12/7/2023 0 Comments Directx sweet home 3d![]() ![]() Only the fish presents what seems to be a worthy comparison. And as said above, Nvidia demo’s from a while ago demonstrate similar results. The faces comparison compares a model of maybe 100 vertices with a model with literally thousands of vertices, so that’s no good. The sky is nothing that’s not been done before DX10, the terrain in the background features some more shadows, also done before in DX9. The first scene uses a majorly different water shader, which you would find perfectly capable of running under DX9 (if it indeed uses the new geometry shader it would be emulated, but for just water it’s not a major overhead). It’s been said a bunch of times, and I will say it again, the comparison is worth nothing. Some gamers do have such hardware, but most don’t, so the developers don’t even bother. It just doesn’t depend on the API that much.Īdvanced techniques and high quality models reqire high end hardware. To all DirectX 10 fanatics: you haven’t seem even a slice of the capabilities of DirectX 9 and won’t see even a slice of the capabilities of DirectX 10 either.Ĭomputer games won’t look as good as those pictures anytime soon. The only reason pathetic little fanboys haven’t, is because the only technologies they’re aware of are those implemented in computer games, which are meant to be run on their average hardware. I’ve seen better things done in DirectX 9. It’s been done a million times using DirectX 9. ![]() The same face models can be rendered using DirectX 9 with little difference. ![]() The second DirectX 10 image demonstrates detailed artwork, not the capabilities of the DirectX 10 API. The “DirectX 10” version of the first image is not a DirectX 10 rendering.Ī similar rendering can be achieved with DirectX 9, though. This is a completely meaningless comparison.ĭirectX 9 can do pretty much everything DirectX 10 can, but with higher hardware requirements. i wonder if ppl will do these kinds of exaggerated comparisons when DX11 comes out – beauty DX11 vs the ugly DX10Īnyway, this article just ticked me off by insulting DX 9 so badly. What DX10 really improved on DX9 is performance, expandability. But so what? If you could SLi say 8 SM3 GPUs, there’s nothing stopping SM3 from rendering very similar results that you shown in DX10. Yes it lacks Geometry Shaders so SM3 will lag behind SM4 in terms of performance. Shader Model 3.0 can do almost everything Shader Model 4.0 can do in terms of the final result. …and yeah, we’re talking about Shader Model 1.0 here… You know, even the 4 year old GeForce FX 5200 Dawn demo looks better than any of the “DX9” proofs you’ve shown here: OMG that is DX8, just look at it! That is soooooo obviously DX8 level graphics and TURNED DOWN. Great spin! You just rubbed DX9 in the face, didn’t you? Well fact is, DX9 is not as incompetent as you made it. Regardless if it was pre-rendered or live-rendered, it would have used the capabilities in DirectX 10. However, the Windows Vista Team Blog claims it was “created using Microsoft Flight Simulator X in DirectX 10”. If Microsoft can leverage the power of DirectX 10 to the desktop, literally, then the possibilities of 3D wallpapers are endless.Įdit: Some people say the DX10 version is purely a pre-rendered concept screenshot. ![]() If infact, and only if, the DirectX 10 version is a real-time rendered screenshot straight from the game, then it gets me thinking, why not a virtual wallpaper? In the early betas of Windows Longhorn, there were hints of a 3D rendered wallpaper called “Aurora” which showcased moving light auras. These renders come from the Microsoft Flight Simulator X game. Infact, the reflection and refraction of mountains in the water didn’t even change, just the water texture! But the difference is nothing short of amazing. There is no structural changes between the two images except only lighting, weather effects and the water. From the DirectX 10 Whitepaper on the Windows Vista Team Blog.Īs you can see from the comparison between the two screenshots, this is not fake. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |