RO2 with DX 11 and tesselation

[Moskeeto]

Can't there be a way to support both DX11 and DX9? Like some other games do. Or is it to hard?

Yeah, there are plenty games that support both DX9 and DX11.

 

[octiceps]

If other games that support multiple API's are any indication, DirextX 11 would likely make the performance worse, not better. RO2 isn't exactly the best performing game to start with; I'd hate to see performance drop even lower.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

It would almost be like launching a new game. You can just imagine the bugs it might introduce and the time to try to fix them.

My guess, it would be undertaking that would take time and then some.

 

[specta3]

I think the main flaw in the graphics engine of RO2 at the moment is the lighting. While it's some of the best I've seen in a UE3 game it's just not at that ultra-realistic level achieved by Battlefield 3. That's not to say BF3 is a better game etc etc etc, just that they had a team, several times the size of the entire RO2 team, working solely on lighting.

Sorry have to disagree with this , Played fps Mp for over 20 years and some of the in game lighting effects in RO2 are the best i have seen .Take a look through this thread and lets me know what other MP games create these kind of lighting effects and atmosphere

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=59138

And also BF3 has some major issues with lighting effects in my opinion , both good games in there own way but you cant compare them visually

 

[octiceps]

Sorry have to disagree with this , Played fps Mp for over 20 years and some of the in game lighting effects in RO2 are the best i have seen .Take a look through this thread and lets me know what other MP games create these kind of lighting effects and atmosphere

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=59138

And also BF3 has some major issues with lighting effects in my opinion , both good games in there own way but you cant compare them visually

What exactly about those screenshots looks so groundbreaking? If you're talking about the "light shafts" lens flare effect, well, that's nothing special and has been around for at least a decade. I remember the original Halo having something like that when you looked at the sun through the leaves of trees.

What looks good and what doesn't is a matter of opinion, but I don't think you can deny that the technology behind BF3 is more advanced than RO2. On the surface, Battlefield 3 may not appear to have a lot of flashy graphics and shiny textures like the ubiquitous tech demo, but it's all the small things added up which, in my opinion, makes it the most realistic-looking game to date. Since when do you see truly real-time reflections that change according to the surroundings or smoke and fire that cast shadows and look like they actually have depth and are not just a collection of flat polygons?

I've tweaked with the configuration files in RO2 and, as far as I can tell, the game still uses a pre-baked lighting model, which is fine and looks good in the game, but it's the same technique that's been used to light up games since the mid '90's. Light sources, geometry, and world shadows are all static and there is no dynamic destruction. Light and shadows just don't move, bounce around, transition, and behave as dynamically and realistically as they do in BF3. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a wall in RO2 and it's lit exactly the same way from one corner to the opposite corner or looked into a room that was essentially one color. In BF3, geometry actually has variable specularity according to it's position from light sources such as the sun and there is a gradient from light to dark like in real life.