Why Cant Final fantasy 11 get the same treatment?

[Atomic_Skull]

Did you know that the POL client actually uses D3D9? You didn't? What a surprise... I wonder what else you don't know...

No it doesn't, it uses D3D8.DLL

How does an OS that uses "D3D 10/11" cause "graphical issues" for "D3D 8" games but not "D3D 9" games. Wouldn't they show up in D3D 9 games as well?

Short version. D3D8 emulation in Windows Vista and Windows 7 is a wrapper that wraps to another wrapper.

D3D8.DLL -> D3D9.DLL -> D3D10.DLL

D3D8.DLL and D3D9.DLL are both wrappers. D3D8.DLL converts D3D8 pixel and vertex shaders (Shader Model 1.0) into Shader Model 2.0 and converts D3D8 calls into D3D9 calls. But D3D9.DLL is also a wrapper that converts D3D9 calls into D3D10.

Another problem is that Microsoft, ATI and Nvidia really don't care about D3D8 because nobody uses it anymore. However D3D9 is still widely used for current games as well as by Windows Aero.

And what "graphical issues" are you referring too?

In Windows Vista and Windows 7 textures will flicker under certain conditions. The easiest texture glitch to spot is the feathers on the wings of Roc type monsters.

[Aselin]

No it doesn't, it uses D3D8.DLL

Short version. D3D8 emulation in Windows Vista and Windows 7 is a wrapper that wraps to another wrapper.

D3D8.DLL -> D3D9.DLL -> D3D10.DLL

D3D8.DLL and D3D9.DLL are both wrappers. D3D8.DLL converts D3D8 pixel and vertex shaders (Shader Model 1.0) into Shader Model 2.0 and converts D3D8 calls into D3D9 calls. But D3D9.DLL is also a wrapper that converts D3D9 calls into D3D10.

Another problem is that Microsoft, ATI and Nvidia really don't care about D3D8 because nobody uses it anymore. However D3D9 is still widely used for current games as well as by Windows Aero.

In Windows Vista and Windows 7 textures will flicker under certain conditions. The easiest texture glitch to spot is the feathers on the wings of Roc type monsters.

Thank you for a better explanation.

The texture flickering is very specific and happens on certain conditions. Some may have the issue, others will not.

Regardless of driver versions, with my Radeon 5770 and Win 7 x64, texture tends to flicker on certain pieces of armor or texture overlaps and flickers in certain tunnels like Ranguemont Pass.

(You will notice a section of the tunnel where lighter colored wall texture overlaps a darker colored texture and flicker. The darker colored texture is used to give the impression of shadows since the game doesn't use realistic lighting and shadow. Only on characters and monsters is there any semblance of semi-realistic lighting and shadow. You will still encounter an issue where the shadow doesn't neatly match your character. For example, if you sit down with a staff attached on your back, regardless of the light source, the shadow doesn't neatly match and seems off.)

A friend with an Nvidia 285 GTX, regardless of driver versions and Win 7 x64, experiences the same issue.

Another friend with a Radeon 6870, same issue again. This disappears nearly completely once he created a separate partition for Windows XP (DX9) and ran FFXI in it. I can upload the three videos I've recorded off his computer if you want to see the texture flickering.

I just ignore it but when I see it in-game, I do notice it.

Also, regarding DirectX:

"Direct3D 9: emulates Direct3D 9 behavior as it was on Windows XP."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee417756.aspx

DX9 is emulated in Vista and Windows 7. Anything running on older DX versions are run through DX9. If you have played with emulators such as EPSXE (Playstation emulator) or PCSX2 (Playstation 2) or even Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii), then you will know that emulation is not perfect.

Even in virtualized computing, it isn't exactly perfect but it's better than emulation when you want to virtualize a computer. Try out Virtualbox or download VMWare Player and you will see that hardware virtualization is better than emulation. If you want to try something else to emulate, look to Apple IIe emulators. It isn't perfect, but it's close to the real thing.

But, it's simply best to know that DirectX 9 and anything that relies on it is emulated in Vista, 7, and higher. Only DirectX 10 and higher are hardware accelerated. DirectX 9Ex is not since that is used for Aero in Vista/7.

