Comparing DirectX9->DX10 Here are some pictures...
- irrdev
- Orc
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Comparing DirectX9->DX10 Here are some pictures...
Here is a link which discusses and displays pictures of DirectX9 and DirectX10 for Vista:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/200608 ... -fabulous/
From these pictures, DX10 seems not a really big pull. If that is all that DX10 is able to render, I would say that the only difference is perhaps shaders and effects(weather, shadows etc) But look closely: the textures are different for the mountains; there are basically no clouds in the sky of DX9; the faces comparisom is a 3d model(DX9) and an image(DX10). The last render, the fish seems the best for apparent differences. Here DX10 does appear to exceed. But why can't DX9 do this too as long as the model is modified? Microsoft must think that everyone looking at the pictures will go and get DX10, but I am not so sure. These pics make me think that it is worthwhile sticking with DX9. Also, DX10 will only be availble in VISTA which really limits the scope of any game. Also, from reading posts on the web discussing these photos, some people suggest that the images were modified AFTER the screenshot. Take a look at the reflection of the mountain in the water. Maybe you can see that there is something rather strange here.
Please tell me what you think of DX9 and DX10 from these pictures...
http://www.istartedsomething.com/200608 ... -fabulous/
From these pictures, DX10 seems not a really big pull. If that is all that DX10 is able to render, I would say that the only difference is perhaps shaders and effects(weather, shadows etc) But look closely: the textures are different for the mountains; there are basically no clouds in the sky of DX9; the faces comparisom is a 3d model(DX9) and an image(DX10). The last render, the fish seems the best for apparent differences. Here DX10 does appear to exceed. But why can't DX9 do this too as long as the model is modified? Microsoft must think that everyone looking at the pictures will go and get DX10, but I am not so sure. These pics make me think that it is worthwhile sticking with DX9. Also, DX10 will only be availble in VISTA which really limits the scope of any game. Also, from reading posts on the web discussing these photos, some people suggest that the images were modified AFTER the screenshot. Take a look at the reflection of the mountain in the water. Maybe you can see that there is something rather strange here.
Please tell me what you think of DX9 and DX10 from these pictures...
- Kencho
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 4011
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:28 pm
- Location: Burgos, Spain
- x 2
- Contact:
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
Re: Comparing DirectX9->DX10 Here are some pictures...
I think that making a decision about a real-time rendering API based on a couple of screenshots is a waste of time and effort.irrdev wrote: Please tell me what you think of DX9 and DX10 from these pictures...
- Wretched_Wyx
- Orc
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:27 pm
- Contact:
- Kojack
- OGRE Moderator
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- x 534
- nebukadnezzar
- Halfling
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:40 pm
- Location: Germany
- x 1
- Contact:
- Kezzer
- Orc
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:19 pm
- Location: Silicon Valley
- Kojack
- OGRE Moderator
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- x 534
The bit from the ms article which makes me suspicious is (with respect to the flightsim x pics):
An artist conception and an in-game screenshot are very different, the guy either worded things badly, or the pics aren't real.In Pictures 6 and 7, we see artist conceptions of one certain Windows Vista wallpaper with mountains overlooking a water body.
- sinbad
- OGRE Retired Team Member
- Posts: 19269
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:19 pm
- Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands
- x 66
- Contact:
Fact is they could have easily pimped up the Dx9 version of that Flight Simulator X shot to almost the same level with SM3, but they chose not to. It's a totally artificial comparison. Remember that marketing is there to sell you things, not to tell the truth.
The water in the shot is basically the same as that in the SM3 vertex texture fetch paper from nVidia. True, Dx10 allows you to do the same effect on ATI too since it's standardised properly this time (ie ATI can't wriggle out of implementing it on a technicality). Still, even without VTF you could do water a hell of a lot better in Dx9 than in their Dx9 shot.
The lighting on the landscape is possible in SM2, it doesn't need Dx10.
The clouds probably do benefit from geometry shaders, particularly the lenticular rays. But the shading on them and the HDR effects are easily doable in Dx9. In the Dx9 shot they use a totally crappy 2D sky texture (its not even a good one).
That site shouldn't be labelled 'Dx9 versus Dx10', it should be labelled 'low-end Dx9 fixed function versus Dx10'. That's a completely different thing.
The water in the shot is basically the same as that in the SM3 vertex texture fetch paper from nVidia. True, Dx10 allows you to do the same effect on ATI too since it's standardised properly this time (ie ATI can't wriggle out of implementing it on a technicality). Still, even without VTF you could do water a hell of a lot better in Dx9 than in their Dx9 shot.
The lighting on the landscape is possible in SM2, it doesn't need Dx10.
The clouds probably do benefit from geometry shaders, particularly the lenticular rays. But the shading on them and the HDR effects are easily doable in Dx9. In the Dx9 shot they use a totally crappy 2D sky texture (its not even a good one).
That site shouldn't be labelled 'Dx9 versus Dx10', it should be labelled 'low-end Dx9 fixed function versus Dx10'. That's a completely different thing.
- skatehead
- Halfling
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
- Location: Australia
more like "some screenshots of stuff compared with unrelated renders and concept art... actually this article is about nothing, nothing at all, someone please, please delete me from the internet"sinbad wrote:That site shouldn't be labelled 'Dx9 versus Dx10', it should be labelled 'low-end Dx9 fixed function versus Dx10'. That's a completely different thing.
i'm quite certain that no-one except the retard who made that page has actually claimed that those shots are real
if you still dont believe me, take a look at this higher res version
you should notice a few things:
1. the water is a photo pasted over the top of the old water
2. the sky is a hand painting (seriously, they spent years developing their current cloud rendering technique, its not like "shit we have a unified shader model, lets make it look 500 times better in 1 second"
3. thats the only 2 things different about the image, except some adjusted contrast on the background, and some "bloom"
4. it says "directX 10 artist's concept image... dead giveaway
sorry for the series of angry posts, stuff like this just makes me angry
-
- Gnoblar
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:04 pm
For your information, the retard (me) who made that post had a big yellow bright warning up the top of the page,skatehead wrote:i'm quite certain that no-one except the retard who made that page has actually claimed that those shots are real
I was only passing on information which I found. I agree with you it seemed unrealistic, but I didn't have any proof whether it was real or fake.Important: The accuracy of the following information cannot be confirmed.
