id Tech 5 will not use DX10

id's new engine, which will be featured in their newly announced title, Rage, is discussed in a Game Informer interview with John Carmack at QuakeCon today. When asked whether Tech 5 will support any DirectX 10 features, Carmack stated:

"No, not currently. We're not expecting to. We're not sure if we're going to be a Vista title or not. There will be some support benefits by being Vista only. It depends when we get the game done what the adoption has been. But it's a OpenGL title on the PC and Mac right now, obviously D3D on the 360, and the PS3 it's kind of an in between where it's Open GLES but we do a lot of direct command buffer writing there. If necessary we can move the PC version over to DX10, but there's not much strong pull for us to do that. All of the toolset is in OpenGL, I wouldn't want to convert everything over."

OpenGL!! Go John Carmack!! For all of you PC gamers out there who, like me, have been looking for reasons to continue avoiding Vista for awhile longer, here you have quite possibly the most brilliant programmer in the gaming industry stating that his company's innovative new engine will probably not use, much less require, the DX10 API which Microsoft has been trying to use as bait to get gamers to 'upgrade' to their crappy new OS.

I think this says something about the differences between DX10 and DX9. If the lead designer of the successor to the Doom 3 engine thinks that the features added in DX10 are not worth using (granted, he states that this is also due in part to the fact that Vista has still not been adopted widely), maybe the smart thing is to stick with XP and DX9 for the next few years. Unless a lot of big titles start being DX10 only (which I don't see happening anytime soon), I think there is not much reason to get Vista.

Ignoring the obvious anti-vista bait, this seems to merit a big "meh."

id, while not dead, is no longer the producer of the de-facto standard engine. Yes, there's Quake 4 and Quake Wars, but they don't own the market like in the Q1/Q2 engine days.

Carmack seems to enjoy his status as industry contrarian, so I would think that seeing what Valve and Epic have planned would be a better indicator of what the industry as a whole is going to do.

Well, in my opinion, Carmack's stuff isn't that great anyhow. Sure, he is a smart guy and knows a lot about game engines, but the games that iD does, I really do not care. Doom? Whoopee.. Quake? Hurray? Just because iD is not going to use Direct3D10 does not mean that other people will not. From what I have heard, DirectX is much easier to use for developing games. OpenGL is only the graphics part of it, for audio you have to use OpenAL, and then there are probably other things. DirectX is an all-in-one development kit. Think, why would all these developers use DirectX if OpenGL was better?

Yes, Microsoft could* be paying them money to do so, but if OpenGL + OpenAL was that much better, they might be better off using OpenGL + OpenAL, so they could get games out quicker, have them look better and thus make more money.

id, while not dead, is no longer the producer of the de-facto standard engine. Yes, there's Quake 4 and Quake Wars, but they don't own the market like in the Q1/Q2 engine days.

heatpackinyum

Obviously id has not been at the forefront of gaming as much lately because they have been working on this new technology and a brand new IP to go with it, called Rage. Tech 5 may very well become the "de-facto standard engine" once developers see how cool it is. The megatexture concept being implemented on all surfaces (not just terrain as in the modified Doom 3 engine used in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars) and the built-in support for multi-platform development are going to be huge. I think Tech 5 will be every bit as big as the Doom 3 engine was 3 years ago, especially since id is developing a brand new game with this one.

Think, why would all these developers use DirectX if OpenGL was better?

wookieeassassin

Well, standards, for one thing. If programmers and companies are all used to one API, and it is a suitable API, then there is no reason for people to be using several different ones. I am not saying that Direct3D is bad or anything; I am simply saying that there is at least one respected developer who does not believe that this latest version, Direct3D 10, is particularly special compared to Direct3D 9. It is also interesting that Carmack is using OpenGL, since developers having been moving away from it lately.

I'm not to sure what is so special about Carmack not using D3D. Like come on, when has he ever used D3D. Carmack has always been for OpenGL. The Doom 3 engine wasn't really as popular as you think it was. It was their Quake 3 engine that was their most successful engine.

From what I've seen of the Tech 5 engine so far, nothing really spectacular. The CryEngine 2 looks much better IMO. Go to GameTrailers.com and check out the Crysis videos, the one where Crytek provides a demonstration of the engine and the developers tools.

P.S. You should have omitted the anti-Vista sentiments from your opening message (I was rolling my eyes by the end of it).

why would all these developers use DirectX if OpenGL was better?wookieeassassin

...at least not for lisenses. Subacious

Was Source a popular licensed engine? I don't know if the Doom 3 or Source engines were used in a lot of other company's games, but nobody questions how important they were in advancing graphics technology and game engines. You don't need to have a bunch of companies buy your technology in order for it to be innovative.

