DX10 Thoughts

[gvblake22]

See, I don't get all the hype around DX10. If you plan to adopt Vista ASAP and buy DX10 games the minute they hit the shelves, then yeah, save up for a DX10 card. But for the majority of people who will be happy running XP for at least a few more years (which is exactly what I will be doing), then there is really not much incentive to have a DX10 card as XP cannot run in DX10 anyway. And by the time you are ready to upgrade to Vista (if that time ever comes), then chances are you will be ready to upgrade your graphics too.

But yeah, the 7600GT is a great card to hold you over if you really need an upgrade immediately but don't want to empty your pockets for the technology currently available. But I'm just trying to say that if you buy a high end card now, it will most definately not be out dated when DX10 cards hit, or even Vista.

[polobunny]

I'm still very perplex, see lost, about DX10.
In that other thread it says Flight Simulator X is a DX10 game. I am in possession of this game now and I will try it tonight (the only reason I didn't try it before is because it takes around 15Gb). If it works, it will somehow prove that DX10 and DX9 are "compatible" as this would be a DX10 "capable" game. Therefore I can only think that most DX10 capable games will also be DX9 compatible, and thus the need for DX10 would only be there if you wanted the ultimate GFX experience. (between you and me, DX9 is hardly completly driven by today's video cards, think of 3DMark06 for instance).

So yeah, unless alot of DX10 ONLY games come out, something I don't think will happen very soon, I think you're good with a DX9 card. I might be wrong obviously, that's just what I think about this.

On another note, the Flight Simulator X installation screenshots look good. Like the screenshots that were posted on that other forum. ;D

EDIT: On further inspection of Flight Simulator X, I can attest it is at least DX9 compatible. Right clicking the DVD drive while the installation DVD is in shows a "Install DirectX 9.0c" option, something that shouldn't be there if this game was DX10 only.

[Capper]

Something you have to understand.....is that a lot of this is MARKETING.
For the next couple of months you are going to be bombarded with Vista and DX 10.....and why you have to/should upgrade....its as simple as companies wanting to sell their products.

All of these DX10 games will be fully compatible with DX9 cards (unless specifically noted), its just that you won't get the fine detail or eye candy thats specifically coded for DX10 hardware.

Same with Vista, you are going to hear all the stuff you need to upgrade, and that you'll need basically a new top of the line system....but I think a lot of people here who have tinkered with Vista can attest you won't need to buy a new top of the line system to run it.

[polobunny]

I have tinkered myself with Vista, but the echoes we could hear about DX10 at first was "incompatible with today's hardware" to the point games that could use DX10 would be incompatible.
From what I can see now, it's nothing of that matter. =/

[polobunny]

Well, forget what I said.
Flight Simulator X, at ultra high settings everywhere, at 1680x1050 NO anti aliasing with anisotropic filtering instead of bilinear gives around 15 frame per second on a X1900XT at XTX speeds (and lower).
Funnily enough, i'm not really happy with the graphics it gives even at the highest settings (though unplayable) and the screenshots we saw only scream "CLUSTER" to me. To run the game at it's very very very highest setting you would need far power than a crossfire of X1950, and even then I don't think the graphics would be as "cool" as in the screenshot. So either DX10 and SM4 cards are a revolution for the user, or those screenshots are only bull****.

I really hope i'll be surprised and people can actually GET that kind of eye candy else geez what a ripoff!

For instance, at high settings the game puts the resolution to 1024x768 32bit, doesn't enable antialising, cuts low on almost everything and puts bilinear filtering instead of anisotropic. The "default" settings are "low" settings. Screenshot w/ FRAPS (notice that i'm not in fullscreen, everytime I switched to fullscreen the video card drivers kicked in to reput it to default 2D speed, thanks ATITOOL + drivers):

Low default settings:


Ultra-high setting (not using customize option, just ultra high sliders):



EXTREME (using customize and putting everything to the right and enabling everything, 1024x768 though):


Other observations
-It doesn't take account of my X2 (takes only 1 core)
-Takes around 250mb of RAM when running, depending on the location (?!?)
-Just doesn't seem finished, at all.

[Lead Head]

Originally Posted by polobunny

Well, forget what I said.
Flight Simulator X, at ultra high settings everywhere, at 1680x1050 NO anti aliasing with anisotropic filtering instead of bilinear gives around 15 frame per second on a X1900XT at XTX speeds (and lower).
Funnily enough, i'm not really happy with the graphics it gives even at the highest settings (though unplayable) and the screenshots we saw only scream "CLUSTER" to me. To run the game at it's very very very highest setting you would need far power than a crossfire of X1950, and even then I don't think the graphics would be as "cool" as in the screenshot. So either DX10 and SM4 cards are a revolution for the user, or those screenshots are only bull****.

I really hope i'll be surprised and people can actually GET that kind of eye candy else geez what a ripoff!

For instance, at high settings the game puts the resolution to 1024x768 32bit, doesn't enable antialising, cuts low on almost everything and puts bilinear filtering instead of anisotropic. The "default" settings are "low" settings. Screenshot w/ FRAPS (notice that i'm not in fullscreen, everytime I switched to fullscreen the video card drivers kicked in to reput it to default 2D speed, thanks ATITOOL + drivers):

Low default settings:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5...defaultec3.jpg

Ultra-high setting (not using customize option, just ultra high sliders):
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4...trahighow6.jpg

EXTREME (using customize and putting everything to the right and enabling everything, 1024x768 though):
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5913/extremeqq1.jpg

Other observations
-It doesn't take account of my X2 (takes only 1 core)
-Takes around 250mb of RAM when running, depending on the location (?!?)
-Just doesn't seem finished, at all.

Im guesssing its the massive draw distances that slows it down, but even then, farcry had some massive draw distances and it ran fine on a Radeon 9800...Im guessing its either one or both of two things. 1. Sloppy coding and/or deliberate slowdown of performence on DX9 to sell more DX10 cards and windows Vista

[polobunny]

It looks like deliberate cheap coding to me. Look at the first screenshot, it screams Flight Simulator 98. :P

[Jokerswild]

From what I've seen so far with DX10 I'm not all that impressed. Sure it's better but not a quantum leap better than DX9. Buying a new video card just for DX10 doesn't seem cost effective.

[Metalarmored]

Just look at Crysis if you want to see what DX10 graphics can do, even though they're all dx9 screenshots.

[Jokerswild]

Originally Posted by Metalarmored

Just look at Crysis if you want to see what DX10 graphics can do, even though they're all dx9 screenshots.

Welcome to the forum, we have lots of good people here. ( except One4u2c I would avoid him at all costs :JK )