"To ensure full compatibility with older versions of Windows, some quirks of the old driver model must be emulated even with the new Windows Vista display driver model. For example, when a full-screen application loses focus, it must assume it has lost all the resources in video memory (VRAM) and reload those it created as unmanaged resources even though the new driver model handles the resources transparently without evicting them from the device context."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee417756.aspx

(That sounds a lot like the fullscreen error to me in FFXI.)

Even MSDN states the following:

"Recommendations
Consider the following recommendations when selecting an API for your graphical application:

Use Direct3D 9 if your application must support Windows XP or an earlier version of Windows."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee417756.aspx

I've been reading about this stuff for years since Vista was released. I'm more of a web and database programmer than a C/C++ programmer, but I still read about it. A good example: Before MSDN Library removed DirectX 8 pages on their website, I found out that DirectX 8 does indeed allow windowed mode in the game. Yet, at that time, Square-Enix/people behind FFXI stated themselves that windowed mode is not possible for FFXI. If it still exists on the internet, you can find this statement by them. It was during Fanfest or an interview when it was requested or asked to be implemented and the panel stating it was not possible.

Is there anything else they don't know?

And, yes, some parts of DirectX get deprecated when newer versions are released or updated. DirectX 8 introduced programmable vertex and pixel shaders. DX9 was high level shader language. By DX10, we got unified and geometry shaders. Programmable vertex/pixel shaders were changed into unified shaders. Certain things such as "capability bits," or caps, and retained mode in older versions of DirectX were removed completely in newer versions of DirectX. DirectSound was removed completely so in other words no more hardware accelerated sound. DirectInput has not been updated since DirectX8 and has since been deprecated in favor of XInput. However, games must be programmed with XInput to be compatible with it.

Also, regarding DirectInput: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectInput

I'll be more than happy to let you talk to my friend who plays FFXI with an Xbox 360 controller. He has to resort to third party software and drivers for FFXI Config to recognize the rumble feature and triggers. FFXI Config does not recognize the trigger buttons, LT and RT, on the controller. DirectInput, more specifically DirectInput8, has not been revised since DirectX 8. Programmers must also use XInput instead of DirectInput in regards to Xbox 360 controllers. XInput only supports so-called "next generation" controllers such as the 360 controller. If the application still uses DirectInput to handle calls to-from the a controller, and the controller happens to be a 360 controller, the following issues will happen: (Again, restating what I already mentioned.)

• the left and right triggers will act as a single axis representing the signed difference between the triggers, not as independent analog axes
• vibration effects will not operate
• querying for headset devices will not operate

If you have a non-Xbox 360 controller, this is not an issue. It's why that $20 Logitech controller was recommended for FFXI some years ago. Yet, it's a rather crappy controller. (I know this from personal experience, and my friend's too.)

I can give more explanation as to why XInput would be incompatible with DirectInput, but you have to realize that both have functions and calls not available in the other. If something is supported in XInput, then it is probably not supported in DirectInput, and vice-versa. Again, that list of issues for 360 controllers in DirectInput applications is a good indication of that.

All of these issues I mentioned above can be eliminated almost completely by switching the graphics engine and underlying code to DirectX 9. If it worked for EVE Online, WoW and EQ II, which both continuously get updates and fixes to the game, then it should work for FFXI. However, the only difference here is that both games were not ports of a console version.

(By the way, another older game that doesn't run well on Windows 7 is Sim City 3000 and Sim City 4. For Sim City 4, you have to enable software rendering for the graphics not to glitch up. However, issues like disappearing highways or improper shadows and glitched clouds still occur.)

How would removing people trying to "fix" a game you claim is "broken" to go work on a ten year old game many people say works pretty well but is reaching the end of it's development lifespan help anyone? Besides you at least.

Also, PS2 limitation is not something derived by players.

FFXI is not at the end of its lifespan. As has been stated many times before, as long as there are players in this game, SE will continue to develop content for it and support it.

Is EQ and EQ II dead? Guild Wars? EVE Online? WoW even? All those games started near, before, or around FFXI's release. Yet, they are still supported by their respective developers and its playerbase.

If FFXI was near the end of its lifespan, then we would have heard something from Square-Enix in that regard. Star Wars Galaxy ring a bell? That game was shutdown by Sony Online Entertainment. I believe Vanguard Online is another MMO that has been shutdown as well or will be soon. Many free-to-play games who don't succeed in the crowded F2P MMO market have been shutdown.