OpenGL is getting a new version called Long Peak in october which will compete direcly with Direct3D 10 of micro$oft.

For everyone saying "But you get sound libraries/input libraries with DirectX !!!!!".

One would figure that a compagni that has been in the market for such a long period of time already has all the tool written for such things. While you were talking about OpenAL... they may be using there own in house sound system and/or input... Or they could use OS specifics API for sound/input/network by encapsulating those device and just coding it for multipleplatform.

Like I said, they probably got all the tools done for easy multiplatform porting.

Just look at world of warcraft ... on Mac they use OpenGL to render graphics... they probably just encapsulated the drawing commands in there engine(Object oriented programming). Wanna play wow in opengl???? Add -opengl to your wow shortcut (it a command line specification for *argc[].

If your world of warcraft shortcut is "c:/program files/world of warcraft/wow.exe"

it become : "c:/program files/world of warcraft/wow.exe" -opengl

That how they get it to work on Linux.

P.S. You should have omitted the anti-Vista sentiments from your opening message (I was rolling my eyes by the end of it).

KhanhAgE

Yes, I have a generally low opinion of Microsoft's business practices and their antics with trying to get people to switch to Vista when they really don't need to. I think that if DX10 was not artificially made Vista-exclusive by Microsoft, most gamers would not have any motivation to switch from XP, because XP works fine. By the way, Microsoft's next OS, codenamed 'Vienna' is scheduled to be released within the next two years (by the end of 2009). Who knows which of the features that were originally supposed to be included in Vista will make it to this one (new UI structure/design, new filesystem, etc.), but it gives me the feeling that Vista may be remembered the same way that ME is now. I just don't think that Vista added anything substantial to XP.

could you post the link for the new video? want to see it myself before i judge whether it is freakin unbelievable or not.ppau08223

Sure-- here are some links:

QuakeCon 'Rage' Tease (IGN)

GameSpot Rage Videos

The second link contains Carmack's first demo of the engine at this year's WWDC as well as the Rage trailer.

It could really help out us Linux users because we can't play anything that has DX. Plus open protocols help open the industry up. Having an API monopoly can only hurt us gamers. d-rtyboy

I'm with you on that one.

The doom 3 engine wasn't big, atleast not for lisenses. Subacious

You're right, but the reason for that was they built that engine specifically around the requirements for Doom 3 without giving much thought to licensing. I think they realised that was actually a mistake, and opened the door wide open for Epic to step in and push it's Unreal engine almost exclusively as the multiplatform development suite of choice.

Quake 3 had a great deal of success when it came to licensing, and many good games were made using that technology. Ironically I didn't actually like Quake 3 Arena that much, but I did like many of the subsequent games built on that technology. With Id Tech 5 they are putting the focus back onto licensing, and ensuring that it works seamlessly across all major platforms which is now key to success considering most developers are going multi-platform.

Raven Software will undoubtedly license the technology for their own games because they have a long-standing relationship with Id software and have used their engines for a long time. They are already working on another game for Id's Wolfenstein franchise, but I can see them adopting the tech for their own IPs as well (they already built the Marvel games on Id tech). I just wish Raven would get back to making some new FPS games instead of pumping out Marvel action RPGs all the time.

I'm actually glad to see Id taking this more seriously, because choice is always a good thing. I'm also glad to see them still supporting OpenGL and giving potential licensees the option to not get stuck into a rut with DirectX 10. Microsoft is trying very hard to tie everyone into their own API so that everyone has to upgrade to their OS in the future to run games. I'm glad to see at least one developer standing firm and saying they are not going in that direction but will support multiple operating systems through an open standard. Hopefully other developers will take the opportunity to do the same.

After all, monopolies are never a good thing, and choice is always welcome.

you'll need Vista sooner or later. Gog

I prefer later.

Get over it, you'll need Vista sooner or later. Gog

Actually no, I personally won't need Vista at all.

When it comes to gaming, I already have an excellent library of games sitting on my shelf, and most of them run under WinXP. I don't have to get new games and I can choose to ignore Vista only titles. You might think I'm losing out, but it's really no skin off my nose. Even if all games eventually require Vista to play, I can choose to simply stop buying new games. From what I have seen of multi-platform development and mediocre gameplay, performance issues and bugs in many recent PC titles, I might do that anyway.

