DirectX 10 article

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 03 Apr 2006, 17:08

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

I told ya! Didn't I tell ya??? "Don't buy a new system until mid-late 2006, or you'll be wasting your money." Ohhh but Caydr's crazy! That's crazy talk! The Meklar declare war on crazy emperor Caydr. And all I wanted was battle pods...

Anyway... it's now official. If your card isn't tailor-made for directx10, it's now a coaster/paperweight. DX10 and its compliant hardware will be the PC's response to stuff like PS3 and Xbox 1.5, with as much as 6-8 times the graphics performance of DX9 with a DX9 system.

mother · Post by **mother** » 03 Apr 2006, 17:27

Wow I don't think I've ever read an 'article' that was more directly a PR release in my life, heh.

The important thing I got from it was

Microsoft will not release DirectX 10 for Windows XP

IOTW this whole thing is intended to try to blackmail people into upgrading- something that large segments of the XP using world have made clear they have no intention of doing.

PS Everyone was already going to be forced to buy new video cards and monitors/HDTVs to upgrade to Vista, so this isn't really anything new.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 03 Apr 2006, 17:30

I know, but I've been telling people to wait until closer to the end of the year, and now I have my proof! Muahahaha

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 03 Apr 2006, 18:34

"We developed DX10 so we can have A more bloated but shinyer GUI then MacOS with the hardware that will exist in the near future" That is what comes to my mind if I read this.
Now how many times has Microsoft claimed their new product is faster then their old ones, and how many times was that actually true?

Windows vista only, well they better, I don't want is even near me.
(oh drats I will be running vista for 64 bit support, or use the 64bit winXP)
Norf, Spring uses OpenGL anyway.

BvDorp · Post by **BvDorp** » 03 Apr 2006, 20:32

Blech. This kind of articles and strategics just gives me the creep feeling I'm forced into new, expensive stuff that actually don't deliver me anything, I hadn't got yet. atm I'm like: M$ stfu

Post by **jcnossen** » 03 Apr 2006, 21:26

Having consistent hardware means programmers can avoid spending development time on customizing games for cards that don't have all the necessary features or have odd implementations.

Which is a complete BS statement because game makers would be crazy to drop a section of the market they can make a lot of money from...

And to suggest that Unreal 3 will look better with dx 10 than it does with dx 9 is bullshit as well... it all depends on the hardware and the Unreal code itself anyway.

Admittedly, it is nice to see more and more gfx hardware becoming programmable, but acting like we have microsoft to thank for that is sooo wrong.

The problem is that DirectX 10 video cards don't exist yet. Nvidia has the G80 in the works and ATI is polishing up the R600

Apparently it will still take a while, so my recently bought 6800 GS isn't entirely wasted money :D
Especially if I wait for the medium end cards < 200 euro appearing...

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 03 Apr 2006, 22:48

*my fx5200 screams in anguish*
*i try to calm it down*
don't worry, you'll be with ur overpowered friends soon *brandishes overclocking package with a 99% chanec of DEATH!* IN HEAVEN!!! MUAHAHAHAHA

Gurkha · Post by **Gurkha** » 04 Apr 2006, 03:06

Having consistent hardware means programmers can avoid spending development time on customizing games for cards that don't have all the necessary features or have odd implementations.

Has that REALLY been a problem? it seems to me that you've coded up for every feature under the sun (which someone developing for a top-line card would have to do), and in the process added switches allowing features to be turned off for those people who don't have them - doesn't seem like customisation, seems like a common-sense approach to a problem that everyone else seems to get a bass-ackwards solution to.

'We won't release it for WinXP and the cards for it don't exist at present, but should be coming out at about the same time as WindowsVista' - doesn't seem like anything for my benefit, really.

Still with the Linux port in full swing and some steam left in the current generation of graphics cards, we should all be able to get our TA:Spring goodness without having to touch Vista - I just wouldn't recommend SuSE unless they pull their socks up with the installer, or you enjoy bashing your head on a rusty spike.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 04 Apr 2006, 03:11

Zenka wrote:"We developed DX10 so we can have A more bloated but shinyer GUI then MacOS with the hardware that will exist in the near future" That is what comes to my mind if I read this.
Now how many times has Microsoft claimed their new product is faster then their old ones, and how many times was that actually true?

