The Miracle of DirectX 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJUGN0rIIw&NR=1
DirectX 9 vs. DirectX 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KvURb4- ... re=related
Videos: Post Tech Demos Here...
It's been said before by other people but the DX9 version there just looks like less effort has been put in. You can definetly achieve what the DX10 version shows with DX9, i've seen DX9 games look as impressive as the DX10 version looks there, i guess DX10 probably just makes it easier, which is no doubt a good thing as you can then push forward even further if you put extra effort in and achieve better things!
As for the Conan video, i assume it's an MMORPG sort of game? The graphics don't look very good compared to FPS games or games with a smaller world but if all of that's seamless then it's a pretty damned good effort and nice graphics. The characters look pretty nice, i have to say i like the soldier chap who sort of hopped over some obstacles, very impressive physics
I played a Conan game on PS3 recently and it was pretty terrible.. The graphics were awful, though they did have nice blood spurting effects when you chopped heads off.
As for the Conan video, i assume it's an MMORPG sort of game? The graphics don't look very good compared to FPS games or games with a smaller world but if all of that's seamless then it's a pretty damned good effort and nice graphics. The characters look pretty nice, i have to say i like the soldier chap who sort of hopped over some obstacles, very impressive physics
I played a Conan game on PS3 recently and it was pretty terrible.. The graphics were awful, though they did have nice blood spurting effects when you chopped heads off.
I have to agree with JP, I have had quite an extensive look at DX10. About the only thing that I can see that is worthwhile is the fact to you can access adjacent lines, triangles, and things like that in the shader.
And also if those videos are showing Crysis, let me iterate that Crytek had Microsoft, and nVidia working in-house on Crysis . Just something for you to think about.
And also if those videos are showing Crysis, let me iterate that Crytek had Microsoft, and nVidia working in-house on Crysis
. Just something for you to think about.TheQuestion = 2B || !2B
-
rogerborg
- Admin
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:36 am
- Location: Scotland - gonnae no slag aff mah Engleesh
- Contact:
Can anyone with some real experience with DX10 summarise the practical benefits?
To my luddite eyes, geometry shaders appear to be the only thing that's clearly:
A) New.
B) Mandatory.
C) Beneficial.
in DX10, at least for games.
I'm sure we can all see the problems with those demos:
Conan: if I'm just going to see a camera moving on a track through a grungy computer rendered environment, I think I'd rather watch the Beowulf movie. Let's see it actually playing, on a stock retail machine, then we can be impressed.
Call of Juarez: Looks like they've just re-textured it a bit.
Crysis: if you have to select scenes with a lot more environmental interactivity for your DX10 demo, then you can't really be that confident about the graphical superiority.
The reason that I'm cynical about DX10 is that Microsoft has a lot of incentive to... persuade... developers to showcase it and to neglect the DX9 version in order to push Vista sales.
UPDATE:
To my luddite eyes, geometry shaders appear to be the only thing that's clearly:
A) New.
B) Mandatory.
C) Beneficial.
in DX10, at least for games.
I'm sure we can all see the problems with those demos:
Conan: if I'm just going to see a camera moving on a track through a grungy computer rendered environment, I think I'd rather watch the Beowulf movie. Let's see it actually playing, on a stock retail machine, then we can be impressed.
Call of Juarez: Looks like they've just re-textured it a bit.
Crysis: if you have to select scenes with a lot more environmental interactivity for your DX10 demo, then you can't really be that confident about the graphical superiority.
The reason that I'm cynical about DX10 is that Microsoft has a lot of incentive to... persuade... developers to showcase it and to neglect the DX9 version in order to push Vista sales.
UPDATE:
Heh, I concurrently concurred.Halifax wrote:I have to agree with JP, I have had quite an extensive look at DX10. About the only thing that I can see that is worthwhile is the fact to you can access adjacent lines, triangles, and things like that in the shader.
I linked to a Crysis comparison above, in which the content of the DX10 scenes is blatantly more interesting than the DX9 ones. And yes, I'm sure Microsoft were very insistent that the DX10 version received all the... uh... investment.Halifax wrote:And also if those videos are showing Crysis, let me iterate that Crytek had Microsoft, and nVidia working in-house on Crysis
Please upload candidate patches to the tracker.
Need help now? IRC to #irrlicht on irc.freenode.net
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Need help now? IRC to #irrlicht on irc.freenode.net
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Can irrlicht do that High Poly/Low Poly thing?
