DirectX 10 is freaking dooping fabulous

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:03 am

Rollever the pictures to compare DX-9 to DX-10.

http://www.istartedsomething.com/200608 ... -fabulous/

Pay attention to the

Some people say the DX10 version is purely a pre-rendered concept screenshot. However, the Windows Vista Team Blog claims it was “created using Microsoft Flight Simulator X in DirectX 10″.

In other words, no, those aren't placeholders to show what it will look like, but instead what it DOES look like.

I have Windows XP. I'll upgrade to vista for $99 USD and get a DX10 card for about 300 to 400 USD and I'll be set

.

Video from the game, using dx10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5mBu7pnWd0

Burner · Post by **Burner** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:01 am

Side by side pics is not really a fair comparison between DX9 and DX10. Most of the things seen in the DX10 pics could be done with DX9, it would just require more effort on the part of the game maker.

However a few neat things that can be seen.

1.) Physics calculations on the GPU. This can be seen in the improved wave physics of FSX. A GPU is much more suited to doing physics calcs than a CPU. (Not a DX10 feature per-se but easier to implement w/DX10)

2.) Geometric shaders. Which add depth to flat textured objects such as faces and terrain.

All other new DX10 features have to do with improved performance and ease of coding but not eye-candy.

I don't plan on going DX10 until there is some ground breaking game play that can only be had with DX10. Seeing as once I switch over to Vista I can expect all my DX9 games to play slower than on XP since Vista has a much higher OS overhead.

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:46 pm

Regardless, I was very impressed when I saw such amazing graphics, and since it doesn't seem like the games will make a huge effort to Produce those graphics, (hints the need for DX-10) I'll most certainly get it

.

FALCON56 · Post by **FALCON56** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:26 pm

Checked out the screen shots.. Looked very detailed... I mean a complete difference from DX 9.... Gonna get it eventually... need to now, will the cut down on the amount if Ram that a game will use or will it just make things run a lot smoother.. than DX 9...

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:02 am

I think it just increases performance (FPS).

Burner · Post by **Burner** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:03 pm

There is a short list of big changes that all contribute to less required resources. However ANY performance gains will be quickly quashed by Windows Vista's fluffy OS and its bigger resource requirements.

Basically we all have to build new systems with multi-core processors and DX10 capable vid cards before considering any DX10 games.

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:11 pm

Burner wrote:
Basically we all have to build new systems with multi-core processors and DX10 capable vid cards before considering any DX10 games.

Thats for the people who don't already have a multicore system

.

You could also take Microsoft's word for it, gaming on Windows Vista will be awesome! But IMHO if its too much of a hassle for some people to get it, then dont get it

.

Plus, doesn't the card requirements for directx10 already solve the problem of performance being "quashed"? Its pretty obvious people will need to upgrade, its an entire new OS. People cant sit down and game on some pentium 4 with vista, thats the reason video cards with directx10 capabilities already have 256+MB's.

"Next Generation Gaming" means next generation hardware.

Burner · Post by **Burner** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:42 pm

My point with Vista is, if there is a game that runs on both DX9 AND DX10 it will most likely run better in WinXP with DX9 than in Vista under DX10. That is unless the game was coded to run on DX10 then bastardized for DX9 like FSX

Games like Crysis will most likely yield best results under DX9.

P.S. - I'm not certain that FSX was infact bastardized for DX9 it could just be sloppy coding on the developers part, I am giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt which I probably shouldn't do