John Carmack And Todd Hollenshead Speak

How do you know he doesn't have any cool ideas? All he said was that he found no big pull in any one DX10 feature, nothing to do with cool ideas. Further, that's not what he was asked about either That's you reading too much into it, no?

And if you read my post again (seems like you didn't the first time), I didn't even name the guy! I spoke about all developers in general terms throughout

 

Fair enough. But if he does have cool ideas about what's possible in the future with DX10 he sure didn't seem too excited about them. Like geo said maybe it's just good to be king!

 

Well, keep in mind what DX9 introduced. DX10 has no such Huge Overwhelmingly Cool Feature That Enables Things That Simply Weren't Possible Before.

 

And yet, if we went back aways, my memory is telling me that when we started this long strange journey to DX10 that what was being flogged was the overwhelming gratitude of developers for unifying ps and vs programming. How simpler it would make their lives, etc. Wasn't it?

 

Well maybe some of the new APi stuff (GS) isn't that fabulous out of the gate but certainly the accompanying unified hardware opens up opportunities for acceleration of existing algorithms.

And what about the instancing, batching, constant buffer and texture array stuff - aren't those a big deal? Those are some major limitations of DX9 no?

 

I think it makes sense -- but I'm a layman so correct me if I'm wrong. I got the impression that dx10 mainly brought performance advantages, from reduced overhead due to the new hardware interface. So, who will have a dx10 card by the time QW releases? people with already ridiculously fast graphics cards. So if all he can do there is add more of the same, and it'll all be just fancy content that only the elitest graphics junkies can afford, then maybe that doesn't excite JC just yet. I suspect he'd be more interested in implementing new features -- lighting, shading -- but stuff that more than just .5% of the installbase can use.

I dunno, maybe I'm just justifying it needlessly -- perhaps he's covering his ass a bit. His game's coming out on dx9, and he's saying it's not going to look or run much worse than Halo 3. I think that makes sense too.

 

As far as how "exciting" DX10 is when it comes to game development, perhaps we should ask various developers what they think about it and leave this interview as is (hey Rys, why not do an interview with various developers?).

I also think an important point we may be missing in this discussion is that John has voiced his approval of the XB360 (in this interview and in the past), a topic that may be central to how id (and not just John) may approach creating games during the console's useful lifespan (till the next-gen console from any company). We all know which API the XB360 is based on, of course...

I should also mention that Rys is spot on with his posts in this discussion. Most game developers I know don't create games like, *cough* Futuremark does....

 

I don't think Carmack is saying that Vista isn't better in some ways, just that he feels XP is close enough.

"They’re artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS. It’s a hardware-interface spec. It’s an artificial thing that they’re doing there. They’re really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it."

I think he believes DX10 could have been brought to WindowsXP and it would have run well, and that they're limiting it to Vista for artificial reasons simply to generate sales of the new OS. I think, being fundamentally different operating systems, Microsoft didn't want to spend the resources to bring the new API to WindowsXP and cannibalize sales of the new OS. Now, if you want to debate whether Vista was even necessary, I think it was, but Carmack obviously doesn't. Apart from Directx10, he doesn't see many advantages to using Vista. I think there are a few things the layman will benefit from in using Vista, which is the biggest reason to release the new OS.

 

This is basically in agreement with my already-expressed opinion.

We're talking about Carmack, which means we're talking about gaming. Why do you think Vista is necessary from a purely gaming perspective, which is what we should be concerned with, right?

I see an irony in this. Every new OS by MS has a lot of graphics-based changes/"improvements" (IOW, they all successively "look better", always a major consideration of MS). Vista is "better looking" than XP (that much I'll grant). John (and all developers) want their next game to look better... but a better looking OS than XP (yes, I am purposely ignoring all the other many improvements Vista has over XP) is not a big thing for him!! Am I going too far left-field with this?

 

There is definitely an irony there. In his mind, why should anyone dish out $300 for an OS that doesn't really improve the user experience apart from having a nicer UI. He thinks a lot of the useful features DX10 and Live could have been rolled into XP. The same argument could be made about his games. Why buy Doom3 when you could play Quake2 or whatever. In a way, I do think he's right, but I'll still probably get my hands on Vista, because I do like a neater UI as well as DX10 and the Live offering.

 

It's an intersting thought on what's 'good enough' or 'close enough' (wrt Operating Systems).

I felt for the longest time that Windows 2000 Pro was 'good enough' for me - I used it everday from it's release in April 2000 to when I finally moved to Windows XP Pro in July 2005. It provided the stable NT based OS that I wanted (from NT 4.0) but with all the nice extras from Win98 like USB and DirectX higher then version 3 ).

So moving to XP was a small jump, but now if someone now said 'do without ClearType font smoothing' I'd cry!

This time round I think I'll move to Vista quite early as it seems to being pushed as a Gaming Platform.

 

XP was a 5.1 version of NT, and yet it was a good improvement, both in the UI and in terms of speed and efficiency (XP actually lowered its minimum specs versus 2k). With Vista, I'd recommend regular users to wait at least a year, as I always do with major new releases, unless they solve a major issue. For me, Vista just creates piles of issues, by requiring insane levels of hardware. If I could, I would stay with XP for a while, and probably more seriously experiment with Linux to see if I can avoid Vista altogether, both at home and in the office. As it stands though, being an IT professional I should have had Vista already during the betas (didn't feel like it), and will probably get a Vista setup sooner rather than later, just to make sure anything I develop runs properly on it.

 

For what it`s worth, I`ve been using Vista X64 for a while and I`m quite pleased with it...aside from a mobo bug that was eventually fixed, lackluster ATi drivers and lacking Epson drivers for my all-in-one. As a subjective opinion, it isn`t slower then XP X64 was for me.

I enjoy the face-lift and I enjoy some ease-of-use features they`ve added. IMHO Vista doesn`t deserve even a quarter of the bad rep it`s been given by pissed off forumites all across the world(this isn`t targeted at anyone, before panties get up in a bunch). And, as the bastard that I am, I`m fookin pleased if it forces ppl to upgrade, ditch AGP, get more RAM, get a decent CPU etc. I`m all too tired with orgasmic posts about ASRock boards supporting AGP and Core 2 Quad, and demands for high-end AGP parts.

It would be a great thing if Vista pushes the lowest hardware denominator up, as it would equate to higher complexity games and software.

 

I installed Vista x64 last night. So far, I like it, and I've only had one problem with power management not working correctly. If I can use a 64-bit OS and have stable drivers, I'm all for Vista.

 

Vista should have pushed 64bit harder. To get vista driver certificate all you need is a 64bit driver even if all it does is

Code:

{
return;
}

and the ONLY reason we need 64bit support is for better addressing support.

 

It is funny to hear that statement from a man who was THE man, who was a 3D king and almost single-handedly drove the graphics technology forward.

And now he is playing a wait and see game. I just don't get it. Is he tired? Certainly not old.

The way I see it, these are the times of the new generation, with the likes of Crytek propelling the technology.

 

he doesn't buy into the hype. so many things are overhyped nowadays, down to things as boring as serial ATA. no, it doesn't matter if you have an IDE HDD and an AGP video card.

 

Carmack is only ever interested in what will help whatever software technology he's working on for his next game. He's always been that way.