When it comes to work, I can use a completely different OS to get my work done if need be. In fact that will probably be the most likely option for my employer in the future, due to the costs of upgrading systems just to run a new OS and a few applications.

People do still have freedom of choice, even if Microsoft wants you to think otherwise. Vista is not the only option, and it does not have to be inevitable.

Well, in my opinion, Carmack's stuff isn't that great anyhow. Sure, he is a smart guy and knows a lot about game engines, but the games that iD does, I really do not care. Doom? Whoopee.. Quake? Hurray? Just because iD is not going to use Direct3D10 does not mean that other people will not. From what I have heard, DirectX is much easier to use for developing games. OpenGL is only the graphics part of it, for audio you have to use OpenAL, and then there are probably other things. DirectX is an all-in-one development kit. Think, why would all these developers use DirectX if OpenGL was better?

Yes, Microsoft could* be paying them money to do so, but if OpenGL + OpenAL was that much better, they might be better off using OpenGL + OpenAL, so they could get games out quicker, have them look better and thus make more money.

wookieeassassin

Actually neither DX or OGL/OAL are any harder or easier than the other. The popularity of DX is directly related to the fact that MS has a much larger presence in colleges thus almost all budding devs come out of college with some DX experience vs. no experience with OGL/OAL. In other words, the reason DX is popular is because it has a much wider pool of workers who can use it. OGL is actually a much better choice from a business perspective since it doesn't tie you into anything proprietary but you have smaller pool of experienced programmers to hire from. Its one of those pick your poison type situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Windows Vista is a better operating system than Windows XP. Period. Whether you want or need is, is another matter.

Windows Vista is a better operating system than Windows XP. Period. Whether you want or need is, is another matter.

Kev_Boy

For a windows to be better then XP it must run all the things xp runs, or even be better at it, and that is just the first thing and already there vista fails.

I dont give a rats rear if i miss out on Photorealistic graphics, dx 9 wont even ever look ugly, just look at the water in far cry, or hl2, it dosnt look ugly and never will, dx10 will properly improve it but at what cost?

I won't give 2 cents on vista or that Crysis or Alan Wake ! Alltough my computer is ready i don't care about it !

yeh whoever keeps the XP for another few yrs is pretty much done.

micorsoft stated by next febuary every computer will be ugraded to the vista OS. there will no computers that will run XP or will they make any programs that run on XP.

so if you are one of the few who wants to keep XP around for another few yrs you can go right ahead, cept you wont be able to do anything cept maybe play your old games.

when vista is the standard in all applications will be the time to build a whole new computer, by that time there will be.......

quad cores for $200

2gb ddr3 3333 timings

motherboards with standard fsb1333 no overlocking!

video cards that will be only dx10.

oh by the way a 8800 ultra uses the same amount of power as your dryer.

yeh whoever keeps the XP for another few yrs is pretty much done.

micorsoft stated by next febuary every computer will be ugraded to the vista OS. there will no computers that will run XP or will they make any programs that run on XP.

so if you are one of the few who wants to keep XP around for another few yrs you can go right ahead, cept you wont be able to do anything cept maybe play your old games.

shakur

MICROSOFT STATED...

You do know that is a very good marketing trick right?

[QUOTE="Kev_Boy"]

Windows Vista is a better operating system than Windows XP. Period. Whether you want or need is, is another matter.

mimic-Denmark

For a windows to be better then XP it must run all the things xp runs, or even be better at it, and that is just the first thing and already there vista fails.

I dont give a rats rear if i miss out on Photorealistic graphics, dx 9 wont even ever look ugly, just look at the water in far cry, or hl2, it dosnt look ugly and never will, dx10 will properly improve it but at what cost?

Vista is buggy for now, but once the kinks are worked out of it just like they were for XP it will be great. I will say that Vista doesn't make any leaps or bounds over XP that are highly noticeable besides GUI look. I see some noob saying up top that he'll stop buying games whenever they go to full vista functionality only.....what a childish way to look at things. XP wasn't accepted by the gaming community at first. It was buggy as hell whenever it was released. Grow up....(that last comment was not directed towards the Quoted poster)

[QUOTE="wookieeassassin"]why would all these developers use DirectX if OpenGL was better?d-rtyboy

d-rtyboy, you're my new best friend :P

Microsoft are overhyping DX10 for obvious reasons. id have always developed for OpenGL. Still, I think Crytech 2 seems to be the best engine / IDE because not only does it have all the next-gen rendering technology, but it also allows reiteration MUCH faster than anything before. Crysis has been made in a relatively REALLY short time. With Crytech 2 there's no compiling or anything! It really allows devs to develop faster.kyrieee

No compiling?!? I haven't heard of this nonsense. Please explain I'm curious how that is possible.

