DirectXTex VS DirectXMath

Optimized Vanilla Textures were optimized for PC and then ported to console. They were optimized using an 'optimizer' for Skyrim, which was not updated for the textures FO4 has. It did add mipmaps for the textures that were supposedly missing some and shrank the resolution; however, seeing as the Creation Kit uses Microsoft's own DDS compression program that adds mipmaps automatically, you're literally just re-adding vanilla textures that have been decompressed and then recompressed with extra loss on the visuals and taking up space. Also, specular maps must be compressed with the Photoshop Intel plugin in order to compress them properly or a program that will allow you to have the red and green channels saved in BC5U format (which is a normal map compression and flipped). GIMP does not do it correctly and I'm very doubtful the program that was used to shrink things did either since it was not designed for FO4's specularity.

DirectXTex

The images are in a split DDS format. To convert them to e.g. PNG files, you first have to concat the files and then use a tool such as texconv.

Yep, the images used for each part of the minigame (a couple variations each of lock background, pick, pins, and springs) are stored as .dds files, DXT1 format. You can convert another image format to this type of texture-- I used texconv. Overwriting the default textures with your new files will replace the assets ingame.

However I've found that MS TexConv from the DirectXTex package is the best way for loosing less quality, so I save my textures as lossless PNGs and use TexConv with my own wrapper then.

You can use texdiag to see information about a texture.

I know only Nvidia texture tools exporter but it's not in masse sorry My suggestion is to create a python script that uses texconv.exe for every file in a directory, pretty easy to get

xLODGen/DynDOLOD/TexGen uses Texoncv to compress textures.

Not necessary on Xbox. Xbox graphics will not function properly without mipmaps so the developers would have had to run everything through xtexconv for Xbox optimization. See Microsoft Documentation on DirectXTex. Code samples for xtexconv for the curious are located here.

All textures/images are .dds files. I use TexConv.exe to convert them to png files. texconv.exe *.dds -ft png

For those unfamiliar, like I was, DXM is DirectXMath.

Alongside MiniEngine, you’ll want to look into the DirectX Toolkit. This is a set of utilities by Microsoft that simplify graphics and game development. It contains libraries like DirectXMesh for parsing and optimizing meshes for DX12, or DirectXMath which handles 3D math operations like the OpenGL library glm. It also has utilities for gamepad input or sprite fonts. You can see a list of the headers here to get an idea of the features. You’ll definitely want to include this in your project if you don’t want to think about a lot of these solved problems (and don’t have to worry about cross-platform support).

Bad news. For SIMD there are not cross-platform intrinsics. Intel intrinsics map directly to SSE/AVX instructions and ARM intrinsics map directly to NEON instructions.

For cross-platform, your best bet is probably https://github.com/VcDevel/std-simd

There's https://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page But, it's tremendously complicated for anything other than large-scale linear algebra.

And, there's https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath But, it has obvious biases :P

I am not in gamedev, but work with 3D graphics, we use DirectX 11, so DirectXMath was a natural choice, it is header only, it supports SIMD instructions (SSE, AVX, NEON etc.), it can even be used on Linux (has no dependence on Windows). It of course just one choice: https://github.com/Microsoft/DirectXMath.

I never really used GLM, but Eigen was substantially slower than DirectXMath https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath for these things. Despite the name, 99% of that library is OS agnostic, only a few small pieces (like projection matrix formula) are specific to Direct3D. When enabled with corresponding macros, inline functions from that library normally compile into pretty efficient manually vectorized SSE, AVX or NEON code.

The only major issue, DirectXMath doesn’t support FP64 precision.

If you’re the author, consider comparisons with the industry standards, glm and DirectXMath, which both ensure easy interoperability with the two graphics APIs.

Good article, but note that if the hardware supports the division instruction, will be much faster than the described workarounds.

Personally, I recently did what’s written in 2 cases: FP32 division on ARMv7, and FP64 division on GPUs who don’t support that instruction.

For ARM CPUs, not only they have FRECPE, they also have FRECPS for the iteration step. An example there: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath/blob/jan2021/Inc/Di...

For GPUs, Microsoft classified FP64 division as “extended double shader instruction” and the support is optional. However, GPUs are guaranteed to support FP32 division. The result of FP32 division provides an awesome starting point for Newton-Raphson refinement in FP64 precision.

For graphics DX math is a very good library.

I wonder how does it compare with Microsoft’s implementation, there: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath/blob/jan2021/Inc/Di...

Based on the code your version is probably much faster. It would be interesting to compare precision still, MS uses 17-degree polynomial there.