Why do people always get so hyped up about new releases of DirectX thinking it's going to change everything? It's been a year from now and nothings changed. DX11 just seems to be the exact same case with DX10, except that Microsoft didn't hype it as much. Too bad developers make features restricted to newer Directx's probably because Microsoft's paying them. Especially Stalker, with all of it's DX10 shit such as surface running water(Crysis), soft water(Source engine), god rays(UDK), "DX11" lighting which makes the game look brighter that could and have been coded in DX9 games. Same crap with Crysis, with it's DX10 features that could go into DX9, look the same, and have better FPS with just a console command. I've been disappointed with the DirectX releases and don't really care when a new one is announced now. Too bad the kids will always be there going nuts over the new DirectX thinking it's going to be the holy grail of APIs, have it be released, become disappointed, go nuts on the next DirectX, over and over again.
DX9 in Stalker CoP
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/ClearSky_13b.jpg[/img]
DX10 in Stalker CoP
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/ClearSky_13a.jpg[/img]
DX9 pictures of other games:
[img]http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii353/joeboo1000/Crysis%20December%2030th%202009/crysis2008-12-3100-25-25-63.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.techreviewer.com/content/reviews/hl2/11_boat_big.jpg[/img]
(not a very good high quality pic, Half Life 2 in 2004)
Not many games exclusive to 10 or 11. They are held back by 9/XP
Play Shattered Horizon. Get mind blown.
[QUOTE=Cookieeater;26442252]soft water(Source engine)[/QUOTE]
What? Source engine has barely stopped supporting DX8, since when did it support DX10? Or am I reading this wrong?
[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;26442459]What? Source engine has barely stopped supporting DX8, since when did it support DX10? Or am I reading this wrong?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/ClearSky_13b.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/ClearSky_13a.jpg[/img]
You require DX10 for that, you require just DX9 for this:
[img]http://www.techreviewer.com/content/reviews/hl2/11_boat_big.jpg[/img]
(not a very good high quality pic, Half Life 2 in 2004)
There have been more DX11 games released in its first year than the first 3 years of DX10
DX11 actually has a nice feature, Tessellation, which is basically the thing hyped with DX11.
Nyeh, tesselation doesn't really do a lot except eat frames in practice. The multicore rendering however could potentially boost performance which is exciting.
Yeah but as long as developers develop cross platform between Windows XP and 7, they will always have to develop for DX9 in mind which can't use tessellation or DX10-11 and beyond features. Then you have OpenGL which had tessellation a few years back and works on nearly all OS's supported out there.
[media]http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_07.jpg
http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_15.jpg
http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_23.jpg[/media]
Really, that's DX10. It's the only DX10 you'll see around pretty much. As you so duly noted, even Crysis is basically DX9 with a DX10 spitshine.
[QUOTE=BmB;26442655][media]http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_07.jpg
[url]http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_15.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.shatteredhorizon.com/media/screenshots/shattered_horizon_ss_23.jpg[/url][/media]
Really, that's DX10. It's the only DX10 you'll see around pretty much. As you so duly noted, even Crysis is basically DX9 with a DX10 spitshine.[/QUOTE]
It's more like they coded it in DX10 only even though DX9 would look as good and function perfectly fine.
Except half the stuff they do is impossible or impractical in DX9. This is what it looks like when that is not a constraint. I can assure you nothing in DX9 will ever look like that unless DX9 becomes DX10.
[QUOTE=BmB;26442715]Except half the stuff they do is impossible or impractical in DX9. This is what it looks like when that is not a constraint. I can assure you nothing in DX9 will ever look like that unless DX9 becomes DX10.[/QUOTE]
Not impossible, there have been studios which have been playing with DX9 to the degree that its output is little to no difference from DX10, functions a lot differently and uses a shitload of custom shaders I'll admit but it is possible, Criterion Games is one studio which has delved into this a good few times.
[QUOTE=Kialtia;26442600]DX11 actually has a nice feature, Tessellation, which is basically the thing hyped with DX11.[/QUOTE]
DX tessellation is a stupid gimmick that they thought would set it off in the market as something fucking amazing even though DX is the only largely marketed API with its only real competitor being open source, kinda a shame though when its tessellation output is worse than OpenGL's, performance wise.
And so when everyone has DX10 hardware and likely a DX10 OS why do we still care about DX9 anyway? It should be a non-issue at this point.
The biggest difference isn't the output, but how you achieve it.
Opengl must live on
[QUOTE=Robber;26442969]The biggest difference isn't the output, but how you achieve it.[/QUOTE]
This.
There are for example a few significant changes to the High Level Shader Language which makes DX10 preferable to a lot of developers.
Why do you care? Do you still have a DX9 only video card or a ancient operating system? if you do you probably don't have the hardware to run DX9 games decently.
