World of Warcraft Engine Updated to Support DX12, Adds 21:9 Cinematic Rendering

[Vya Domus]

The lesson is... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Yeah if green doesn't do so good , don't "fix it".

 

[Fluffmeister]

Does better than reds Dx12, maybe that needs fixing?

 

[bug]

The lesson is... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm pretty sure this was either done so Blizzard devs can get a little experience with DX12 or in preparation for something bigger. As low as DX12 adoption is, there will come a day where DX11 support will be dropped...

 

[Xzibit]

I'm pretty sure this was either done so Blizzard devs can get a little experience with DX12 or in preparation for something bigger. As low as DX12 adoption is, there will come a day where DX11 support will be dropped...

Probably

The new game version comes with Nvidia Aftermath imbedded

Aftermath is a compact, C++ library aimed at Microsoft Windows based developers, enabling post-mortem GPU crash analysis on NVIDIA GeForce based GPUs.

Upon installation in your game root directory you get (GFSDK_Aftermath_Lib.x64.dll)

Guess they are still debugging

 

[Caring1]

Probably

The new game version comes with Nvidia Aftermath imbedded



Upon installation in your game root directory you get (GFSDK_Aftermath_Lib.x64.dll)

Guess they are still debugging

So more software that wants to phone home?

 

[bug]

So more software that wants to phone home?

It's the only reliable way to get meaningful stats if you want to prioritize your work. Hell, even free Linux software has built-in bug reporting these days. It doesn't submit anything automatically, but it's there.

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

Those are the screenshots I provide because they show a sense of scale that few other games have. Its a different style of game and for its 'lesser' graphics it offers some unique stuff in return. This has nothing to do with Ubisoft showing off Watch Dogs on an E3 with all sorts of advanced processing and effects in it, and then fails to put them in the game AND manages to release that game with abysmal performance.

Nobody contests it is an old engine and looks 'dated'. But what you get today is a huge step forward from what it used to be. Not many developers go to these lengths to improve an engine so fundamentally. And its not just the engine in a technical sense, which provides the performance leaps, but the addition and upgrades of particle effects and a pass for virtually ALL of the game's skills and spells, animations, etc etc etc.

And the stupid thing is, when you play this game (I've already quit again) it is actually much of the same vibe it always used to have. This game simply has soul and some extremely well crafted mechanics and the graphics + engine support that perfectly. Thát is why Blizzard games remain popular. They are like you say specific in their art direction and that goes much, much further than the # of polygons or texture res.

'Millions will buy it'... yes but not because of DX12. If you think that is a selling point for ANY game you've lost the plot. Your comment about looks and 'being so CPU taxing' also seems a bit weird. Graphics lean on GPU, and this game has more going on than GTA V at times to stress the CPU.

I'm pretty sure the CPU is still number-crunching the spell-effects of the player, the boss, and some low-level version of the surrounding players doing the same thing. GPU will render the image, but whatever low-seed, low level of detail, and position, that's still a cpu workload. Back in garrosh 25man, you'd get your own high level effects +24 other players on high level detail + the boss + the trash + a big ball of death with fire = 120 fps average drop to 32 fps on the most enthusiast setup and max stats. After Garrosh aka Warlords of Fails, Blizzard heard the cries of all the low-level computer setup-players, and made some changes. They made it where your fps wouldn't take a massive hit while 24 to 39 other players casting their CDs around you. The level of detail of other players' spell-effects in raids that wouldn't drop your FPS. I'm pretty sure D3D12 made life a little better for the those low-level computer setup-players to see better FPS with low-end GPUs while casting "pew-pews" with 39 other noobs. When this majority of the WoW subscription base is happy, they play WoW more, and pay their subscription for a longer duration of time because at the core, WoW is a business. This also means that if WoW is doing better, and they are drawing a bigger crowd, the majority of the base of players have low-end computer, and blizzards need to make changes to accommodate them in exchange for more $$$. This is probably why they implemented D3D12. If it means more players with crap-tastic computers will play and pay, Blizzard-Activation will implement. Investments FTW.

 

[Xzibit]

I'm pretty sure the CPU is still number-crunching the spell-effects of the player, the boss, and some low-level version of the surrounding players doing the same thing. GPU will render the image, but whatever low-seed, low level of detail, and position, that's still a cpu workload. Back in garrosh 25man, you'd get your own high level effects +24 other players on high level detail + the boss + the trash + a big ball of death with fire = 120 fps average drop to 32 fps on the most enthusiast setup and max stats. After Garrosh aka Warlords of Fails, Blizzard heard the cries of all the low-level computer setup-players, and made some changes. They made it where your fps wouldn't take a massive hit while 24 to 39 other players casting their CDs around you. The level of detail of other players' spell-effects in raids that wouldn't drop your FPS. I'm pretty sure D3D12 made life a little better for the those low-level computer setup-players to see better FPS with low-end GPUs while casting "pew-pews" with 39 other noobs. When this majority of the WoW subscription base is happy, they play WoW more, and pay their subscription for a longer duration of time because at the core, WoW is a business. This also means that if WoW is doing better, and they are drawing a bigger crowd, the majority of the base of players have low-end computer, and blizzards need to make changes to accommodate them in exchange for more $$$. This is probably why they implemented D3D12. If it means more players with crap-tastic computers will play and pay, Blizzard-Activation will implement. Investments FTW.