The following images and comparisons were made from preliminary documentation and may or may not reflect the outcome of the technology when released.
But I've edited the post now to reflect that it is indeed a fake.
-
- Goblin
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 2:30 pm
Those images may be touched, but last night I saw the commercial for flight simulator X,
and the footage is probably the best real-time graphics I had ever seen, it rivals the concept art image indeed.
Do not know how much editing is in it but some of it is game play footage.
the commercial is very short so it does not give too much detail.
and the footage is probably the best real-time graphics I had ever seen, it rivals the concept art image indeed.
Do not know how much editing is in it but some of it is game play footage.
the commercial is very short so it does not give too much detail.
- irrdev
- Orc
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
- Contact:
For your information...
Just to tell you, theses pics were taken from the Micrsoft DirectX10 Whitepaper. Windows Vista Team Blog claims it was created
but it is then stated that:
However, it seems that it has been verified that these pictures areusing Microsoft Flight Simulator X in DirectX 10
pre-rendered concept screenshot
but it is then stated that:
At the bottom of the link I listed at the top of this thread it states:Regardless if it was pre-rendered or live-rendered, it would have used the capabilities in DirectX 10.
There are even more screenshots to be found of this "concept art" at the microsoft blog paper. I forget the link, but maybe someone could post it here. Maybe send these guys a few messages; they are just trying to sell everybody with fake renders which are totoally unfair in my mind. They do cover themselves by statingThe above article depicts images and information which has been verified to be fake. This is not an accurate comparison between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 as some of the images were not rendered, in fact, purely painted concept art.
That is just not nice advertising for me. I just bet they didn't think that we smart developpers would realize just what they had done!DirectX 10 Artist's Concept Image
- Wretched_Wyx
- Orc
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:27 pm
- Contact:
To be completely fair, there isn't anything wrong with "conceptual art". It's the people that perpetuate this stuff, that turns it into such a big deal. In my opinion even hosting such an "article" or comparison is indeed like walking around and trying to have a conversation about the validity of Bat Boy being real or not (You know, from those tabloids that cover such banter as Elvis marrying Nostradamus, with the priest being an alien).
If anyone wanted to seriously compare DX9 to DX10 they would do it right by comparing them where it matters. Not by comparing a couple of pictures. There is way better material out there on this topic, and the one in reference here particularly is missing so much juice... It's like chewing on a paper towel. Harsh, or realistic? Or both...
[steam]
And another thing:
"As you can see from the comparison between the two screenshots, this is not fake. There is no structural changes between the two images; except only lighting, weather effects and the water. 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."
Read that again. I think that needs some more work before anyone can see the author as having any form of valid intelligence or noteworthy journalism skill.
[/steam]
If anyone wanted to seriously compare DX9 to DX10 they would do it right by comparing them where it matters. Not by comparing a couple of pictures. There is way better material out there on this topic, and the one in reference here particularly is missing so much juice... It's like chewing on a paper towel. Harsh, or realistic? Or both...
[steam]
And another thing:
"As you can see from the comparison between the two screenshots, this is not fake. There is no structural changes between the two images; except only lighting, weather effects and the water. 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."
Read that again. I think that needs some more work before anyone can see the author as having any form of valid intelligence or noteworthy journalism skill.
[/steam]
- Kojack
- OGRE Moderator
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- x 534
The real issue will be framerate, not still frame. And most of the things they talk about in the paper are actually shader 4 features, not dx10 as such.
Remember the Geforce FX. It had shader 2, but it wasn't fast enough at it to be useful. DX10 with shader 4 may allow pics like in the paper, but will first gen shader 4 cards be able to do it fast enough to be used in games?
Remember the Geforce FX. It had shader 2, but it wasn't fast enough at it to be useful. DX10 with shader 4 may allow pics like in the paper, but will first gen shader 4 cards be able to do it fast enough to be used in games?
- SunSailor
- Gnoll
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:45 pm
- Location: Velbert, Germany
- x 2
- Contact:
Kojack, i second that. These are nice shots, but mostly they are loosing a lot of realism when the scenenery is animated - or worse, it isn't and you're flying through a static world. There is a comparison for the crysis engine available, where they are comparing real photos with ingame scenes, very photo realistic. But I'm shure, everybody spots the difference immediatly, if the camera moves.
- irrdev
- Orc
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Here's the Microsoft Blog....
Here's the Microsoft Blog for DirectX 10: http://This post is suspected as SPAM! If you feel otherwise contact a moderator./blogs/windo ... 47226.aspx
Rather interesting to read. There are also some more "rendered" pictures on there other than the ones I posted at the top.
<Added>
Here is what the wikipedia has to say about directx. It reviews mostly DirectX10, although there are also reviews of DirectX1-9!
The wikipedia DirectX article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx10
</Added>
Rather interesting to read. There are also some more "rendered" pictures on there other than the ones I posted at the top.
<Added>
Here is what the wikipedia has to say about directx. It reviews mostly DirectX10, although there are also reviews of DirectX1-9!
The wikipedia DirectX article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx10
</Added>
FeedLaunch .NET RSS and ATOM feed editor- open-source and released under the GPL. Visit Feed Launch .NET Project Website hosted at sourceforge.net