64 Bit?? Improved optimization over Atilla?

[Jasheon]

I haven't kept up with Warhammer at all but I am starting to get more intrigued after watching that campaign map play through today, it looked incredible to say the least. So much more detail than anything I have ever seen before but as we know all the nice pretty things come with a hefty price lately with this engine and the recent games from CA.

Will Warhammer finally get the 64bit engine, dx12 and improved optimization?

Thanks.

[DavidtheDuke]

I haven't kept up with Warhammer at all but I am starting to get more intrigued after watching that campaign map play through today, it looked incredible to say the least. So much more detail than anything I have ever seen before but as we know all the nice pretty things come with a hefty price lately with this engine and the recent games from CA.

Will Warhammer finally get the 64bit engine, dx12 and improved optimization?

Thanks.

They haven't said this when asked and just went with a standard political-speak answer so I would assume none on all counts, and just as bad performance as Attila until proven otherwise by independent benchmarking.

[Markas]

Come on CA, a move to 64-bit for the next Engine please (Though I'm told the advantages are not actually that major).

[Jasheon]

What a pity, the engine is fine for the most part except for when big melee groups engage then its horrible lag no matter what beast of a PC you have. Been that way since ETW, now for some reason NTW did not have that issue, and Rome2 was really bad at launch but cleaned up a good bit once the EE came out.

I will just assume like Davidtheduke said and that it will be horrible at launch with slim chances of it being better after a few patches because its on the same engine as all the rest. I will not buy at launch for this reason.

I guess they cant implement 64bit into the engine, only reason they haven't done it yet. I just wish someone from CA would just break down and tell us instead of always shying away from the damn questions.

[Totalheadache]

I haven't kept up with Warhammer at all but I am starting to get more intrigued after watching that campaign map play through today, it looked incredible to say the least. So much more detail than anything I have ever seen before but as we know all the nice pretty things come with a hefty price lately with this engine and the recent games from CA.

Will Warhammer finally get the 64bit engine, dx12 and improved optimization?

Thanks.

Rem looks can be deceiving, the campaign map might look great but does the rest of it? And regards the engine disappointing no unless CA release a statement otherwise. Why am not buying full price from CA until a new engine...

I think that's fair, they put in the cash+effort I'll reward them.

[johnny_b_good]

Optimisation and CA, yeah...

[TheRomanRuler]

You can ask for optimization or just think like big companies and rob people so you can afford 10 000€ computer.

[lavez]

I have a feeling that TW:Warhammer trilogy, plus an unnamed historical TW game (WWI/II? Victoria? Medieval?) will be the last games with sub-DX12/Win10 compatibility, mostly for business reasons (trying not to alienate people who've upgraded recently, but before the DX12/Win10 buzz).

Considering Attila is 64-bit only to my understanding, they'll likely be 64-bit as well, might even feature some kind of light optimisation for Win10 users who own a DX12 graphic card. But again, light optimisation on game's launch or post-launch is not the same thing as writing the game specifically for the 64-bit, DX12/Win10 environment, both in business and development sense.

[SPARTAN VI]

Looking at the latest Steam HW survey, about 87% of Windows gamers are on a 64-bit OS. If we prune the data to only include currently SUPPORTED Windows versions (e.g. Win 7/8/10), then that number jumps slightly to 90%. To me, 64-bit would be a no-brainer.

On the other hand, DX12-only support would be problematic. I see 66.7% of Steam gamers have a DX12 compliant GPU+OS, so they'd cut out nearly a 3rd of their market if they drop DX11. I imagine it would cost significant resources to support both DX11 and DX12, but they've set a precedent for supporting two D3D APIs in the past (e.g. Shogun 2 w/ DX10 and DX11 support). Wouldn't hold my breath either way.

[HigoChumbo]

On the other hand, DX12-only support would be problematic. I see 66.7% of Steam gamers have a DX12 compliant GPU+OS, so they'd cut out nearly a 3rd of their market if they drop DX11.

That might change by the time the game is launched if the next gen gpus hit the market in time.

[DavidtheDuke]

That might change by the time the game is launched if the next gen gpus hit the market in time.

As long as it's backward compatible I don't see the problem if a 1/3 doesn't have the hardware. Maybe making things backward compatible is extremely hard, though.

[Gryffon]

Looking at the latest Steam HW survey, about 87% of Windows gamers are on a 64-bit OS. If we prune the data to only include currently SUPPORTED Windows versions (e.g. Win 7/8/10), then that number jumps slightly to 90%. To me, 64-bit would be a no-brainer.