Regardless, SE continues to give us updates to FFXI and re-hashed seasonal events with slightly new prizes. Why? There are still players who pay and play this game. Why? Friends maybe? Because other MMOs do not interest them at the moment? Or, too much time has been invested that they don't want to see it go to waste? It can be a multitude of reasons.

However, should it be fair to the playerbase who still play that FFXI get neglected? No.

If the game wasn't broken, then ask yourself why do the ones who play on the PS2 still crash in certain areas like Garden of Ru'hmet? Why do they crash when around certain NPCs like Joachim in Jeuno? Why are there disc read errors and black screen freezes for the game? I can give you a list of players on my Friend List who play on the PS2 and have experienced one or all of those issues. Many of these issues have been in the game for many years already.

The limiting factor on zone creation wasn't really hard drive space to begin with, but rather the zone index which had a "Maximum" number of zones that could be added to the game. Reskinned zones are still separate zones on that index, which is the crux of what people freak out about when they hear "PS2 is going to limit the number of zones we can have". A lot of reskinned zones have new/different models as well, eg the Abyssea and Shadowreign areas.

Even if they filled up the index though, it's easy enough to just add a bit, adjust zone IDs, and have a larger capacity. That's what I was driving at.

I know about the "index." It has been mentioned before on another forum. Some speculated a maximum of 256 zone IDs from 0 to 255. Another person debunked that stating that the game can support more zones. I still think it's a maximum of 256. The upcoming one or two new areas being added in an upcoming update supposedly are the last ones that can be added. Again, someone else stated that there can be more zones added after that.

Why then do we get recycled zones but not completely new ones if hard drive space isn't an issue? Sure, Abyssea-La Theine is different from La Theine, and Dynamis-Qufim is different from Qufim. Recycled zone is still recycled zone.

If there wasn't a PS2 limitation, then we wouldn't have space limitations. The higher memory capacities of the PC and PS3 already allow FF14 to access larger amounts of inventory space. So, it does indicate there is a certain level of PS2 limitation for FFXI. You can only do so much with 32 MB of RAM without resorting to programming tricks or workarounds to get a game to work with it.

Sure, it costs money and a certain amount of people to make expansions for the game. Don't you think it's a bit long overdue for that by now? I'm sure the FFXI players deserve something for playing this long. SOE, CCP, and Blizzard haven't stopped developing for their respective MMOs, why should Square-Enix stop now when there are still a sizable amount of players still playing? The game isn't dead yet. And, I know of players who came back to XI from WoW, Aion, Rift, and even FFXIV. So, there has to be a reason why the game continues to get players even if they are older players.

Square-Enix should at the very least continue to support the game regardless if it's working on FFXIV and a third MMO. It shouldn't just ignore them with small updates here and there.

And, compared to FFXIV, the players of FFXI have been paying customers far longer than the players of FFXIV have. The players of FFXI deserve something too in return for their continued support. Not just FFXIV.

[Zaknafein]

You pick a title yet for that novel?

[Xellith]

Aselin should be the player rep to the SE reps >.>

[llello]

Holy wall of text batman! You know making massive drawn out posts doesn't help your cause much considering most people won't even attempt to read that. Besides the few things I skimmed through are just a repeat of whats been said with you adding more words and trying to make yourself sound legal savvy.

[Atomic_Skull]

But, it's simply best to know that DirectX 9 and anything that relies on it is emulated in Vista, 7, and higher. Only DirectX 10 and higher are hardware accelerated. DirectX 9Ex is not since that is used for Aero in Vista/7.

That's not correct, D3D8 and D3D9 are hardware accelerated in Vista and Windows 7.


As I understand it the way it does it is to program D3D10's pipeline to act like D3D9's fixed function pipeline. D3D9.DLL just translates calls into something that D3D10 will understand and redirects them to D3D10.DLL which renders the 3D scene.

D3D8.DLL translates D3D8 calls to their D3D9 equivalents and sends them to D3D9.DLL (most D3D8 calls have nearly direct equivalents in D3D9)

Some game developers also program the D3D10 pipeline to act like D3D9 when they want to support D3D10 features but not have to rewrite their entire graphics engine, or they just want to use something that is familiar to them. In these cases the game is using D3D10.DLL directly and code changes still have to be made for the new API calls because you can't just send D3D9 calls to D3D10.DLL.

