what shader version can your pc handle?

i know i've seen a few people mention their beasts, but i've seen way too many game developers on this forum with graphics cards so old that they do arithmetic by counting their fingers (if a graphics card had fingers).

julz

ps: when choosing what shader model you'd want to support if you released a game right now, choose as if your game can only support one shader model. i want to see what people think the best balance between looking good and wide compatibility is.

shader model your pc supports: single choice
	4.0 - 4.1 (apparently there's a 4.1)
	3.0
	2.0 (includes a/b)
	1.1 (includes ps1.3/1.4)
Votes accepted starting: 02/04/08 23:30
View Results

shader model minimum requirements if you were to release a game right now: single choice
	1.1 (includes ps1.3/1.4)
	2.0 (includes a/b)
	3.0
	4.0 - 4.1 (apparently there's a 4.1)
Votes accepted starting: 02/04/08 23:30
View Results

i have a geforce 4800 ti, therefore only dx8 features.
originally i bought my pc with a geforce 6, but for some reason, it didn't handle my native monitor resolution properly (1400x900 px), so i bought a used gf4 on ebay.

nethertheless, i have a new monitor now, and am thinking of upgrading to a better card someday (but not soon)

I have an GF 8800 GT 512mb...its the best bang for buck I've ever had and Crysis runs very well

so far the results are more promising than i had thought -- 79% of voters can handle shader model 3.0 or higher.

and as i thought, the majority would support 2.0 -- 96% of our target audience would be able to play if our target audiences had a similar distribution of shader model support to what you guys do so far (wouldn't it be nice if that many casual gamers really did?).

i guess one thing i didn't consider is the fact that only people with crappy cards complain about shader support, so even though there are only a few absolute rubbish cards among you guys they tend to stick out like dogs' balls (no offense... this isn't meant negatively towards those with such bad cards).

julz

Well, I have a Radeon9200 card, which doesn't support many shaders, I believe it supports only PS&VS versions 1.4 or lower, don't know really. But I don't consider my card a crappy one, because I can run NFS:Carbon at the Maximum video settings!! But at the same time, I can't run the Winter Contest DEMO "Demo Scene"! I don't think that is a normal situation and I believe you guys are overrating the use of shaders in-game!

I'm talking about the fact that I can play NFS:Carbon, but I can't even run this small little Demo Scene! I have a feeling that a lot of the people here are starting to think that their game will rule, because they put shaders in it, but I do not think this is the way to go with 3DGS! Seeing that not so many games are actually fully developed using 3DGS, a developer should focus more on the gameplay of a game and other factors, instead of trying to get the shaders working. And, I think you will agree with me on this one, most of the developers here are indie! Indie games are not so judged by their graphics, but their gameplay. Also the indie market is smaller then the market for core-gamers, so a game needs to appeal to much more people, and if a 3DGS game doesn't work on my system because of shaders, but NFS:Carbon does, which one do you think I will choose to play?

- no. 3dgs is no indie scene. it's a beginner's and hobbyist lounge. i also made my first steps to 3d with 3dgs.
- shaders are not the way to go with 3dgs? only because it's been neglected or almost ignored up to today. but people start to expect more for their money.
- bad graphics and bad gameplay often come side by side, especially in the 3dgs sector.
- the gameplay argument is lame. e.g. tell me what crysis sets apart from quake beside graphics. a shooter remains a shooter. and if you are going to be commercial with your indie game, of course it will be judged with no mercy. a "made with 3dgs" stamp does not guarantee the pity of the jury. if not the opposite.
- a "market" for 3dgs games? if the acknex engine wouldn't support shaders, there would be not a single game left in the shelves in a very short time.

the only thing where i agree with you: beginners who try to implement normal mapping shaders and end up having a wet and slimy something on the screen at 3 fps and feel like a king.

I am talking about developers who are indie! Hobbyists and beginners are not developers! And I disagree, that if acknex wouldn't support shaders, there would be no more games on the shelf. Most of the games (perhaps even all of them) that are succesful and have been made with 3DGS do not use shaders, because most of those games fall under the category "casual". And when speaking about Crysis, again - if you make a casual game (which, I believe, for now is the best way to go with 3DGS) it will not be compared to Crysis!
But you don't seem to have understood my point at all! I'm done explaining my arguments, I already did that. I am just going to ask you a simple direct question - does this situation when my PC can run NFS:Carbon smoothly, but can't run a simple Demo Scene even with the lowest settings, seem normal to you???

PS - this is not intended as a bash to the Demo Scene project, just expressing my views about the use of shaders and their negative side!

there are games, that don't use any shader technique and still display bumb maps (like outcast from 1999 i think), or depth of field (silent hill 2 from 2001), and look great. it's a pity that you are forced to have an up to date graphics card in order to achieve this in gamestudio.... unless you are a very talented programmer and can implement these visual features otherwise... which i am not.

but of course it's not just 3dgs, most games nowadays use shaders for effects you could aswell have let your cpu compute, which eventually either leads people to buy a new card. or a ps3/xbox360 instead