Upvote Upvoted 22 Downvote Downvoted
1 2
1
#1
0 Frags +

might be fake but on the flip side the dream might be real

https://steamdb.info/sub/28812/

might be fake but on the flip side the dream might be real

https://steamdb.info/sub/28812/
2
#2
6 Frags +

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyfdcoocex8

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyfdcoocex8[/youtube]
3
#3
4 Frags +

Last Record Update about a month ago (November 4, 2015 – 01:23:52 UTC)

Last Record Update about a month ago (November 4, 2015 – 01:23:52 UTC)
4
#4
2 Frags +

http://i.imgur.com/tax5K8K.png

http://i.imgur.com/k4dx3PG.png

ninja'd by 2 secs

[img]http://i.imgur.com/tax5K8K.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/k4dx3PG.png[/img]
ninja'd by 2 secs
5
#5
marketplace.tf
7 Frags +

It's entirely possible that it's some random fucking dev of some random game that decided to just set his app's name to random bullshit.

On the other hand, hype.

It's entirely possible that it's some random fucking dev of some random game that decided to just set his app's name to random bullshit.

On the other hand, hype.
6
#6
4 Frags +

I really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken

I really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken
7
#7
32 Frags +

I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing

I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing
8
#8
marketplace.tf
6 Frags +
deetrI really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken

I think we, as a community, have to maybe be more receptive to Valve's work.

Yeah, movement might be broken, but a potential move to Source 2 is huge. We have to accept that that comes with some temporary drawbacks.

Tino_I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing

You may be right. They want people to already be using DX9 by the time Source 2 comes out, so that everyone is already onboard.

[quote=deetr]I really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken[/quote]

I think we, as a community, have to maybe be more receptive to Valve's work.

Yeah, movement might be broken, but a potential move to Source 2 is huge. We have to accept that that comes with some temporary drawbacks.

[quote=Tino_]I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing[/quote]

You may be right. They want people to already be using DX9 by the time Source 2 comes out, so that everyone is already onboard.
9
#9
31 Frags +

didn't it get confirmed that tf2 wasn't getting a source2 port?

didn't it get confirmed that tf2 wasn't getting a source2 port?
10
#10
-33 Frags +
Tino_I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing

you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..

[quote=Tino_]I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing[/quote]

you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..
11
#11
4 Frags +
Air_didn't it get confirmed that tf2 wasn't getting a source2 port?

From what I've heard, tf2 isn't going to be ported to source 2

deetrI really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken

Get ready to hold w through the air, folks

[quote=Air_]didn't it get confirmed that tf2 wasn't getting a source2 port?[/quote]
From what I've heard, tf2 isn't going to be ported to source 2
[quote=deetr]I really don't think Valve would manage to not fuck up a source 2 port even if this is real. Movement would probably be broken[/quote]
Get ready to hold w through the air, folks
12
#12
-25 Frags +
mousiopeTino_I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing
you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..

why is this true post getting downfragged?

[quote=mousiope][quote=Tino_]I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing[/quote]

you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..[/quote]

why is this true post getting downfragged?
13
#13
23 Frags +

directx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement

directx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement
14
#14
21 Frags +
mousiopeTino_I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing
you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..

http://i.imgur.com/udnyVD4.png

yeah guys come on directx 9 is only 14 years old! a whole 2 years younger than directx 8, god do you people know nothing........

[quote=mousiope][quote=Tino_]I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing[/quote]

you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/udnyVD4.png[/img]
yeah guys come on directx 9 is only 14 years old! a whole 2 years younger than directx 8, god do you people know nothing........
15
#15
13 Frags +
the301stspartanmousiopeTino_I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing
you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..

why is this true post getting downfragged?

its a stupid post. yeah its almost 2016 but this is an old ass game. dx8 was in the game when it was released, and its stupid to remove support for it, especially when the reasons seem so bad. no matter what argument you make theres no good reason to remove dx8. a lot of people use it, a lot of people need it, and the game is poorly optimized. until dx9 can run smoothly (it won't) we should be able to use dx8.

