Microsoft, Direct X 10

[KoKo5oVaR]

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Ab ... ctX10.aspx

You can see the difference for yourself when we compare Picture 2, a screenshot taken from 'Halo: Combat evolved', a PC game which was among the best of its class at release to Picture 1, an image from 'Crysis', a PC game which is slated to release soon. Halo uses DirectX®9.0b to support its graphics while Crysis makes use of DirectX®10.

[KoKo5oVaR]

Also lol. Why the "very high" mode of display in the crysis demo is masked under XP ?

[-HP-]

Indeed, what a load of bullshit!

I even think microsoft bribes game companies to do this kind of stuff so they can sell they're shitty windows vista.

Also, if Vista is sooo great for gaming, as microsoft say it is, WHY da fuck do you need more RAM and CPU to meet the minimum specs of modern games?

Like, for instance, Crysis:

Minimum System Requirements

OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista

Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)

Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)

Video Card -256 MB**

Hard Drive - 12GB

Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

One doesnt need to be a genious to take his own conclusions about this.. oh well...

[Pericolos0]

I remember when they were showing off the differences of Call of juarez in dx9 and 10. Some of the comparison pics just had a different rock texture or a more blue fog color haha.

[Sindwiller]

Like you couldn't do SSS and Phong lighting in DX9... :roll:

[Buddy]

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/DirectX10.aspx

You can see the difference for yourself when we compare Picture 2, a screenshot taken from 'Halo: Combat evolved', a PC game which was among the best of its class at release to Picture 1, an image from 'Crysis', a PC game which is slated to release soon. Halo uses DirectX®9.0b to support its graphics while Crysis makes use of DirectX®10.

Why didn't they put any source character there ?

Btw, D10 is commercial bullshit.

[dux]

Ahahaha comparing dx10 to Halo.

... ahahahahahahahahaha.

[Rayne]

Like you couldn't do SSS and Phong lighting in DX9... :roll:

Gotta plug their product in using whatever cheap-ass method they can. It's hilarious, really.

[Zyn]

So what's the point in having hardware with DX10-support if you can just run it just fine on DX9

... my 8800gts just cried a little on the inside ...

[R_Yell]

Microsoft lying and spreading misinformation... as always

However DX10 is another step in the way to life like graphics, as big as DX9 was. Problem is the terrible Vista only decision, adoption should be much faster if XP was also DX10 compatible.

[Thrik]

Yeah, it's pretty hilarious. I don't think anyone (who actually knows what they're talking about) is likely to deny that DirectX 10 is a significant and good step forward, but it's not the revolutionary leap that Microsoft market it is.

It's just another iteration, just like DirectX 9, DirectX 8, DirectX 7, DirectX 6, etc were. Despite this fairly consistent history of DirectX development, Microsoft has managed to pull the wool over even hardware aficionados' eyes and made them think it's something supreme, when in reality it just makes certain things a bit easier for programmers, alleviates some circumstances that can cause disproportionate performance loss, and of course introduces more complex shaders. In other words, the same thing every version of DirectX has done.

Lame as hell.

[Defrag]

lol, that's hilarious. DX10 definitely has some cool features, but at the moment most of the games with DX10 support aren't really doing much that can't be done with DX9. Why? Pretty obvious -- developers are increasingly tending towards developing multi-platform game engines & games. Consoles don't have DX10 support or features. Why bother spending a disproportionate amount of time & effort creating DX10 stuff that you can't roll out to the majority of your customers? In fact, the amount of people with Vista and a DX10 card right now makes up a tiny proportion of PC gamers (Valve used their hardware survey to get the information and, iirc, it was something around 5%). Because of this, even if people are developing solely for the PC, most developers aren't going to go balls deep with DX10.

I've looked at some of the graphics papers & videos of DX10 effects and you can do some nice stuff, but until most people have access to DX10, it won't be important to developers. Maybe Microsoft will live to regret trying to force people to buy Vista just to get DX10 because, at the moment, it looks like most developers & gamers aren't at all interested. Have you heard of anyone gushing about DX10 and vowing to upgrade their PC & OS just so they can get a slightly nicer water shader in some game or other? I've heard some people saying they wanted to upgrade their PC so they could run Crysis, but that's about it.

[Taylor]

Man, DX10 looks 6 years ahead of DX9.

[Wunderboy]

Funny actually. I was talking to one of the guys at Valve who looks after VTF format and we were discussing the specific DX10 formats it supports. He said that while the library supports the format, Valve don't actually save any of their textures in DX10 format simply because not enough cards support them and not enough users have them.

[dissonance]

Another year, another DirectX. Sigh.

More OpenGL plzkthx.