Doesn't make sense. If that was Blizzards intent then why get rid of DX9 ? Surely they would be able to keep people with far less powerful systems around.

DX12 is Win10 only so your talking about a higher or upgrading entry level player base. The recommended system for WoD is lower then the minimal for BfA so the whole listening to them doesnt pan out if they are now excluded and need an upgrade.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm pretty sure the CPU is still number-crunching the spell-effects of the player, the boss, and some low-level version of the surrounding players doing the same thing. GPU will render the image, but whatever low-seed, low level of detail, and position, that's still a cpu workload. Back in garrosh 25man, you'd get your own high level effects +24 other players on high level detail + the boss + the trash + a big ball of death with fire = 120 fps average drop to 32 fps on the most enthusiast setup and max stats. After Garrosh aka Warlords of Fails, Blizzard heard the cries of all the low-level computer setup-players, and made some changes. They made it where your fps wouldn't take a massive hit while 24 to 39 other players casting their CDs around you. The level of detail of other players' spell-effects in raids that wouldn't drop your FPS. I'm pretty sure D3D12 made life a little better for the those low-level computer setup-players to see better FPS with low-end GPUs while casting "pew-pews" with 39 other noobs. When this majority of the WoW subscription base is happy, they play WoW more, and pay their subscription for a longer duration of time because at the core, WoW is a business. This also means that if WoW is doing better, and they are drawing a bigger crowd, the majority of the base of players have low-end computer, and blizzards need to make changes to accommodate them in exchange for more $$$. This is probably why they implemented D3D12. If it means more players with crap-tastic computers will play and pay, Blizzard-Activation will implement. Investments FTW.

The main reason the FPS completely tanks in large raids is not only due to high CPU load but in great part due to server load in a single instance. I doubt that will ever go away. For comparison: look at EVE Online: it has a time dilation feature where in large scale conflicts with lots of ships, the actual time is slowed down so everything happens in super slow-mo. This mechanic exists solely to keep the game playable and the server alive. D3D12 won't change any of that - its not netcode.

Implementing D3D12 for low-end systems also makes little sense. A low end system of today is already as fast or faster than a midrange system of 2013. so it can happily run the game regardless of API. Almost all CPUs are fast enough to run WoW at a decent framerate, and an IGP is enough to play it on Low settings.

Personally I think D3D12 implementation is there simply because this is Blizzard and this company keeps its live games up to date no matter what and there is a performance leap for ALL systems due to better uses of multi core and dividing draw calls. As is confirmed below.

It also mirrors my experience with ingame settings: when you put environment detail and view distance sliders beyond 7, FPS starts tanking especially in places with lots of foliage and assets.

Blizzard owns a few very valuable franchises and IP and takes very good care of it, extracting maximum profit and creating budget for projects such as these. Its a win-win scenario above all, because everything they develop can be used in a later or different iteration. Recent example: Activision knocking on the door to use the Blizzard launcher. Simply because its better and further ahead than anything Activision would come up with. You'd think a big company like Activision would want full control over its own game store and service instead of using the underdog in the cooperation. There is a big Blizzard logo staring at you before you start up Destiny or CoD. Not Activision-Blizzard. That says a lot.

I mean look at Starcraft 1, the recent remaster and making a version free to play. This company simply has the best stance on gaming and for gamers you can find in the industry, and one of the best track records at that too. There are countless of these win-win examples to produce. That mindshare and brand image is extremely valuable in itself.

 

[Tartaros]

I'm pretty sure this was either done so Blizzard devs can get a little experience with DX12 or in preparation for something bigger. As low as DX12 adoption is, there will come a day where DX11 support will be dropped...

DX11 was bad when they implemented it back in Cataclysm and they fixed it properly in next patches and Pandaria, and dropped OpenGl along the way. Now they are starting with DX12 and dropped DX9, we can expect things will be sorted out between this expansion and the next one.

Doesn't make sense. If that was Blizzards intent then why get rid of DX9 ? Surely they would be able to keep people with far less powerful systems around.

DX12 is Win10 only so your talking about a higher or upgrading entry level player base. The recommended system for WoD is lower then the minimal for BfA so the whole listening to them doesnt pan out if they are now excluded and need an upgrade.

No one uses XP and few people use 7 or 8. Even intel's gpu can use DX11. Everyone has a DX11 compatible gpu in their computers, this isn't 2013. Everyone plays on the same field and the most basic 300€ laptop can run this game, why would they do anything for a dead api?

 

[Octopuss]

few people use 7 or 8

You're funny, you know that?

 

[StrayKAT]

It doesn't look much different in the OP's screenshot, but it never really had to, I guess. Blizzard are great with just distinctive art styles (much like Nintendo) that their games never truly age.

 

[Tartaros]

You're funny, you know that?

I meant fewer. My bad.

 

[dirtyferret]

just an FYI; extremetech did a basic performance check on the new DX 12 patch vs DX 11, their conclusion is below

But at least in WoW, for now, the message seems clear. If you have a higher-end CPU and reasonably new GPU, DirectX 11 is the better API.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/273923-benchmarking-world-of-warcrafts-directx-12-support

 

[Jeffredo]

All I know is it broke a butter-smooth SLI experience and I'm pissed. Add to the the "stat squish" that made my formerly god-like character feel as weak and undergeared as he did at the beginning of Warlords of Draenor four years ago and they've done their best to suck the fun out of the game. I don't think I'll buy Battle for Azeroth at this point.