I presume by high poly/low poly you mean unreal's use of normal mapping? Making a high poly model to create a normal map for a much lower poly model, resulting in basically the same looking model?
Obviously irrlicht can do that because it supports normal mapping, you just need to have the skills from the modelling side of things to get good results.
Obviously irrlicht can do that because it supports normal mapping, you just need to have the skills from the modelling side of things to get good results.
Ah, but of course, Irrlicht, a mainly 5 man crew open-source project that is 3 years old can most certainly compete with THE leadeing engine in it's third iteration that has a vast team of expert paid high salary for many years! This is also why it's free and the other cost more than you make in a year!
so.... youre saying with a couple more people with commit access we can do it?Dorth wrote:Ah, but of course, Irrlicht, a mainly 5 man crew open-source project that is 3 years old can most certainly compete with THE leadeing engine in it's third iteration that has a vast team of expert paid high salary for many years! This is also why it's free and the other cost more than you make in a year!
I'm sorry, but I have to say this. You cannot really compare CryEngine 2 and Unreal Engine 3.
The first reason is that the CryEngine was built a significant time after the Unreal Engine 3. And if we are just comparing graphics, and not tool functionality and all that, then I believe it would be a better comparison to see CryEngine 2 and Unreal Engine 3 render the same scenes. CryEngine may be good, but right now it doesn't have the momumental backing the Unreal Engine 3 has.
For a second reason, I would like to say the Unreal Engine 3 was built with cross-platform use in mind while CryEngine was built with the PC only in mind. A downfall which has cost the CryEngine a significant chunk of users, specifically for the fact that they are trying to port it right now after clearly stating in early discussions that it was highly highly impossible to be able to get CryEngine onto a console. So I am expecting a pretty much horrible engine for consoles (at least for PS3) especially since they are actively looking for experienced PS3 programmers.
Also I would just like to note that although those Unreal Engine 3 tech demos are done in "realtime" they are not done in "game realtime" which means in most of those demos they are dedicating a lot of polygons to the characters that would usually be applied to levels instead. You can see this by looking at the two legged dinosaur monster (I forget the name) in the demo, and compare it against the one in the PC version. The polygons are significantly reduced in the PC game. The Unreal Engine 3 is still amazing nonetheless.
On another side, I am just curious if anyone else noticed this, but have you seen the CryEngine 2/Crysis techdemos? They frames look surprisingly jumpy even when running on Crytek's beast computers. I had a definite problem with that when playing Crysis because it felt so sluggish...it didn't feel intense at all.
At any rate, in the end, I would look at going with Unreal Engine 3. Mainly due to the fact that the industry backing of UE3 is amazing and for the simple fact that their developer network is so organized.
The first reason is that the CryEngine was built a significant time after the Unreal Engine 3. And if we are just comparing graphics, and not tool functionality and all that, then I believe it would be a better comparison to see CryEngine 2 and Unreal Engine 3 render the same scenes. CryEngine may be good, but right now it doesn't have the momumental backing the Unreal Engine 3 has.
For a second reason, I would like to say the Unreal Engine 3 was built with cross-platform use in mind while CryEngine was built with the PC only in mind. A downfall which has cost the CryEngine a significant chunk of users, specifically for the fact that they are trying to port it right now after clearly stating in early discussions that it was highly highly impossible to be able to get CryEngine onto a console. So I am expecting a pretty much horrible engine for consoles (at least for PS3) especially since they are actively looking for experienced PS3 programmers.
Also I would just like to note that although those Unreal Engine 3 tech demos are done in "realtime" they are not done in "game realtime" which means in most of those demos they are dedicating a lot of polygons to the characters that would usually be applied to levels instead. You can see this by looking at the two legged dinosaur monster (I forget the name) in the demo, and compare it against the one in the PC version. The polygons are significantly reduced in the PC game. The Unreal Engine 3 is still amazing nonetheless.
On another side, I am just curious if anyone else noticed this, but have you seen the CryEngine 2/Crysis techdemos? They frames look surprisingly jumpy even when running on Crytek's beast computers. I had a definite problem with that when playing Crysis because it felt so sluggish...it didn't feel intense at all.
At any rate, in the end, I would look at going with Unreal Engine 3. Mainly due to the fact that the industry backing of UE3 is amazing and for the simple fact that their developer network is so organized.
TheQuestion = 2B || !2B