Requested feature for PCGW: API availability

[PomstaZLesa 5]

It would be good to know if some games have different api available, either in options menu or hidden somewhere so it has to be forced. this information will probably not usefull in most games, since they use only 1 api, either dx9 or dx11 these days, but a lot of games use 2 or more dx api or even opengl and few of them mantle

[Nicereddy 109]

I can see the usefulness of this feature. What should we call the row though? "API" is fairly vague, but I can't find any good terms that refer to OpenGL/DirectX/Mantle.

[ThatOneReaper 52]

Some potential names: "Graphic APIs", "Graphic Renders", "Render Types", or "Renders Used"

[Eincrou 0]

There are many bits of information I think should be available for game articles on PCGW, such as if it has a 64-bit executable, supports SLI/Crossfire, has multi-threading optimization, etc.  Supported graphics API(s) is also something I would like to see in a more clear manner than in just the system requirements section.

[ThatOneReaper 52]

There are many bits of information I think should be available for game articles on PCGW, such as if it has a 64-bit executable, supports SLI/Crossfire, has multi-threading optimization, etc.  Supported graphics API(s) is also something I would like to see in a more clear manner than in just the system requirements section.

While this all would be great to have on the wiki, I don't these should have their own dedicated rows or tables (excluding the APIs).

 

The graphic APIs table would help fix the mess that is the System Requirements table. Some of the graphics options like MinDX, MinSM, etc. should be moved over.

 

The table could look something like this:

{{Graphic APIs
|directx support               = unknown
|directx support versions      = 
|directx support notes         = 
|opengl support                = unknown
|opengl support versions       = 
|opengl support notes          = 
|shader model support          = unknown
|shader model support versions = 
|shader model support notes    = 
|mantle support                = unknown
|mantle support notes          = 
|glide support                 = unknown
|glide support versions        = 
|glide support notes           = 
}}

Most of the options here should work like the Network table: unless otherwise marked as "true", hide the rows related to that option.

[Guest Miranda Streeter]

Oh wow, I was just heading to these forums to suggest this very thing! This is the feature that I would love to see.

 

Finding the minimum API requirement, and suggested API (the highest version utilized) would be more than enough information. Don't forget Glide and Software (no hardware acceleration) for certain older games!

[Nicereddy 109]

I'd definitely support the creation of this. As Miranda suggested, we can probably make columns for "Min" and "Max" API levels required, or "Min" and "Rec" (recommended). I'd imagine this would be useful to a number of users. Maybe we can make this a subsection of "Video settings" or "Other information" as I'd prefer if we didn't make too many main sections for every page.

[Garrett 219]

Here is a very rough first implementation (source at User:Garrett/Sandbox):

 

 

As usual, rows would be hidden when empty and some would only be visible when true or hackable (Mantle, 64-bit, etc.). Hiding is not fully functional in this sample.

 

This doesn't include all of the ideas suggested in this topic since I'm not sure about the best way of presenting that information. Some features might be difficult to assess (like thread use).

[PomstaZLesa 5]

thanks Garrett! I tried it on bf4 for test how it would look like. I wasnt sure where to put it soI shove it video settings for now

http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Battlefield_4#Video_settings

[Mirh 103]

Nice work on that template
However, I think some parts are redundant
DOS video modes would be better suited where we are used to put widescreen/multimonitors resolutions

direct3d, directdraw, opengl or glide on the other hand are already included in the system requirements..

 

And the shader model then it's a bit like a leftover of the past.. nowadays you are use to say: you need a dx 9/10/11 gpu. period.

I'm not an expert, but I think they still should be given in the system requirements (if the game readme says so)

 

and as said by soeb, 64 bit executables aren't so relevant

we can still mention them in the key points though with a thumb up if they give better performance (RAGE, crysis)

 

Software renderer is a new entry instead.. I wouldn't know where to put, but I wouldn't discard the whole idea

[Guest]

I would honestly not mind if the sys req table was replaced with what Garrett posted.

 

They are mostly a hassle anyway.

[ThatOneReaper 52]

I would honestly not mind if the sys req table was replaced with what Garrett posted.

 

They are mostly a hassle anyway.

The Systems Requirements table is a very useful part of the articles, especially with older titles. Finding such information elsewhere more often then not comes in a sloppy or incomplete format.

 

A better layout would to replace all graphics-related fields (excluding GPU names and VRAM amount) with the table (located right underneath the Sys Req. tables).