Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tim Sweeny interview, mostly about tech-specs

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

  • replied
    I think another thing people dont realize is there isnt a DX10 benchmark standard out there, 3dmark07 will be vista and DX10 only and as far as I know hasnt been released. So all the benchmarks we have are the DX9 performance of the DX10 cards, not really fair to compare them directly since the unified shader model means you can have less shader pipes but they are shared so where a DX9 card needed more to achieve a level of detail, DX10 naturally needs less for the same details in DX10.

    Im still waiting on some proper benchmarks before I commit to any DX10 graphics solution. Mind you if you are playing DX9 games then those benchmarks might mean alittle more to you as well. Im kinda at a loss what to think at the moment with this transition, are companies going to release DX10 patches or stick with lesser DX9 performance through DX10 cards. What I dont know myself is if a DX9 game is emulated through DX10 does it use the unified shaders appropriately or just defaults to a half/half method for pixel/vertex shaders?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    If everyone thought like a couple of posters here, we'd still all be playing 2d games on green monitors...so negative about progress. Is Vista perfect ,hell no, it needs a lot of trimming,polishing. Its excessive memory use is probably tied up with all the unfortunate DRM stuff and security/ file integrity checks.

    The basic technical side of the dx10 API is a logical step forward though. MS listened and implemented changes as per instruction from many game developers. As a result, in theory it should give higher frame rates vis a vis DX9 at comparable or higher quality settings since things are vastly streamlined over dx9 and draw calls to the cpu reduced.

    Early tests with unoptimized titles are showing DX9 winning out at even the higher resolutions???? This is surely down to lack of optimization at many levels. One thing is for sure, if things aren't substantially better when the slew of new titles hit, the gaming writers will be posing questions, "why isn't DX10 performing better?" The current problem may be down to having to laboriously develop for 2 code paths.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by martinblank View Post
    Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty **** ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.
    Honestly what are you *****ing about? If AA being incompatible with the technology on DX9 is a limitation of DX9, why should they NOT offer that, or any other advantage that can be added to it for those using DX10? Honestly eventually it will become widespread anyway, so all they're doing is future-proofing. To be honest you are barely going to notice the lack of AA or a few minor rendering features..

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I had real problems with finding some of the drivers for Vista32, but looking at the problems I've ran into with searching drivers (and certain software) for Win64, I'm not going to think of Vista 64 until the first SP - that will be long enough for more drivers and software to appear.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by jbizzler View Post
    Dude, calm down. Feel free to be angry at the state of computer technology, but please don't rant about something you've never used.

    Really, I've been using Vista x64 since November (Not Beta, the real deal full release because of my MSDN subscription) and have never had a problem in it. I've been toying with the DX10 SDK, making my own DX10 graphical demos, and have not had a single bug that wasn't my fault.

    If software companies want to promote new technology, then you screaming in text won't do anything about it. Either join some software company and try and make a difference, or shut up and accept it.

    Recently? Try 5 months ago.
    5mo for ATI anyway. Nvidia drivers are fairly new.

    BTW, whos screaming.

    Im just pointing out a few things that a few people have forgotten since XP was released. If you want to support Vista, you can join the guys that supported Millenium. That was the greatest thing since sliced bread for a few months too.

    My main point is that Vista isnt the mainstream. The hardware requirements UT3 are going to most likely require arent going to be met with a big audiance. That being said they would have, IMO, done alot better to have not worried bout Vista or DX10 support, at least till UT4, or UT 2100.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Kronos View Post
    if anything you should be mad at the fact that dx10 wasn't originally on XP, which I'd have to agree was pretty ridiculous that it wasn't.
    Kronos, I'm not slamming you personally, but anti-MS people in general.

    Half of what DX10 is would only ever work on a totally new platform. It's not like DX10 is plugged into Vista. DX10 and Vista are one.

    But things like SM4 have nothing to do with Vista. Many DX10 features are obtainable in XP through OpenGL.

    So, half that statement is agreeable, while the other half is the exact opposite. They're just giving new software exclusive features to sell it. That's the world. Make the consumer pay for what he wants.

    There are many people upgrading to Vista with really no reason. I've never (upgraded) an OS. I only do total reformats. I imagine it's ugly, though. When you buy new technology, be prepared for any bugs. There is simply no way they can prepare every piece of software for a new OS. Again, I haven't had any trouble myself though. But if they didn't release it until it was mature, you'd complain about delays. THis way, it matures faster out of necesity, and they make money faster as well. Yeah, they try and force you to buy it, but they're just a company just trying to sell a product. It's up to you, the consumer, to make the choice that best suits your needs.

