Comparing DirectX9->DX10 Here are some pictures...

Anything and everything that's related to OGRE or the wider graphics field that doesn't fit into the other forums.
Post Reply

Looking at the pics from the link, what do you think is better?

DX9
6
22%
DX10
9
33%
OPENGL- I don't like DX9 or DX10
12
44%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
irrdev
Orc
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

Comparing DirectX9->DX10 Here are some pictures...

Post by irrdev »

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...
User avatar
Kencho
OGRE Retired Moderator
OGRE Retired Moderator
Posts: 4011
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:28 pm
Location: Burgos, Spain
x 2
Contact:

Post by Kencho »

Please, don't double-post.
Image
User avatar
xavier
OGRE Retired Moderator
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...

Post by xavier »

irrdev wrote: Please tell me what you think of DX9 and DX10 from these 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.
Do you need help? What have you tried?

Image

Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.
User avatar
Wretched_Wyx
Orc
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Post by Wretched_Wyx »

And personally I think this is a no-brainer. The only downside that I see to DX10 is the Vista requirement. Though there are probably ways around that.
User avatar
irrdev
Orc
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

Sorry...

Post by irrdev »

Sorry for double posting... I didn't take the time to check. If it is, go ahead and delete this thread. :oops:
My opologies,
Irrdev
User avatar
Kojack
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 7154
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
x 525

Post by Kojack »

Changed face model to F.E.A.R.’s game model to better reflect the capabilities of DirectX 9
Hehe, yes, let's make the comparison fair by using a crappy model for dx9. Why not use the gman from hl2, it's a far better example of dx9 than that fear character.
User avatar
nebukadnezzar
Halfling
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Germany
x 1
Contact:

Post by nebukadnezzar »

In my opinion the good look of 3d games is the effort of an artist and not an engine
User avatar
skatehead
Halfling
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Australia

Post by skatehead »

not only are the first 2 screenshots fake, but thats the stupidest comparison of anything, ive ever seen, ever, period
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kezzer
Orc
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:19 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Post by Kezzer »

As for the difference between the Flight Simulator X screenshots, they'd have to be using different algorithms for the water effects, and it looks to me as if they've changed the skybox/dome/plane to volumetric clouds and added some fancy post effects.
code | blog
jacmoe wrote:MMORPG good. :o
Xavier bad. :x
User avatar
skatehead
Halfling
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Australia

Post by skatehead »

Kezzer:
the flight sim "screenshots" arent real, theyre "concepts" of what they want the dx10 version to look like, photo's photoshopped over the top of the dx9 ones, if you will
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kojack
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 7154
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
x 525

Post by Kojack »

The bit from the ms article which makes me suspicious is (with respect to the flightsim x pics):
In Pictures 6 and 7, we see artist conceptions of one certain Windows Vista wallpaper with mountains overlooking a water body.
An artist conception and an in-game screenshot are very different, the guy either worded things badly, or the pics aren't real.
User avatar
skatehead
Halfling
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Australia

Post by skatehead »

theyre about as real as the e3 2005 killzone trailer :)

(actually a bit realer since theyre at least based on screenshots :))
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
sinbad
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 19265
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands
x 66
Contact:

Post by sinbad »

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.
User avatar
skatehead
Halfling
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Australia

Post by skatehead »

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.
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"

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

Image

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
ImageImageImageImage
longzheng
Gnoblar
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:04 pm

Post by longzheng »

skatehead wrote:i'm quite certain that no-one except the retard who made that page has actually claimed that those shots are real
For your information, the retard (me) who made that post had a big yellow bright warning up the top of the page,
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.
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.

But I've edited the post now to reflect that it is indeed a fake.
User avatar
skatehead
Halfling
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Australia

Post by skatehead »

heh, sorry 'retard' was probably a bit harsh

glad its all cleared up now tho :)
ImageImageImageImage
longzheng
Gnoblar
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:04 pm

Post by longzheng »

skatehead wrote:heh, sorry 'retard' was probably a bit harsh

glad its all cleared up now tho :)
I'm glad to clear it up. In fact, I appreciate that you can provide some genuine evidence to backup your claim.
Jovani
Goblin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 2:30 pm

Post by Jovani »

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.
User avatar
irrdev
Orc
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

For your information...

Post by irrdev »

Just to tell you, theses pics were taken from the Micrsoft DirectX10 Whitepaper. Windows Vista Team Blog claims it was created
using Microsoft Flight Simulator X in DirectX 10
However, it seems that it has been verified that these pictures are
pre-rendered concept screenshot

but it is then stated that:
Regardless if it was pre-rendered or live-rendered, it would have used the capabilities in DirectX 10.
At the bottom of the link I listed at the top of this thread it states:
The 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.
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 stating
DirectX 10 Artist's Concept Image
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! :lol:
User avatar
Wretched_Wyx
Orc
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Post by Wretched_Wyx »

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]
User avatar
Kojack
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 7154
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
x 525

Post by Kojack »

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?
User avatar
SunSailor
Gnoll
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: Velbert, Germany
x 2
Contact:

Post by SunSailor »

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.
User avatar
irrdev
Orc
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
Contact:

Here's the Microsoft Blog....

Post by irrdev »

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. :lol:

<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
Post Reply