[quote=the301stspartan][quote=mousiope][quote=Tino_]I mean this WOULD explain the no DX8 thing[/quote]

you know what else explains the dx8 thing ?
it will be 2016 in less than a month. ..[/quote]

why is this true post getting downfragged?[/quote]

its a stupid post. yeah its almost 2016 but this is an old ass game. dx8 was in the game when it was released, and its stupid to remove support for it, especially when the reasons seem so bad. no matter what argument you make theres no good reason to remove dx8. a lot of people use it, a lot of people need it, and the game is poorly optimized. until dx9 can run smoothly (it won't) we should be able to use dx8.
16
#16
-15 Frags +

a lot of ppl use it ? what percentage of the tf2 players use it ? 1, 2 ? you do realize comp players are a minority in this hat simulator world ?
hey i like dx8 too, i use it, fuck dx9 and the shiny things and the shitty fluctuating fps but if the time valve spends doing dx8 shit would probably be better spent in optimizing dx9, they need to create a standart, they quit dx8 months ago when the new skins came out, they wont quit with matchmaking ...

a lot of ppl use it ? what percentage of the tf2 players use it ? 1, 2 ? you do realize comp players are a minority in this hat simulator world ?
hey i like dx8 too, i use it, fuck dx9 and the shiny things and the shitty fluctuating fps but if the time valve spends doing dx8 shit would probably be better spent in optimizing dx9, they need to create a standart, they quit dx8 months ago when the new skins came out, they wont quit with matchmaking ...
17
#17
0 Frags +

pencil jumper haven!!

pencil jumper haven!!
18
#18
3 Frags +
mousiopea lot of ppl use it ? what percentage of the tf2 players use it ? 1, 2 ? you do realize comp players are a minority in this hat simulator world ?
hey i like dx8 too, i use it, fuck dx9 and the shiny things and the shitty fluctuating fps but if the time valve spends doing dx8 shit would probably be better spent in optimizing dx9, they need to create a standart, they quit dx8 months ago when the new skins came out, they wont quit with matchmaking ...

anyone with a bad pc who googles "how to make tf2 run better" will find numerous tutorials telling them to put their game in dx8. anyone who has enough of a brain to realize they're running the game poorly will be in dx8.

most of the people who play this game casually probably have shit pcs, but i don't have any numbers to back that up.

[quote=mousiope]a lot of ppl use it ? what percentage of the tf2 players use it ? 1, 2 ? you do realize comp players are a minority in this hat simulator world ?
hey i like dx8 too, i use it, fuck dx9 and the shiny things and the shitty fluctuating fps but if the time valve spends doing dx8 shit would probably be better spent in optimizing dx9, they need to create a standart, they quit dx8 months ago when the new skins came out, they wont quit with matchmaking ...[/quote]


anyone with a bad pc who googles "how to make tf2 run better" will find numerous tutorials telling them to put their game in dx8. anyone who has enough of a brain to realize they're running the game poorly will be in dx8.

most of the people who play this game casually probably have shit pcs, but i don't have any numbers to back that up.
19
#19
25 Frags +

guys we already argued about dx8 going away

guys we already argued about dx8 going away
20
#20
-7 Frags +

yeah lets go back to the speculation and the wishful thinking !

yeah lets go back to the speculation and the wishful thinking !
21
#21
7 Frags +
Caspiandirectx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement
Air_its a stupid post. yeah its almost 2016 but this is an old ass game. dx8 was in the game when it was released, and its stupid to remove support for itmousiopehttp://i.imgur.com/udnyVD4.png
yeah guys come on directx 9 is only 14 years old! a whole 2 years younger than directx 8, god do you people know nothing........

Wow... "Why would MS discontinue XP professional now, when Vista is only 2 years younger wtf?" that's your argument?