DirectX 8 introduced programmable vertex and pixel shaders.

That is not correct. DirectX 8 uses fixed function shaders, programmable shaders didn't come until DirectX 9.

[Greatguardian]

I know about the "index." It has been mentioned before on another forum. Some speculated a maximum of 256 zone IDs from 0 to 255. Another person debunked that stating that the game can support more zones. I still think it's a maximum of 256. The upcoming one or two new areas being added in an upcoming update supposedly are the last ones that can be added. Again, someone else stated that there can be more zones added after that.

Why then do we get recycled zones but not completely new ones if hard drive space isn't an issue? Sure, Abyssea-La Theine is different from La Theine, and Dynamis-Qufim is different from Qufim. Recycled zone is still recycled zone.

Replying to the part that's relevant to my quote:

The reason we have recycled zones is not a memory issue at all, but a manpower issue. We could have gotten brand new zones with completely new designs and monsters, but we didn't. That's not because of the PS2, but simply because the Devs didn't do it.

Why? Well, there could be a variety of reasons. They may not have had the funding to keep a level/map designer on staff. They may have simply not wanted to devote the time to making a new level. It may have been an artistic/design decision, choosing to give us "Re-imagined" zones that we're familiar with rather than creating entirely new ones.

I agree that the game deserves full expansions and new zones, and I'm sure that the Developers would agree wholeheartedly if they had any say in the matter. What it inevitably comes down to is whether or not they receive a green light for the funding/manpower to do it.

[Zaknafein]

SE needs to stop dumping money on 14, and pony up the cash to hire the few xtra people to make some new zones for 99. Have a few new spots to explore in there with W/e they are cooking up for the "New End Game" charge us 10 bucks in a DLC package. Hell I'll pay 20-25 if that's all that's holding back new zones, and a new city.

[Concerned4FFxi]

11 is getting new content, you just have to wait. The DEV know what we want, they've said they understand we want new zones and are gonna work on making that a reality but it takes time. Before they can do so they need to fix 14, and parts of 11 to prepare 11 for 99 content. We just got the last abyssea almost a year to this day, calm down. It will happen. They are fixing the small things in 11 right know because that's all they can do for now. New content will come, you need to sit tight the DEV have said they are going to see whst they can do in the future as far as content for us. Since abyssea, SE has been reworking both 11 and 14 alot more than they have in the past. Some progress is slow, you have to be patient. As for 14, it's stupid to not fix it. Since they started installing the fixs to 14 the game has improved a whole lot. As for 14's new engine it only makes sense for them to do this because if 14 lasts as long as 11 did/will then why wouldn't SE install the new engine on its new generation mmo?

To the DEV, keep up the good work and pass my love on to the DEv mr. moogle liason, thank you.

PS: I understand content changes in 11 are for casual gamers and such and that's fine, but please when you reveal 99 endgame I wish it to be challenging like it was at 75 and no more babying the masses with atma or auto-rr. If theres two types of endgame that would be great, one version for the casual gamer and another seriuoly harder one for the hardcore ffxi fan, thank you.

[Zaknafein]

No one is blaming the Dev team. They are doing a fantastic job for having the rug pulled out from under them when the majority of the team got shifted to 14. What people in this thread, and many others are unhappy with is that SE as a corporation has decided 11 only needs a skeleton crew for development. The costs to pay additional dev team members to work on brand new zones while the current members concentrate on the content they are working on/ balance issues can be recouped. Charge 10-25$ (depending on the quantity of new zones) when 99 rolls out to offset the added dev costs.

The community is happy to pay for new areas. FFXI has stiff competition in the MMO market. Next gen tittles are being rolled out on a regular basis. WoW is releasing yet another complete expansion with new zones..new jobs etc. Now while I wouldn't subject my dog to WoW SE could stand to take a page out of their book. SE has used elements of their model already with the casual friendly modifications over the past year.

With a moderate investment for added developers, and some marketing to talk up the "New FFXI" to coincide with the 99 roll out XI could see a revitalization. Will it suddenly beat out WoW? No of course not. However, it can spread the message that people who want to come back to the game or start new will have an easier time of it that in past years. It can solidify the subscriptions it already has, and snag some new ones in the process.

Moral of the story it would recoup the extra dev costs, and solidify the game going forward.