Never mind that the reason most people like the Mac OS X GUI isn't "because it's shiny"...

maverick256 · Post by **maverick256** » 04 Apr 2006, 03:30

OpenGL FTW!!!!!!!1111!11oneone!!eleven1

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 04 Apr 2006, 04:53

maverick256 wrote:OpenGL FTW!!!!!!!1111!11oneone!!eleven1

+1

FireCrack · Post by **FireCrack** » 04 Apr 2006, 05:24

As above, Open GL has just consistently shown better preformance.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 04 Apr 2006, 06:08

FireCrack wrote:As above, Open GL has just consistently shown better preformance.

And its not a load of scrotum.

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 04 Apr 2006, 08:01

Egarwaen wrote:
Zenka wrote:"We developed DX10 so we can have A more bloated but shinyer GUI then MacOS with the hardware that will exist in the near future" That is what comes to my mind if I read this.
Now how many times has Microsoft claimed their new product is faster then their old ones, and how many times was that actually true?
Never mind that the reason most people like the Mac OS X GUI isn't "because it's shiny"...

Ofcourse not. but that's not what I ment is it?
Microsoft put a lot of time and effort (laugh) in getting a even more shinyer GUI then windows XP has. They somehow really care about useless features. And they mentioned it in the srticle that 3d accelerator cards arn't for games anymore, but could be used for stuff like GUI as well.
Hardware powerd GUI1 why? do we need an unreal engine to draw a cross on the top right side of every window? what are they thinking! (If Widnows Vista gets and First Person HUD, I'll step over to FreeBSD, gosh)

maverick256 · Post by **maverick256** » 04 Apr 2006, 16:23

http://www.freedesktop.org/~davidr/xgl-demo1.xvid.avi

That is xgl, which probably will be complete in X11 7.1. If you choose to enable it, it's capabilities should not be any less than the vista stuff. If you don't like it, you can always not enable it. That's the thing, you have a choice. Windows doesn't seem very big on choices.

Speaking of hardware accelerated GUI, it might be a good thing. Giving the GPU the work to render either the 2d or 3d stuff frees up the CPU to do other stuff. Besides, a GUI doesn't have to be 3d to be hardware accelerated.

And by the way,
OpenGL FTW!!!!!!!oneone11eleven
If nothing else, it's not windows, and thus, microsoft, dependent. I am not a fan of either, not because their products aren't good (they are acceptable usually), but because the whole attempting to be monopoly thing. I believe it is a dark passion of theirs

Besides, OpenGL has at least comparable performance, is OS independent, and mostly platform independent. That takes the cake for me.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 04 Apr 2006, 18:31

I'm still a fan of dos, and I enjoy my good ole dosbox...

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 04 Apr 2006, 19:23

Pffff, DirectX. I couldn't care less about DirectX. I plan on using the least amount of DirectX as posible (even when in Windows).

DX 10 suport isn't here yet, when it arrives, the gfx cards with it will be, most probably 300~500├óÔÇÜ┬¼ cards and, as if that wasn't enough, i read here that only Vista will suport DX 10 (meaning games using it exclusively are extremely far away)

What i do care about is OpenGL 2.0. And that one is already here and gfx cards with OpenGL 2.0 suport are already accessible.

As a note, i'm not planning on ever spending more than 100~200├óÔÇÜ┬¼ of a gfx card.
I would rather buy a GeForce 6600 card at 100 ├óÔÇÜ┬¼ today and, in one year, spend another 100├óÔÇÜ┬¼ in the card that now costs 400├óÔÇÜ┬¼ than have the 400├óÔÇÜ┬¼ card today.

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 04 Apr 2006, 19:27

maverick256 wrote:...
Speaking of hardware accelerated GUI, it might be a good thing. Giving the GPU the work to render either the 2d or 3d stuff frees up the CPU to do other stuff. Besides, a GUI doesn't have to be 3d to be hardware accelerated.
...

As a note, Mac OS already uses hardware acceleration for it's 2D GUI. It can be seen in a shiny feature that, when we move over the icons in the ├é┬½quick launch├é┬╗ section, they get resized. That is hardware accelerated.

BvDorp · Post by **BvDorp** » 04 Apr 2006, 20:56

This movie shows that OS X actually has all the features, Vista wants to reach with DirectX 10 and other expensive stuff. Awesome, must watch! The narrator is a M$ guy explaining the new features of Vista, while the movie shows OS X already has them.. :)

Movie link

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 04 Apr 2006, 23:03

Why is there a DX 10 artical here without screenshots? This is ludicrous. You can't even begin to apprecate how cool DX 10 will be without seeing it in action. Open GL shaders haven't even began to compare with the shader capabilites of DX10 yet... it will be a while before they even match up with DX9.

Spring RTS Engine

DirectX 10 article

DirectX 10 article

let's have a comment from an SY