Microsoft will announce DirectX 12 March 20

I sad in my first post that [post=4778110]Direct3D 12 will probably require at least feature level 11_1[/post], since that's what "lightweight" D3D11 runtime from Xbox One should be based on (at least GCN1.0, Radeon HD7000 series). Maybe feature level 11_0 as a common denominator for Nvidia cards. A new AP for the same hardware.

I repeat, Direct3D 11 API and runtime fully support D3D9 hardware through feature levels 9_1, 9_2 and 9_3.

Though Direct3D 11 is a vastly different API comparing to the original D3D 9.0c, the Direct3D 11 runtime directly calls D3D9 DDI which is present in any WDDM 1.x driver for compatibility reasons, and makes the necessary translations.

This allows "software-only" features by Direct3D 11 runtime, such as thread-safe calls, to be used even on D3D9 hardware.

Can't see why the same concept of feature levels can't be implemented in Direct3D 12, so that current Direct3D 11 hardware can use new "close to the metal" API to reduce CPU overhead.

Its implementations will be proprietary, just like in OpenGL where each vendor makes their own OpenGL32.dll that interfaces directly with the graphics driver through a closed proprietary API and data structures.

 

So this will be a Windows 9 exclusive and used as an incentive to upgrade from Windows 8.1?

 

Pray tell why ES doesn't count Timmy? It shows how customizable OpenGL is and HOW MUCH CHEAPER IT IS FOR DEVELOPERS TO PORT EASILY WITHOUT BEING CONSTRAINED TO A PROPRIETARY POS API

There are plenty of websites that will show you how OpenGL-ES is Royalty free 2D/3D API consisting of well-defined subset profiles of desktop OpenGL or are you just a fanboy with zero facts and just relate to a lemming stuck in corporate web and justify your means anyway you can?

 

I'm not saying it's not possible. Like I said, I'm heavily suggesting that M$ would artificially lock it out to force you to buy a new piece of hardware. I hope it works out like you say, and you probably think I'm speaking in crazy conspiracy theories, but this is M$ we are talking about. Like when 11.1 came out and required new hardware that only AMD at the time had, and put a lot of advertising on that HawX game about how AMD was much better because it used 11.1. It's easy for me to imagine that when 12 comes out, NVidia cards will have it's support first for some time.

As for Mantle, I know of it's reality vs. the advertising of it. Because of this, in the past I said that it is unreasonable for NVidia to be beholden to AMD's hardware 'standards'. There is an obvious conflict of interest there, and I would much rather prefer that OpenGL or even DirectX add the features. And I got a lot of hate for saying it.

 

Jeez. Cross-platform compatibility? Capabilities? There are so many.
ES is a SUBSET of Opengl. We use Opengl on desktops, would you want ES powering your desktop games? Hell no, it cant.

Show me one OpenGL game, and Ill show you 100 DX games. Every time.

 

Why do people keep repeating this completely false statement? Mantle is NOT restricted to only AMD GCN architecture, nor is it proprietary because some aspects of it are based on things they don't actually own.

Also... here it is straight from AMD's mouth...

Or here is AMD also talking about how the API is open...
http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-...y-mantle-api-to-optimize-gpu-performance.html

 

He's not saying that drivers are all open source, he's saying it's open in regards to AMD not charging licensing fees to anyone for usage rights.

 

*yawn*

The caps and illogical claims that DirectX is a "pos" are getting old.

If OpenGL were so great and DirectX complete garbage, then can you please explain why 98% of game developers PAY MICROSOFT licensing fees to use DirectX for their games? If these other API's are so great, nobody would pay for Direct since they're FREE!

The only reason anyone in their right mind would use OpenGL over DirectX in game creation today is if the game is made for a non-windows platform. So essentially you'd be making a game for a very very small number of potential customers... and probably go bankrupt.

Give this a read: http://inovaekeith.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-opengl-probably-isnt-graphics-api.html

 

If Direct3D 12 requires a whole new WDDM version, I just don't see them porting it back to Windows 8.1, save Windows 8 or 7.

Why you insist that Microsoft should bring every Windows version on the market to the latest state of affairs by back porting every major feature? Nobody in the industry does it these days.

You may say that it's artificial and whatever. But it would only divert developer resources from their main task, fixing what's wrong with Windows 8/8.1.


That said, now that Microsoft is on a new rapid release cycle, they should probably rethink the pricing of their OS licenses. Why not give out Windows 9 upgrade for free, just like they did with 8.1, or for a minimal fee?

The [post=4778417]original poster asked why[/post] it is unreasonable to implement Direct3D 12 on Windows 8.1 when Mantle works on Windows 7.

Maybe you shouldn't contest something that I never said in the first place?

Mantle can be implemented in Windows 7 because it's basically a driver extension which talks directly to the internal driver API. It does not depend on Microsoft to backport a new driver model and a new Direct3D runtime to Windows 7.

See for example DirectSound vs OpenAL and ASIO in Windows Vista.

 

What do you mean 'but whatever'. The fact that Mantle does work on Windows 7 makes it reasonable to port it back, or at least it should. I use 8.1, and I will probably use 9. Or whatever else comes out. But that sort of artificial lock of features seems stupid when they could easily say what is what by making sure that DX12 works on at least Windows 7+ out of sheer user base.