    DX-GAME, You make it seem like you're entitled to software that fits your needs. If a company makes a product millions of people are going to use for years to come, tough luck if you don't like it. Just don't buy it, and shut up.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by martinblank View Post
    Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty **** ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.
    Well there are indeed certain graphical things dx10 can do that dx9 cannot do, such as 64bitHDR+AA. I to dislike vista using up so much memory, but sooner or later I'll most likely get it. Adding more graphical options for dx10 isn't what you should be mad at, if anything you should be mad at the fact that dx10 wasn't originally on XP, which I'd have to agree was pretty ridiculous that it wasn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DX-GAME View Post
    first version DX10 runs great out of the box?
    Doubt it.

    Drivers.
    First gen drivers have been released recently for DX 10 after countless delays. Think those are going to run good?
    Wow..
    Dude, calm down. Feel free to be angry at the state of computer technology, but please don't rant about something you've never used.

    Really, I've been using Vista x64 since November (Not Beta, the real deal full release because of my MSDN subscription) and have never had a problem in it. I've been toying with the DX10 SDK, making my own DX10 graphical demos, and have not had a single bug that wasn't my fault.

    If software companies want to promote new technology, then you screaming in text won't do anything about it. Either join some software company and try and make a difference, or shut up and accept it.

    Recently? Try 5 months ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Performance & stability isn't even a main reason why I will not use vista, though it is something I would worry about.

    Can you say BIG BROTHER? Can you say DRM? Can you say no h/w accelerated sound (have fun people that bought x-fi fatal1ty and the likes)? There's lots more that I don't feel like getting into now.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Spoudazo View Post
    I'll just sit here and listen to all these people who apparently have never used Vista or a Direct3D 10 capable card keep commenting on how buggy it is and "how horribles games run" on it.
    Just like those guys keep supporting it when there are no games that use DX10 in the way UT2004 will yet. What are the odds that UT2007 wouldnt be UT3 late 2007 if they based it on DX9?

    History.
    All versions of Direct X have had numorus patches. DX9 is up to D.
    first version DX10 runs great out of the box?
    Doubt it.

    Drivers.
    First gen drivers have been released recently for DX 10 after countless delays. Think those are going to run good?
    Wow..

    New MS O/S.
    Nuff said.

    Can you say bastardized Creative?

    You are right. I dont have Vista. But I can read about the problems associated with it and exhisting software/hardware. I have friends who are having problems with it. Sure. I have also seen posts saying everything working great, based on XP performance. Nothing at all that says drop a tried and true O/S for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Kronos View Post
    Wait, so you wont buy UT3 because you wanna play it at its fullest quality but cant because dx9 doesnt allow certain things such as AA+64bitHDR that dx10 would have, and you dont wanna get dx10 cause it runs on windows vista?
    Long story short, you dont want UT3 for 2 reasons.
    You don't wanna install vista, and you cant run it at its best quality with dx9.

    You're a little ridiculous.
    I have many reasons why I will not use vista, I am tired and do not want to go into them now. It has nothing to do with not wanting to pay for it or being to lazy to install it, I have used Gentoo before so that is the least of the trouble.

    Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty **** ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by martinblank View Post
    What the F * CK???!

    DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

    One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.
    Wait, so you wont buy UT3 because you wanna play it at its fullest quality but cant because dx9 doesnt allow certain things such as AA+64bitHDR that dx10 would have, and you dont wanna get dx10 cause it runs on windows vista?
    Long story short, you dont want UT3 for 2 reasons.
    You don't wanna install vista, and you cant run it at its best quality with dx9.

    You're a little ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by martinblank View Post
    What the F * CK???!

    DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

    One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.

    I do have fairly high hopes, however, because I have already read some reports of people who got DX10 working under XP via some kind of wrapper they programmed, similar to how WINE works on linux.
    yeah you figured them out, they're just giving it DX10-exclusive features to **** you off, not because, you know, they're impossible to achieve under DX9 or anything

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I'll just sit here and listen to all these people who apparently have never used Vista or a Direct3D 10 capable card keep commenting on how buggy it is and "how horribles games run" on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    As buggy as DX10 and Vista are, coupled with the lack of stable driver support?

    You can bet that DX9 will be better, lol.
    For at least a year..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X