On the other hand, DX12-only support would be problematic. I see 66.7% of Steam gamers have a DX12 compliant GPU+OS, so they'd cut out nearly a 3rd of their market if they drop DX11. I imagine it would cost significant resources to support both DX11 and DX12, but they've set a precedent for supporting two D3D APIs in the past (e.g. Shogun 2 w/ DX10 and DX11 support). Wouldn't hold my breath either way.

So you think it's not worth it to make the game better for 2/3 of the consumers, possibly more by the time the full trilogy is out ? It wouldn't change a thing for those who can't use dx12 as making a dx12 game work with dx11 is very easy. Is it not worth a bit of money and time considering how important it could be for the genre in general and the future historical total wars in particulat ?

It's just another disappointing decision among others, it really looks like they take 0 risk with this game and any feature that is deemed "too complicated" (dogs of war/mercenaries system, underground maps, cool building icons, dx12, navies, truly new game mechanics and not integrity 2.0 + same old raiding stances) gets the chop as the brits would say.

[SPARTAN VI]

So you think it's not worth it to make the game better for 2/3 of the consumers, possibly more by the time the full trilogy is out ? It wouldn't change a thing for those who can't use dx12 as making a dx12 game work with dx11 is very easy. Is it not worth a bit of money and time considering how important it could be for the genre in general and the future historical total wars in particulat ?

It's just another disappointing decision among others, it really looks like they take 0 risk with this game and any feature that is deemed "too complicated" (dogs of war/mercenaries system, underground maps, cool building icons, dx12, navies, truly new game mechanics and not integrity 2.0 + same old raiding stances) gets the chop as the brits would say.

As a consumer, I obviously want the 'better' option, which is DX12 compliance. From the business perspective, CA would probably prefer the path of least resistance and the largest install base. Of course, if they can have their cake and eat it too (DX12 and DX11 compliance at zero/little cost), why the not?

[Fuzzybeard]

To me Dx 12 is a no brainer. I would like CA to have full multicore and hyper threading support because with how big this game will be especially with the trilogy I would like to use the full power of my cpu instead of being limited to 1 or 2 cores.

[craziii]

They haven't said this when asked and just went with a standard political-speak answer so I would assume none on all counts, and just as bad performance as Attila until proven otherwise by independent benchmarking.

it is really bad the last 2 games were benchmarked to death and they never used more than 50% of the cpu cycles while giving us horrible fps. If there is an argument for a new engine, this is the most legit reason I can think of.

[Blastoise Groudon]

They should have used the same engine that STW2 was using.

[HigoChumbo]

They should have used the same engine that STW2 was using.

They have.

[alQamar]

They have.

Yes but they pushed it over its technical edge with graphical details, battle animations and shaders whilst removing DX 11 tesselation completely which they successfully introduced with Shogun 2.

[myaku]

Will Warhammer finally get the 64bit engine, dx12 and improved optimization?

Hahaha NO. As long as you keep buying it, they'll keep selling it.

Even worse, they seem to aim to make TOTAL WARHAMMER a trilogy (like the Starcraft 2 trilogy, Blizz sell THREE (3) games for $60 EACH) so this 32bit DX11 might be locked in for half a decade or more.

Think about it - all the units in upcoming expansions or other WARHAMMER tw must work with the first TWH, right? Pathing, physics, animations, graphics, AI. So how can they possibly upgrade the engine halfway through? We might be stuck with slightly better than Attila level for a long long time.

The first Starcraft 2 game ("Wings of Liberty") came out in 2010.

The last Starcraft 2 game ("Legacy of the Void") came out in 2015.

The engine didn't change, graphics didn't change, animations didn't change, most things are the same - just some new units, new maps, new campaign missions. It is very clear 2015 Starcraft is just like 2010 Starcraft.

I expect something very similar to happen with TOTAL WARHAMMER.

I have overclocked i7-2600k + GTX 980 Ti +16GB RAM. I get max 45fps @ 1080p at max settings in Attila. I have seen benchmarks of $3000 PCs not being able to get 60fps @ 1080p in Attila. This is ridiculous. My hardware is capable of so much more. Creative Assembly, YOU are LAZY programmers. This is the best computer guys England has to offer? Pathetic. Fix your . PC gamers know better. Why you make us mad, we are not consoles, we are not slaves, there are other ways of doing things.

[Revoran]

The first Starcraft 2 game ("Wings of Liberty") came out in 2010.

The last Starcraft 2 game ("Legacy of the Void") came out in 2015.

The engine didn't change, graphics didn't change, animations didn't change, most things are the same - just some new units, new maps, new campaign missions. It is very clear 2015 Starcraft is just like 2010 Starcraft.

Um, actually the graphics did change. Although they were only minor improvements - new postprocessing, higher res versions of textures etc.