we love this game and it deserves some qol improvements

 

We already have dx12 support using the d912pxy and it's free.

 

You can find the guide here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/110553/want-to-use-directx-12-dx12-for-gw2-heres-a-guide-on-using-the-d912pxy-on-windows-10