Did DX10 Fail to improve your gaming experience from DX9?

[Franklinwallbrown]

I think I'll stick with XP 64 & DX9 still.

 

[Mussels]

as some have said, these games are all DX9 games with DX10 patched on.

I read a lot of this on the CoH forums about their DX10 patch, and the summary was this:

Microsoft offer a codepath to translate DX9 code to DX10. This saves time over writing native DX10 code for everything.
Problem is, its SLOOOOOOW. These companies dont want to spend a lot of time and money re-writing their entire graphics engine for DX10, so they throw it through the microsoft meatgrinder, patch up the holes and end up with what we know as DX10 games.

Games need to be made for DX10 from the start, with DX9 coming later with a simplified version of the engine - NOT crappy additions like CoH had with flowers and debris...

Seriously: Who here would NOT have been happy with DX10 merely providing better FPS with the same level of graphics? Imagine if crysis DX10 had a 30% FPS boost, instead of a 300% hit?

 

[DanishDevil]

I would kiss Bill Gates' feet.

 

[btarunr]

Some of the screenshots of DX10 games that were doing rounds about an year before its entry were a bit exaggerated as if they hired some CGI professionals to make them.

 

[Mussels]

Some of the screenshots of DX10 games that were doing rounds about an year before its entry were a bit exaggerated as if they hired some CGI professionals to make them.

they did. no DX10 hardware existed, so they had to make the images up.

 

[newconroer]

I've heard that DX10 improves the FPS when it is run in dx9 mode = assassins creed for the pc but yeah DX10 is useless graphics wise I mean cmon in company of heroes it added more bloom and little flowers for a huge drop in FPS

Right...and softer shadows, more detailed lighting, softer water edges, properly rendered smoke effects, higher layered water and depth perception effects.... who really believes these things would come without a performance cost(regardless of what Microsoft said..it should be a no brainer)?

What you're saying is, because you're GPU can't handle it, then it's useless?

 

[Mussels]

Right...and softer shadows, more detailed lighting, softer water edges, properly rendered smoke effects, higher layered water and depth perception effects.... who really believes these things would come without a performance cost(regardless of what Microsoft said..it should be a no brainer)?

What you're saying is, because you're GPU can't handle it, then it's useless?

actually, if a card twice the speed of the previous generation (8800GTX) is incapable of even 25FPS in the first DX10 games, that makes it a total failure. In all previous generations, the latest cards were actually capable of gaming at high details - MS skipped too far with DX10, and screwed up. They told everyone DX10 would be FASTER with BETTER quality - not 10 times slower.

say all you want about peoples systems, but if i rig like mine (and incidentally, yours) doesnt meet your 'expectations' for a DX10 gaming system you need your head checked - mine can BARELY play DX10 titles on medium graphics for a smooth 60 FPS, compared to 'high' in DX9 where i get over 100 (which looks BETTER due to higher AA/AF levels)

*(I'm referencing CoH for those numbers)

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Was/is there a tech demo for DX10? It's nice to see "on paper" what DX10 can do but was there ever a tech demo released to demonstrate what DX10 can do? I know there is one for DX10.1 called pingpong (please install SP1 then March 2008 Directx first before installing the game).

 

[jbunch07]

Was/is there a tech demo for DX10? It's notice to see "on paper" what DX10 can do but was there ever a tech demo released to demonstrate what DX10 can do? I know there is one for DX10.1 called pingpong (please install SP1 then March 2008 Directx first before installing the game).

i watched the video pretty interesting....

 

[VroomBang]

as some have said, these games are all DX9 games with DX10 patched on.

I read a lot of this on the CoH forums about their DX10 patch, and the summary was this:

Microsoft offer a codepath to translate DX9 code to DX10. This saves time over writing native DX10 code for everything.
Problem is, its SLOOOOOOW. These companies dont want to spend a lot of time and money re-writing their entire graphics engine for DX10, so they throw it through the microsoft meatgrinder, patch up the holes and end up with what we know as DX10 games.

Games need to be made for DX10 from the start, with DX9 coming later with a simplified version of the engine - NOT crappy additions like CoH had with flowers and debris...

Seriously: Who here would NOT have been happy with DX10 merely providing better FPS with the same level of graphics? Imagine if crysis DX10 had a 30% FPS boost, instead of a 300% hit?

I think it'll take long before games are made for DX10 from the start, considering the vast majority of gamers still use DX9c hardware. Exclusive DX10 games wouldn't be viable just yet. I can see the transition to full DX10 coding taking at least another year.

