Engine upgrade and DX12 coming to ETS2 and ATS!

[Tomsun]

I asumme that also game studios, and the game platforms (e.g. Steam) also collect these data and probably sell them, so what the difference, if MS, Aplle, Sony, epic, Blizzard, steam, or even SCS sell these data. Or are you on the safe side if using SCS without Steam and without MS, thats guaranteed NO DATA are spread. I think even your ISP will collect and distribute data.
Yes you get a valid point thats very disputable, but i think you can really avoid that by just playing analog games.
if playing offline, not connected to the Internet, you can be probably safe, but the multigamer experience is one of the exciting new possibilities.
I try e.g. to avoid any cloud services as far its possible. But i'm connected to the world by various channels which i can't avoid. Taxes, insurance, data of my car collected every 2 years during HU (MOT), Smartphone. More important is the open discussion what data are collected. And parts of the data are imho still valuable for the community e.g. for planning infrastructure. I see more problems in the advance of installing cameras anywhere combined with face recognition.

[Some newbie driver]

We can guess those companies could gather that info of course. That doesn't made any difference of what I said. We can accept that info being taken or not accept it; we can accept it for some companies or not for others (he didn't accept it for M$ hence his choices). What we must stop is saying "it's not relevant info so I don't care". Just because we aren't able to immediately identify any value on it doesn't mean that's something we should not care.

It's the same mindset of people telling me "I don't care if I catch a virus because I've nothing on my computer worthy of being stolen". Until they told them their computer could be used as a third-party for nefarious activities: credit card fraud, distribution of illegal contents (child pornography for example), as middleman to attack other systems... People don't understand that kind of risk, think only in what they can immediately think about from their limited knowledge perspective and keep on. People should be better informed. And they they would probably keep using the same devices and software, because they consider the trade-off is fair for them. But they should not base those decisions on the false sensation "that info has no value so I don't care".

You say you are worried by face recognition. But the fact you are recognized that way is just half of the problem. The other half is that face will be paired on the same system with a profile of "potential behavior" mined out of your personal data analysis. That profile could have several impacts depending on how's using the recognition system. So, again, we should start to stop saying to others "that data is worthless, I don't care". Do what we want on our personal lives, but we should stop spreading that mindset. It's wrong and it's dangerous.

Regards

PS: And to try to return to the topic, we've gone off-topic too much; just remember that SCS had not so much ago (don't checked it now) job offers stating they require programmers experienced with DX12 and programmers experienced with Vulkan. So, it's clear they have been exploring both options. Whatever, they will not add support for that on the current mostly-mono-core state of the engine. It would be a waste IMHO. The day they make the final big change towards multi-core it will probably arrive on the hand of those new API. After all, such a change is probably forcing them to rewrite most of the engine code; what a better moment to port it to a different API?

[Tomsun]

yes this is my hope DX12 and Vulkan, so you have free choice of your eco-system (does the FFB run well on linux?).

The other part of the discussionwas imho, is the change towards DX12 dangerous in term loosimg LOTS of players not beeing able to switch towards DX12 (2nd world, 3rd world community). IMHO we don't loose them of going towards DX12, but in going into more and more detailed scenenary, but thats what the majority of the gamers want (1440p,2160p, High details, almost photo realistic). I assume even most of the players in 2nd or 3rd world have already hardware capable of DX12 (e.g. ivybridge, sandy bridge i'm not shure), the problem ist not capable DX12, the problem is enough CPU/GPU Power, and i think DX12 is more efficient than DX11 especially with multithreading.
The are probably not running 16C/32 T but i assume at least Core2Duo or AthlonXP, so they would benefit also. And the probably existing group running a Single Core Single Thread system, not able to effort the upgrade to 2 core/ 4 Thread system (e.g. Ivy based, or Athlon XP based) can't also effort DLCs, so no turnaround for SCS which is vital for SCS (Probably giving away free 18WOS is the better choice (i had it on the last Single Core Single Thread AMD, i think with an ELSA Winner 1000)

[xXCARL1992Xx]

there wont be player loose, when DX12 comes DX11 will stay until OpenGL is terminated from the code, it wouldnt do SCS any good to replace DX11 and leave everybody not with Windows 10/11 on OpenGL

[Berniyh]

yes this is my hope DX12 and Vulkan, so you have free choice of your eco-system (does the FFB run well on linux?).

There actually has been an FFB plugin for Linux specifically that creates better FFB than stock.
Not sure how it compares to the newly FFB that came with the last update, but before that it was the better option.

The other part of the discussionwas imho, is the change towards DX12 dangerous in term loosimg LOTS of players not beeing able to switch towards DX12 (2nd world, 3rd world community). IMHO we don't loose them of going towards DX12, but in going into more and more detailed scenenary, but thats what the majority of the gamers want (1440p,2160p,

Actually, the minimum requirements on steam lists a Gefore 450-class card. All of those (and obviously the following) support DX12.

