Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DX9 in 2k4

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    the 5 update fix that

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by -Loric-
    So, bottom line is this dx9 dll isn't useful at all in UT2004, and it was erronously included in patch 3204?
    http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums...12#post5177312

    Originally posted by Daniel Vogel at Beyond3D

    D3D9Drv is just D3DDrv but instead of using the DX8.1 interface it's using the DX9 interface. It's a straight port that actually yields lower performance the last time I tested and should have absolutely the same visual output. We accidentaly released it with a patch and its raison d'etre is Win64 support.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    So, bottom line is this dx9 dll isn't useful at all in UT2004, and it was erronously included in patch 3204?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by jbirney
    This DX9 render only uses the DX9 Runtime. There are no real benefits to keeping it as the engine does not use the features of DX9 (UT2k4 is still mainly a DX7 game at heart). But like Mr Evil said keep the DLL

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    This DX9 render only uses the DX9 Runtime. There are no real benefits to keeping it as the engine does not use the features of DX9 (UT2k4 is still mainly a DX7 game at heart). But like Mr Evil said keep the DLL

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    i havent noticed any performance issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    dx9 made my FPS drop by 20%, so I can happily do without it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    you don''t need a dx9 card to use it, dx9 is just a way of rendering things, it has nothing to do with your card, the only way your card is dx9 supported that it has been optimized for dx9, I got a dx8 card, and the game runs better on dx9.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Tried it with my Radeon 9600XT. Worked decently. Might've had an small hit or performance increase, i'm not sure. Water effect needs to be fixed though, cause it really is a pain to not see water until you're standing in it. I guess when that gets fixed the UDamage look will be fixed (but I don't mind the way it looks).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Zimeon
    How about an option "My card doesn't support dx9"
    Low-end computer

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    on my mates comp who has a geforce fx5700 and he noticed alot of **** in the detailing of shaders with the dx9 renderer, such as the ones on the geothermal pipes for instance. the dx9 renderer is a load of **** to be honest, and epic may release a later version of it once this is all fixed i think

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    How about an option "My card doesn't support dx9"

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Oh... *sob*....

    Couldn't they add some of the DX9 features insted? :bulb:

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    the 5200 needs to burn in hell. atleast the other craptastic budget cards had MX in the name. People are fooled into buying this piece o **** thinking its only a little less powerfull then the other 5x00 when infact its buttloads slower, another WORLD slower.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by FireCrack
    the DX9 renderer does NOTHING because the game doesnt have any DX9 features. Keep it loose it i dont care, it's a waste of hard disk space.
    Ohh it does something ie prevents threads like:
    "Epic where are the shader 3.0"
    "Why no DX9 support"
    "OMG WTF EPIC PLZ FIX"
    "Shader 3.0 soon?"
    "Got my FX5200, unsupported?"

    and instead giving us threads like:
    "OMG new DX9 renderer is awesome"
    "Thank you Epic, works perfect"
    "Enabled the new renderer on my GeForce2 MX and got great performance boost and nicer image"
    "Wow impressive DX9 image quality, look at those 2 pixels"


    imo second couple of threads are better, so definitely keep it Epic

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X