 

[VroomBang]

mine can BARELY play DX10 titles on medium graphics for a smooth 60 FPS, compared to 'high' in DX9 where i get over 100 (which looks BETTER due to higher AA/AF levels)

*(I'm referencing CoH for those numbers)

Quite revealing considering your decent specs.

Does it mean we will all have to upgrade to 9800 GX2 to enjoy DX10 @60fps with full details on and max'd IQ? I'm telling you, we should stick to DX9C for another 6 months at least, until prices of 8800, 9800 and future ATIs (HX4xxx) come down AND games look significantly better on DX10.

Early adopters are always penalised, we all know that.

 

[Mussels]

Quite revealing considering your decent specs.

Does it mean we will all have to upgrade to 9800 GX2 to enjoy DX10 @60fps with full details on and max'd IQ? I'm telling you, we should stick to DX9C for another 6 months at least, until prices of 8800, 9800 and future ATIs (HX4xxx) come down AND games look significantly better on DX10.

Early adopters are always penalised, we all know that.

i got this system because of its power in DX9, and ended up with one of the fastest DX10 rigs by luck. (i've had this GTX a very long time now)

We need games made for DX10, not games patched to add it in later. Its like physx - at the moment, games are made first then the physics code is patched on later, leaving us thinking Physx is crap. All we really need is one good title and DX10 gaming would take off.

Look how cheap some DX10 cards are lke the 8400 and radeon 2600 series. If DX10 games had been coded properly (so that say, DX10 on medium was faster than DX9 on medium) then the majority of users WOULD be able to upgrade easily and join the fun.

 

[VroomBang]

i got this system because of its power in DX9, and ended up with one of the fastest DX10 rigs by luck. (i've had this GTX a very long time now)

We need games made for DX10, not games patched to add it in later. Its like physx - at the moment, games are made first then the physics code is patched on later, leaving us thinking Physx is crap. All we really need is one good title and DX10 gaming would take off.

Look how cheap some DX10 cards are lke the 8400 and radeon 2600 series. If DX10 games had been coded properly (so that say, DX10 on medium was faster than DX9 on medium) then the majority of users WOULD be able to upgrade easily and join the fun.

agreed

However, developpers will not code DX10 games from scratch yet as the gamers base is mostly using DX9C cards. They'll carry on with their DX10 patch approach in the short run, because that's the only one that makes economic sense, as they can reach more buyers with one single code, in a context of ever increasing development costs.

 

[magibeg]

I found that there was a visual difference in certain games when compared to my friends system on dx9, but there is a hefty performance hit... moving forward always hurts

 

[Mussels]

i think it should be DX10 with a DX9 patch, if you get the meaning.

Rather than have the game perfect in DX9 with added complexity, choose the things that render best in DX10 - shadows, motion blur, facial expressions, whatever and DROP THEM OUT of the DX9 version. This way the most performance hitting features are missing from the DX9 version, the DX10 version will actually run good and EVERYONE (except people with the top DX9 cards) is happy.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Does anyone remember back in the day when we were forced to buy a new video cards when it didn't support the current DX version? No matter how much we complained we either purchased a newer video card or not play the game (or play it the way the developer didn't intend). IMO, I think they got away with doing that because gamers didn't have to buy a new OS in order to use the newer Directx version. For example going from DX8.1 to DX9.0. Then from DX9.0 to DX9.0c didn't require a new OS.

I wonder if the reason why we are not seeing DX10 only games today is because developers prefer to reach a wider audience via compatibility. Which means making a game DX9 then patch it up with DX10 (sort of speaking). In a nut shell back in the day if you want to play the latest and greatest you had to have a video card that was compatibility with the newer DX version. That means buying a new video card then the new game. Now, if you want to play DX10 game you will need:
-DX10 video card
-Vista
-DX10 game
This seems very expensive to me and could be why there are no DX10 only games as of yet IMO.

 

[Mussels]

Does anyone remember back in the day when we were forced to buy a new video cards when it didn't support the current DX version? No matter how much we complained we either purchased a newer video card or not play the game (or play it the way the developer didn't intend). IMO, I think they got away with doing that because gamers didn't have to buy a new OS in order to use the newer Directx version. For example going from DX8.1 to DX9.0. Then from DX9.0 to DX9.0c didn't require a new OS.

I wonder if the reason why we are not seeing DX10 only games today is because developers prefer to reach a wider audience via compatibility. Which means making a game DX9 then patch it up with DX10 (sort of speaking). In a nut shell back in the day if you want to play the latest and greatest you had to have a video card that was compatibility with the newer DX version. That means buying a new video card then the new game. Now, if you want to play DX10 game you will need:
-DX10 video card
-Vista
-DX10 game
This seems very expensive to me and could be why there are no DX10 only games as of yet IMO.

Needing a hardware AND software (OS) update is indeed a problem.

For comparison, could someone find out the original and maximum directX versions for 98, 2000 and XP?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

My memory is a little foggy on that but from what I remember, you could use DX8.1 from Win98 up to XP. What DX version came with Win98 was either 5.2 or 6.1 (not sure). I think 9.0 started with Win2000 or ME (not sure) and 9.0b started with XP SP2. Again, going on memory here.

 

[Mussels]

I remember a DX 3.0 upgrade on the Total Annihilation CD, so i know that was around win95.

from my memory, 2000 came with 7.0 and got capped at 8.1, whilst XP started with 8.0?/8.1 and got capped at 9.0C (SP2)

Vista starts at 10, and we know gets 10.1

So why is this such a big deal? each OS got one upgrade before needing the next OS... arre people just whiny bitches these days because the have huge egos or what? why does it matter when its always been this way?

I remember my brother having an 8MB 3D card and needing to upgrade because it was only DX6.0 and not 7.0 (no hardware TnL) which was needed to play quake3, whereas my 16MB TnT2 aced the game. How is this any different? Just because it wasnt always pixel shaders doesnt mean there wasnt hardware changes between generations, and operating systems that needed updating to use them.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I remember a DX 3.0 upgrade on the Total Annihilation CD, so i know that was around win95.

from my memory, 2000 came with 7.0 and got capped at 8.1, whilst XP started with 8.0?/8.1 and got capped at 9.0C (SP2)

Vista starts at 10, and we know gets 10.1

So why is this such a big deal? each OS got one upgrade before needing the next OS... arre people just whiny bitches these days because the have huge egos or what? why does it matter when its always been this way?

I remember my brother having an 8MB 3D card and needing to upgrade because it was only DX6.0 and not 7.0 (no hardware TnL) which was needed to play quake3, whereas my 16MB TnT2 aced the game. How is this any different? Just because it wasnt always pixel shaders doesnt mean there wasnt hardware changes between generations, and operating systems that needed updating to use them.

Actually I think you could use Dx9 with win2k. I remember that update. I am not sure I understand the rest of your post though.

 

[Mussels]

Actually I think you could use Dx9 with win2k. I remember that update. I am not sure I understand the rest of your post though.

My point was that in the past we've had to upgrade OS to get the latest directX as well.
That is NOT new to vista.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

My point was that in the past we've had to upgrade OS to get the latest directX as well.
That is NOT new to vista.

I'm not sure I follow you. DX9 was compatible with Win98, Win2k, Win Me and XP. No one had to upgrade from Win98 to XP in order to use DX9.
Source

...DX9 works with both Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition, as well as Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP...

 

[Mussels]

I'm not sure I follow you. DX9 was compatible with Win98, Win2k, Win Me and XP. No one had to upgrade from Win98 to XP in order to use DX9.
Source

no it wasnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Release_history


DirectX 8.0a 4.08.00.0400 (RC14) Last supported version for Windows 95

DirectX 8.1 4.08.01.0881 (RC7) This version for the down level operating systems
(Windows 98, Windows Me and Windows 2000)


wiki agrees with my memories somewhat, that you cant get past 8.1 without XP.
I dont know if that changed recently, but thats the way it was last time i tried to use 2k as an OS.

 

[magibeg]

Back when windowsXP first came out there was a big roar about that as well. You might still be able to google and find out that back when windowsXP was first released people were complaining because windows2000 was getting better performance (yes that means for games as well) and contained too much bloatware. Its the same issue we're having with windowsXP to windows Vista today.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

no it wasnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Release_history


DirectX 8.0a 4.08.00.0400 (RC14) Last supported version for Windows 95

DirectX 8.1 4.08.01.0881 (RC7) This version for the down level operating systems
(Windows 98, Windows Me and Windows 2000)


wiki agrees with my memories somewhat, that you cant get past 8.1 without XP.
I dont know if that changed recently, but thats the way it was last time i tried to use 2k as an OS.

That's not right. I use to use win 2000 and you could use DX9. Here, directly from MS:
1st released December 2002
2003
2004
2005

Back then you didn't have to buy a new OS to use DX9.