Before ESO version 2.3.0, the Windows client featured three distinct rendering paths: Direct3D 9, Direct3D 11, and OpenGL 2.1. The latter shared a common code base with the Mac client, i.e. they used the same tech and tool chain, most likely a third-party, cross-platform library or SDK. We all know that the first rendering path (D3D9) was dropped in order to prepare for DirectX 12 in the future, so that two DirectX rendering paths -- which will have to be maintained separately, in both 32- and 64-bit code branches -- will remain on the Windows client. This makes sense from a economy of code maintenance point of view.Billtheman wrote: »Molly can you just answer one question yes or no. Are you forcing DX11? I think if you check you will find that you are forcing DX11 so that OPENGL cannot work because only DX11 can work.
It is just my educated guess, concluded from my own observations, tidbits of "green" information, and decades worth of experience related to software development. Please do not take it as official canon, because it isn't. As a pure conjecture, it might even be far from the truth.NerfPlease wrote: »^ this answer must be from ZOS team
@ZOS_MollyH,ZOS_MollyH wrote: »OpenGL used in Windows can use up twice the memory as using DX11, which is likely why it's not working. On OSX, OpenGL is a requirement as well.
Since OpenGL is a cross-platform API, such constraints would've been self-imposed by ZOS. One does not simply cut development costs by refusing to write portable code. Withdrawal of OpenGL renderer from the Windows client was deliberate. And apparently it affected not only us Linux free-loaders.KhajitFurTrader wrote: »Now that the Mac client features a brand new OpenGL 4.1 rendering path, the assumption can be made that this was a Mac-only development, using code and tech specific to OS X, and supporting 64-bit only. Why?
- The 32-bit client on Mac was dropped completely, there is no longer a 32-bit option on OS X.
- There is no fallback option to OGL 2.1 at all in the new Mac 64-bit client.
- From 1.) and 2.) it can be concluded that the old OGL 2.1 tech could support 32-bit only.
This argument is moot when D3D11 doesn't work at all. Same for the argument about higher memory requirements.KhajitFurTrader wrote: »b) OpenGL was ever and continues to be poorly handled on Windows by the GPU manufacturers (i.e., DirectX will always be better optimized in drivers, because that's where the benchmarks count)
Well, of course it would be, or else the option to use OpenGL on Windows would still exist in one form or another, wouldn't it? I'm not privy to their internal deliberations and can only speculate on their reasoning, which I said.Withdrawal of OpenGL renderer from the Windows client was deliberate.
Huh? I've read numerous reports from Windows users to the contrary.This argument is moot when D3D11 doesn't work at all.
Bethesda Game Studios has been using their in-house tool chain for developing their games for a long time -- it grew and expanded together with every new game of the Elder Scrolls and Fallout single-player game series at least since Morrowind/Fallout 3. This isn't something you abandon and replace with something else on a whim. Games take long enough to develop anyway, trying to cram new/other tech than the tried an proven tools (and the compile targets they support) into the process would make it even longer. New tech only comes to new games when the tool chain has been updated to support it.Skyrim used an old Game engine, solid, but still felt aged. And i heard that engine was reused for Fall Out 4 (seriously?)
Now? It's been 7 months by now...And now this?