But they see it the other way around, DX12 to them will mean they get to sell more copies of 8.1/9. Where we care about games using DX12, they care about people playing games on their new operating system, how they make that happen is irrelevant. This is important. User base is very important to a game dev, would you want to make a game in an API that only worked on an OS that 10% of an already pretty small PC gaming platform uses? Probably not.
You can say "well they are a businesses, that's what they do", and I say because of that I would rather see OpenGL come to the spotlight.

 

Please continue to ignore everything I said, I'm probably insane.

PS. Microsoft did port WDDM 1.1 to Vista in hopes of increasing the user base, which failed as its market share continued to decline. Now they're back to their original strategy of a rapid release cycle for a consumer OS, like it was with Windows 95/OSR1, OSR2/OSR2.1/OSR2.5, 98/98SE and ME.

 

If their intention was to have more people use WDDM 1.1, then it did work. I wouldn't want DX12 on Windows 7 so more people use Windows 7, I would want it on there so more people have DX12.

 

Looks like DirectX 12 is coming to the Xbox One:

https://twitter.com/DirectX12

The site they're using for the GDC announcement is also updated with the Xbox One logo
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/p/directx12.aspx

 

Why would Microsoft want to increase Vista's userbase at the time Windows 7 was released? That makes no sense

But porting WDDM 1.1 to Vista did give it a bigger userbase from day one. And it doesn't seem like it affected Windows 7's sales negatively either.

But why is Microsoft even tying DirectX to WDDM anyway? Is there really any big advantage in doing that compared to how OpenGL and Mantle do?

 

No, it didn't work either since Vista's market share started shrinking rapidly once Windows 7 was released. They shouldn't have even bothered with diverting these developer resources from Windows 7.

We have OS X, iOS, Android, Linux and now Windows all going the same route - if you want some major new feature, you have to get the latest version of the OS or a new device.

What do you mean "Why is Microsoft even tying?..." It's like asking "Why is Microsoft even tying Win32 to Windows?" or "Why is Microsoft even tying Direct3D to lightweight COM?" This is how Windows NT was architected back in 1992.

Direct3D 11 is a system graphics API for Windows NT 6.x (aka Windows Vista/7/8/8.1), a proprietary closed-source OS from Microsoft. This OS component has to work with different hardware, and in Windows NT 6.x, graphics components work with underlying hardware through display driver interface (DDI) implemented with user-mode and kernel-mode Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) and kernel-mode DirectX Graphics Infrastructure (DXGI) specifications.

Actually, this is how every hybrid kernel OS works.


If what you're asking is "why Windows is not like Linux", well, Windows is a closed-source hybrid/microkernel OS, as opposed to open-source monolithic kernel OS.

Microsoft wants to be in full control over Direct3D and its source code, as well as Windows in general. If Microsoft trusted full implementation of some component to each different vendor, they would essentially lose any control of its stability/performance and could not enhance/optimize it as they saw fit - unless they have taken full control over source code in the first place, which makes the entire point moot.

Also, most hardware vendors are very careful about revealing full implementation details of their recent products. Their Linux drivers are mostly close-sourced, and open-source alternatives are very limited in features and hardware support.


On the other hand, Microsoft is very serious about driver quality since the moment they realized how faulty 3rd-party drivers were causing most of the infamous "blue screen of death" crashes, giving bad experience to Windows users which they blamed on Microsoft. That's why they implemented WHQL testing and driver signing, which is mandatory on x64 editions of Windows.

However, for a kernel-mode device driver which has very simple low-level APIs and callbacks, you can automatically run a simple stress test to find common deficiences. This is not possible for a high-level OS component - you have to control the source code and perform full-scale debugging and testing. Which returns us to the whole issue of closed-source code from hardware vendors...

 

Porting WDDM 1.1 to Vista did give WDDM 1.1 and DX11 the combined Vista + Windows 7 userbase. Windows 7 did become a success, but every percent counts at release.

I did a quick google and found this. Vista slowly declined whereas Windows 7 got up, but their combined figures are important to someone that wanted to use DX11 at that time. In september 2010, WDDM 1.1 was supported on 30% of the systems, whereas it only would be supported on 17,64% of the systems it Vista didn't support it.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/opera...11&qpcustomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=140&qpnp=25

I don't think you understand what I (and I think the others too) really mean. And excuse me if I don't get your explanation.

Currently, DirectX is tied to WDDM, but why MUST future DirectX versions continue doing that?
What at least I'm trying to say is, if OpenGL doesn't need WDDM, and actually exposes even more features than DirectX currently does, what reason is there to be stuck with tying yet another new DirectX to WDDM? Other than business politics?

Just because DX11.x currently is tied to WDDM 1.x doesn't mean DX12 can't take an OpenGL approach, making it work on older Windows OSes as well

 

^Now THAT is a misinformed post.

Skaft do you even know what you are arguing about? You essentially cut and paste information and turn it into an argument, and I KNOW you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

EDIT: Grammar

 

Then do something useful and enlighten me instead of filling the thread with further crap

I simply don't get why DirectX 12 MUST be tied to WDDM 1.x.
OpenGL 4.x exposes the same features as DX11.x, yet it works on XP. What makes it so impossible to make DX12 take the same approach as OpenGL?

 

^See above post edit. For grammar lol.

EDIT: XP? For the sake of technology in general, we need to move on.

 

I still don't see anything more than a rant. If you're going to accuse someone else of being ignorant, at least do show you actually know your stuff. Otherwise you're just adding more crap.