For AMD, cards since the 7000 series released in 2012 support DX12 and Vulkan, so more than 10 years now and shortly released after ETS2.
A Vulkan port also should run on Win 7.
Not sure though if I ever ran a game with Vulkan support on Win 7.
On Linux most of the Windows games run on Vulkan nowadays through DXVK.
Which is pretty awesome, because it also allows you to apply some post processing filters via vkBasalt to improve the look of games.
(very similar to Reshade on Windows, if you know that)
See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlaGkbTRi8

[RunnyPilot]

Just saying here, DX12 could actually make the game perform much better, especially for PC's like mine (Core i5-4570 and GTX 1660) if implemented right. Let me explain.

Dying Light 2 for me was pretty poor performing on DX11, getting around 50 to 40 FPS, even on the lowest settings. So I decided to switch to DX12, even though I was told to avoid it.

Suddenly, I'm at a solid smooth 60FPS, with a few stutters here and there that I can just ignore. This is on Maximum settings.

I did notice that my GPU was going 60 to 80% on DX11. Switching to DX12 makes it go 100% most of the time, as it should.

So, IF implemented right, old PC's like mine will really benefit from DX12, especially when new graphics get implemented.

Of course, let's not leave out Vulkan, which is HUGE compared to OpenGL. That will also benefit a LOT of people.

I'm hoping SCS Software implements this right.

[Some newbie driver]

What will give a new life to old more humble computers is the change to multi core support the day they will be able to do it. DX12 can improve a lot the performance when coded well because it can streamline 3D info from several parallel cores to the GPU at the same time. It means, the part of the game code that controls the 3D scenario can be executed in multiple cores at the same time and all of them keep feeding the GPU in a synchronous way. One of the main strengths of Vulkan is also the same.

Obviously, that cannot be done if the base code of the game runs mostly on mono-core like actually happens with SCS games. That's why I always said that's pointless the change to DX12 and/or Vulkan in the current state of the game code. Either they first move to multi-core and then they change to those other graphic API or they will make both changes at the same time.

Regards

[skyking_eam]

If someone is interested, here is a video of a guy how coded a basic FSR 2.0 implementation in his game engine in less than 90 Minutes!:

Results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyMal6RY7M&t=4706s


Full Video:

Watch on YouTube

[SabR]

Obviously, that cannot be done if the base code of the game runs mostly on mono-core like actually happens with SCS games. That's why I always said that's pointless the change to DX12 and/or Vulkan in the current state of the game code. Either they first move to multi-core and then they change to those other graphic API or they will make both changes at the same time.

We heard about the move to DX12 from Pavel in past streams but did we ever hear about multi-core support?

Multi-core is not something easy to implement as I've gathered it from you & other people here in the past & if what you've mentioned is true, i.e. both DX12 & multi-core support should come together or multi-core first to reap the full benefits, I now doubt DX12 implementation would go deeper in to the 2023s/24s.

Or, SCS would implement DX12 first, get some gameplay features rolling while still working on the multi-core in the backend & then connect the dots?

[Some newbie driver]

Yes, port a mono-core software to multi-core isn't easy at all. I don't mean SCS should had to search for specific super programmers; they have demonstrated capacity more than enough. What I mean with "it's not easy" is that it's a task that requires a LOT of planing in advance and a LOT of work once decided how to make it.

In fact, SCS games are already a bit multi-core. FMOD library works on multi-core (so, once the main core instructs it what sound has to play, all the FMOD control is made on a different core). That's why blinkers sounds doesn't "freeeze" anymore if the rest of the game does, like it happened with the old sound system. SCS also moved secondary background tasks to a different core (like the auto-save, reason why it doesn't "freeze" the game anymore; or the company drivers control). But all those things doesn't affect the direct game play that it's still on a big chunk of code that must be executed on the same core (all the control of our inputs, all the graphics, all the physics, all the AI control...). So, when we talk about change to multi-core, we really talk about that main part of the game that actually has to run in single core.

Said so, neither Vulkan or DX12 demand multi-core support to be used. But then you aren't capable of squeeze a LOT of their potential. It's like purchase an sports car to always be driving on the city at 50km/h. Pointless unless you like to throw money just for bragging. So indeed, SCS could implement them before the multi-core support. But to include those API into the code isn't just a question of copy/paste something, delete some previous code and voilà. Any graphic API change requires a lot of work in the code, DX9 to DX11 port already was a lot of (necessary) work. IMHO they aren't going to do that amount of work to achieve just a fraction of what they could had and then start again for the multi-core port.

That's why I said IMHO they are going to do the multi-core first and get it ready for those new API later or both things at the same time. From my limited point of view, seems to be the most logical path. Also because the graphics isn't the biggest problem of this game anymore. Was it pre-DX11 change, they had improved a lot in that part in past few years. While the biggest problem now is their performance and new features being ballasted by the mono-core limit.

Why then Pavel talked about DX12 and not about multi-core. Because DX12 is an specific feature, you can name it and it's known what you mean and (more or less) what to expect. Also because it was public they were hiring people with expertise on that, so the info was already there. Multi-core is just an architecture, by itself means little. Is what they do later with the multi-core capabilities they unleashed what will determinate how the game evolves. If he just mentions multi-core and nothing else, people is going to start to take for sure lots of things (with the added backlash later when they realize those where just their fantasies). If he mentions specific things, he could be talking about things too vague or too away in time to be added, causing frustration again. Better not to say too much, if we want we can speculate as we are doing but they said nothing.

Regards