Dx8 is outdated software, so is Dx9, but it is less outdated than Dx8, thus no matter how unsensible it is to run a game on Dx9, it is more sensible than running it in Dx8.
Using Dx8 means work would have to be put into updating and optimizing new graphics effects for it, and the 0.2% of the playerbase who not only have PCs bad enough to only get good fps in this outdated Dx, but are also not going to upgrade their systems any time soon.
All work should instead go into optimizing whatever Valve feels is the most modern and up-tp-date they can implement, and that's Dx9.

[quote=Caspian]directx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement[/quote]
[quote=Air_]
its a stupid post. yeah its almost 2016 but this is an old ass game. dx8 was in the game when it was released, and its stupid to remove support for it[/quote]



[quote=mousiope]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/udnyVD4.png[/img]
yeah guys come on directx 9 is only 14 years old! a whole 2 years younger than directx 8, god do you people know nothing........[/quote]


Wow... "Why would MS discontinue XP professional now, when Vista is only 2 years younger wtf?" that's your argument?

Dx8 is outdated software, so is Dx9, but it is less outdated than Dx8, thus no matter how unsensible it is to run a game on Dx9, it is more sensible than running it in Dx8.
Using Dx8 means work would have to be put into updating and optimizing new graphics effects for it, and the 0.2% of the playerbase who not only have PCs bad enough to only get good fps in this outdated Dx, but are also not going to upgrade their systems any time soon.
All work should instead go into optimizing whatever Valve feels is the most modern and up-tp-date they can implement, and that's Dx9.
22
#22
2 Frags +
Air_anyone with a bad pc who googles "how to make tf2 run better" will find numerous tutorials telling them to put their game in dx8. anyone who has enough of a brain to realize they're running the game poorly will be in dx8.

most of the people who play this game casually probably have shit pcs, but i don't have any numbers to back that up.

I could not agree more, especially considering tf2 is so heavily cpu (and super focused on high clock speeds) dependent compared to many other games needing gpu power. According to the steam hardware survey for windows users, only 30% of those with intel cpus and 15% of those with amd cpus had a clock speed over 3ghz. Additionally, the most common gpu is the GTX 970 which suggests the average steam user's system is far from ideal for tf2 fps.

[quote=Air_]
anyone with a bad pc who googles "how to make tf2 run better" will find numerous tutorials telling them to put their game in dx8. anyone who has enough of a brain to realize they're running the game poorly will be in dx8.

most of the people who play this game casually probably have shit pcs, but i don't have any numbers to back that up.[/quote]

I could not agree more, especially considering tf2 is so heavily cpu (and super focused on high clock speeds) dependent compared to many other games needing gpu power. According to the steam hardware survey for windows users, only 30% of those with intel cpus and 15% of those with amd cpus had a clock speed over 3ghz. Additionally, the most common gpu is the GTX 970 which suggests the average steam user's system is far from ideal for tf2 fps.
23
#23
6 Frags +

did they fix the skin fps drops on dx9

did they fix the skin fps drops on dx9
24
#24
2 Frags +

its better but not perfect a friend that made a bunch of weapons told me they re introducing new lods for the weapons to fix it

its better but not perfect a friend that made a bunch of weapons told me they re introducing new lods for the weapons to fix it
25
#25
21 Frags +

My thoughts on a lot of this

to an extent, I'm not sure if it'd be easier for valve to make tf3 with updated particles, an entirely competitive game, and port it to source 2 than keep up with all this tech from the early 2000s that's extremely inefficient performance wise for computers. We can keep all of our nice weapons and hats, which transfer between games, but don't try and keep stacking onto the original foundation of something as old as tf2. You can call it "csgo-ifying" it, but the reason csgo is so successful is because of its competitive community. I feel that if we could "start over" with a nice new game that looks fantastic when optimized at a tv show quality in 60 fps, it looks so much more appealing to someone that doesn't know about the game or the comp scene and can potentially get them into, at the very least, watching the game.