I think Microsoft should just stop trying to market DX in the first place. The biggest difference that DX makes is it makes it easier for developers to implement fancy new eye-candy. But that doesn't mean that suddenly all of your games are going to look better and run faster (which is how they currently market it).
Microsoft should just tell the truth: DirectX makes life a little easier for developers and releasing completely new versions like 10 and 11 allows them to avoid issues related to trying to keep everything backwards-compatible.
[QUOTE=Larikang;26446066]I think Microsoft should just stop trying to market DX in the first place. The biggest difference that DX makes is it makes it easier for developers to implement fancy new eye-candy. But that doesn't mean that suddenly all of your games are going to look better and run faster (which is how they currently market it).
Microsoft should just tell the truth: DirectX makes life a little easier for developers and releasing completely new versions like 10 and 11 allows them to avoid issues related to trying to keep everything backwards-compatible.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Still, it is annoying how people refuse to upgrade from a nine year old OS. Claiming that MS excluded windows XP from DX10/11 just to make people buy it. Or maybe, just maybe it is just a decade old and needs to be replaced.
Even though DX 11 doesn't make a major difference, it is still pretty when used right.
[QUOTE=Larikang;26446066]I think Microsoft should just stop trying to market DX in the first place. The biggest difference that DX makes is it makes it easier for developers to implement fancy new eye-candy. But that doesn't mean that suddenly all of your games are going to look better and run faster (which is how they currently market it).
Microsoft should just tell the truth: DirectX makes life a little easier for developers and releasing completely new versions like 10 and 11 allows them to avoid issues related to trying to keep everything backwards-compatible.[/QUOTE]
I find this funny because on the scale of learning and production, DirectX is harder than OpenGL, its also pretty hard to actually do any fancy eye candy with DirectX unless you spend a good amount of time working with it.
However this wont stop Microsoft marketing like they currently are, as its the industry standard it will stay being marketed in the completely wrong way, mainly because "it is working".
The limited backwards-compatibility is also a pain with DirectX from a developers point of view.
Say they made a custom shader in DirectX10, the team then suddenly thinks to add in DirectX11 support which has a tiny tiny tiny change which makes that shader not function correctly, means spending more time making the shader work for that platform, unlike OpenGL which has a relatively large backwards-compatibility base.
Not complaining though, DirectX is the industry standard even with all its flaws.
I was crying that just cause2 was dx10 only, but then I found out that I was still using junk winxp.
Switched to win7, playing dx10 only games, no problems at all.
Stop crying, sooner or later devs have to leave dx9 like they did with dx8 and so on.
Also shattered horizon visuals can be easily achieved in dx9, cryengine for example.
All there is is just glow and soft shadows, nothing that can't be done on 9
I don't see it being replicated in dx9, not even in cryengine. When the only games that achieve that kind of fidelity is pure DX10+, it is fairly reasonable to assume there's something keeping it from being done in dx9.
It's not glow either, it's lens flare.
DirectX is shit, game developers should just switch to OpenGL and be done with this shit.
OP is assuming that because DX9 is older, it runs better on modern hardware - false, DX10 can run just as good or better than DX9 while using less memory if devs knew how to use DX10/11 as well as they do DX9
[QUOTE=nikomo;26450769]DirectX is shit, game developers should just switch to OpenGL and be done with this shit.[/QUOTE]
I wonder whether people who say this shit have ever written a single line of code in their entire life. I'm not saying it's true or not, I haven't gotten into graphics programming myself yet, but it's sad how people spew that kind of shit around based on what current videogames have to offer.
Isn't OpenGL much harder to code than DirectX? Or is that backwards? I don't think DirectX is bad at all, there is a clear distinction between DX9 and DX10 in many games from my own experience. DX11 was a better jump as it supported tessellation and wasn't as hyped.
Backwards, general rendering is easier in DX, but getting fancy is easier on OGL, and you don't need a new rendering framework to support advanced coding in OGL, you just need specific support for the feature itself, in many cases independent of the version of OGL you are using. Carmack was doing a lot of the lighting stuff DX11 touts as being "next gen" well before OGL 4 was around or even being ratified as the new package standard. Same for Starbreeze. Hell they have stuff running through a wrapper and it's still more efficient. People have backcoded in [I]accurate[/I] Cook Torrance lighting algorithms for Doom 3, and that shit is gonna be 7 years old soon; meanwhile DX11 [I]still[/I] doesn't have anywhere as accurate a representation that I've seen.
The issue is money and consoles, as opposed to an open standard the a company like M$ can't wring licensing money from. The adoption rate is solely about business, not which is better.
With my old rig w/ XP, I still manage to run DR2 when it clearly stated. DX10 :confused:
DX11 tessellation is nice and couldn't be done in DX9.
DX10 and 11 support is becoming more common.
People flocking to it is a good thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