The engine has such powerful scripting tools that it's possible to create all gamelogic simply through that. Game geometry requires no exporting, it's all done in realtime within the engine. You can create a scene, press a button and play it instantly, and then tweak it. It really helps content creation.kyrieee

I do not understand what you are saying. Can't you do this in Unreal Ed?

Somehow that information must be translated into Binary for the computer to understand it.........Even if it's real time the Programming language ( I don't know which one they're using for Crytek 2) must somehow be translated for the computer. That's cool though...I'd just never heard of that yet.

Somehow that information must be translated into Binary for the computer to understand it.........Even if it's real time the Programming language ( I don't know which one they're using for Crytek 2) must somehow be translated for the computer. That's cool though...I'd just never heard of that yet.

bblundell

Yeah, if you are talking about running a program in real-time without compilation, it sounds like you are talking about using an interpreter, which seems like it would give you terrible performance.

most of the code is already compiled, details and small tweaks can be done in real time and those are the things that matter. they have really extensive visualized scripting tools too, which increases productivity even more

look into it yourself

I see some noob saying up top that he'll stop buying games whenever they go to full vista functionality only.....what a childish way to look at things. XP wasn't accepted by the gaming community at first. It was buggy as hell whenever it was released. Grow up....(that last comment was not directed towards the Quoted poster)bblundell

I assume that was directed at me. Make you feel better trying to insult people's intelligence?

Just because I choose not to upgrade to the next OS, or choose not to buy games for that OS (because I won't have it on my PC) doesn't make me a noob or childish. That's me exercising my right to freedom of choice. I do not NEED Vista, so I will not be getting it. Why the hell would I shoulder the cost of upgrading my hardware right now so that I can buy and run an OS I don't need? Gaming is not my first priority, and I already have all the necessary software I need to undertake my work and hobbies.

If not having Vista means I miss out on some future games, so be it, because it doesn't really matter to me.

[QUOTE="bblundell"]I see some noob saying up top that he'll stop buying games whenever they go to full vista functionality only.....what a childish way to look at things. XP wasn't accepted by the gaming community at first. It was buggy as hell whenever it was released. Grow up....(that last comment was not directed towards the Quoted poster)RobertBowen

I assume that was directed at me. Make you feel better trying to insult people's intelligence?

Just because Ichoose not to upgrade to the nextOS, or choose not to buy games for that OS (because I won't have it on my PC)doesn't make me a noob or childish. That's me exercising my right to freedom of choice. I do not NEED Vista, so I will not be getting it. Why the hell would I shoulder the cost of upgrading my hardware right now so that I canbuy and run an OSI don't need? Gaming is not my first priority, andI already have all the necessary software I need to undertake my work and hobbies.

If not having Vista means I miss out on some future games, so be it, because it doesn't really matter to me.

I insulted your intelligence? I thought I was stating my opinion....I apologize if it was offensive to you. The entire "I'm taking my toys and going home" mindset is childish......Noone said to upgrade right now. If you'll read my post it says that once the bugs are fixed it will be just as good as XP.....as for Vista taking more RAM and Power. Well it's just like upgrading your system to play a game by it's specifications. That's cool if you're not a big gamer, but I was just stating that Vista gets such a bad rap, and XP was looked down uponthe same way vista is right now.

To the above poster: well, if you arn't going to be purchasing hardware that can run a newer engine in the first place, then why even enter this thread? The point that was made is, if you are going to be playing this new game, you will likely already have the hardware required for Vista to begin with. Not to mention, if you were to buy a new computer, it would come with Vista anyways. I feel like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Actually neither DX or OGL/OAL are any harder or easier than the other. The popularity of DX is directly related to the fact that MS has a much larger presence in colleges thus almost all budding devs come out of college with some DX experience vs. no experience with OGL/OAL. In other words, the reason DX is popular is because it has a much wider pool of workers who can use it. OGL is actually a much better choice from a business perspective since it doesn't tie you into anything proprietary but you have smaller pool of experienced programmers to hire from. Its one of those pick your poison type situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

marc5477

you can read this if you want http://www.crytek.com/CryENGINE2Features.pdf

scroll down a bit as it's just the renderer first

you can read this if you want http://www.crytek.com/CryENGINE2Features.pdf

scroll down a bit as it's just the renderer first

kyrieee

Thanks for the post! I'm definately going to read that!