My thoughts on a lot of this

to an extent, I'm not sure if it'd be easier for valve to make tf3 with updated particles, an entirely competitive game, and port it to source 2 than keep up with all this tech from the early 2000s that's extremely inefficient performance wise for computers. We can keep all of our nice weapons and hats, which transfer between games, but don't try and keep stacking onto the original foundation of something as old as tf2. You can call it "csgo-ifying" it, but the reason csgo is so successful is because of its competitive community. I feel that if we could "start over" with a nice new game that looks fantastic when optimized at a tv show quality in 60 fps, it looks so much more appealing to someone that doesn't know about the game or the comp scene and can potentially get them into, at the very least, watching the game.
26
#26
9 Frags +
KonceptLegacyMy thoughts on a lot of this

to an extent, I'm not sure if it'd be easier for valve to make tf3 with updated particles, an entirely competitive game, and port it to source 2 than keep up with all this tech from the early 2000s that's extremely inefficient performance wise for computers. We can keep all of our nice weapons and hats, which transfer between games, but don't try and keep stacking onto the original foundation of something as old as tf2. You can call it "csgo-ifying" it, but the reason csgo is so successful is because of its competitive community. I feel that if we could "start over" with a nice new game that looks fantastic when optimized at a tv show quality in 60 fps, it looks so much more appealing to someone that doesn't know about the game or the comp scene and can potentially get them into, at the very least, watching the game.

the question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.

[quote=KonceptLegacy]My thoughts on a lot of this

to an extent, I'm not sure if it'd be easier for valve to make tf3 with updated particles, an entirely competitive game, and port it to source 2 than keep up with all this tech from the early 2000s that's extremely inefficient performance wise for computers. We can keep all of our nice weapons and hats, which transfer between games, but don't try and keep stacking onto the original foundation of something as old as tf2. You can call it "csgo-ifying" it, but the reason csgo is so successful is because of its competitive community. I feel that if we could "start over" with a nice new game that looks fantastic when optimized at a tv show quality in 60 fps, it looks so much more appealing to someone that doesn't know about the game or the comp scene and can potentially get them into, at the very least, watching the game.[/quote]

the question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.
27
#27
5 Frags +
namassinthe question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.

The answer is no.

[quote=namassin]
the question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.[/quote]

The answer is no.
28
#28
4 Frags +
namassin
the question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.

valve doesn't care about tf2 as much as they do with cs:go and dota so most likely not.

[quote=namassin]

the question is, will valve want to spend the time, money, and effort to do this.[/quote]

valve doesn't care about tf2 as much as they do with cs:go and dota so most likely not.
29
#29
1 Frags +
Caspiandirectx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement

I believe Valve doesn't like directx 12 much tho and are putting their faith in Vulkan (OpenGL successor)
DirectX 11 would be neat tho since most people dont have Win10 to use dx12 anyway

[quote=Caspian]directx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement[/quote]
I believe [url=http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/valve-directx-12-does-not-make-a-lot-of-sense-vulkan-does/]Valve doesn't like directx 12[/url] much tho and are putting their faith in Vulkan (OpenGL successor)
DirectX 11 would be neat tho since most people dont have Win10 to use dx12 anyway
30
#30
3 Frags +
sage78Caspiandirectx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement
I believe Valve doesn't like directx 12 much tho and are putting their faith in Vulkan (OpenGL successor)
DirectX 11 would be neat tho since most people dont have Win10 to use dx12 anyway

I think the question is, is DX11 more cpu and gpu efficient, given that it's more recent? I don't know so that's why I'm asking

[quote=sage78][quote=Caspian]directx 9 came out in 2003

maybe that post would make sense if directx 11 or 12 were the requirement[/quote]
I believe [url=http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/valve-directx-12-does-not-make-a-lot-of-sense-vulkan-does/]Valve doesn't like directx 12[/url] much tho and are putting their faith in Vulkan (OpenGL successor)
DirectX 11 would be neat tho since most people dont have Win10 to use dx12 anyway[/quote]

I think the question is, is DX11 more cpu and gpu efficient, given that it's more recent? I don't know so that's why I'm asking
1 2
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.