Slashdot Mirror


What Game Developers Think about DirectX 10

mikemuch writes "In the last of his series of interviews with the stakeholders in Microsofts upcoming DirectX graphics API, Jason Cross speaks with the developers of Hellgate, Crysis, Flight Simulator X, and Age of Conan. They seem pretty stoked about the new technology's ability to get visual detail to a much higher level of realism, and to offload physics and AI to the CPU." From the article: "Without hardware, it is hard to evaluate which features will really make the biggest performance impact. The geometry shader looks pretty full of potential. So does the fact that you can write to buffers from any shader and then read them into another shader. Texture arrays look like they will make a big dent our batch count, which should lead to much better frame rates. At this point I feel like I'm looking at a shiny new toy through a shop window: I can't wait to get my hands on it and play with it, but I don't really know what it can do."

8 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. How is this news? by andrewman327 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the writeup: "I don't really know what it can do."


    I think that says it all. All we have now are lofty marketing claims and unfounded speculation. I am as excited as anyone to see what it can do (I admit to being a fan of flight sims) but this does not really help me understand any better. Since this is /. I'm sure we will see this story several more times before DirectX 10 is launched.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:How is this news? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
      > From the writeup: "I don't really know what it can do."

      From reality: It will require Vista. That's all Microsoft needs it to do.

    2. Re:How is this news? by Sosigenes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "From reality: It will require Vista. That's all Microsoft needs it to do."

      From what I've read, technically it doesn't. I was reading an interesting article in PC Format (UK Magazine) today, and them trying to find out why DX10 will be restricted to Vista - the best answer they were able to come up is that the structure in Vista (eg. usermode rather than kernal mode) is slightly different and therefore it would require modifications to make it work with XP.

      In fact, the article states that ATI are working with DirectX 10 under windows XP (with a few modifications to make it fit Vista). So the question is - if they can, and it's obviously possible, why can't we we?

      If anyone has a better explanation as to why it's Vista limited, I'd be very interested in hearing it (as would many others, from the impression I've got - even ATI, Nvidia and Microsoft, who PC Format contacted, were unable to provide much of an answer.)

  2. Thanks DX10! by Funk_dat69 · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Offload physics and AI to the CPU."


    Woo hoo! I hope 'offloading' MS Office to the CPU is next!

    Seriously, though, is this supposed to be a feature?
    --
    FUNK!
  3. I am a game developer by ludomancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The articles responses sound more like what marketting thinks about it, rather than developers.

    I'll tell you what developers think about it:

    DirectX 10 is supposed to be Vista exclusive. Smart people know Vista is a pile. Of course Microsoft will shove Vista down people's throats eventually, but you're still being locked into a piece of software that will tank for the first 12-18 months.

    Realistically there is very little the new API will offer in this generation of games, in some cases it detracts from it (Hellgate, which looked much better without the normal mapping), because Microsoft is buying out these folks in mid-development so they can say they've got support for this API and make marketting-articles like these.

    Lastly, DirectX 10 is going on a platform that will rule out OpenGL. Not many people use OpenGL in the last few years, so, sadly, this is a minor point. But it's great to have choices, and to have your choices superficially limited always gets me in an uproar.

    In a nutshell DirectX 10 is not bringing anything terribly new to the table, while removing very critical freedoms from developers in the first place. They will fill pages with positive bullet points on DX10, but when you plop down a DX10 title next to a DX9/whatever-else title in the end, they will not be noticably different.

    Sorry for the ranty-rant.

  4. further fragmenting the market by grapeape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the past few years I havent had nearly the urge to upgrade that I did in the past. Most games have become so gpu dependant that upgrading the video card has been sufficient enough to keep the latest games running on even a 2-3 year old machine. From what I read it appears that dx10 is more of an attempt to make the rest of the hardware insufficient than any real improvement in the gaming experience.

    With all the talk of physics engines and vista exclusivity it has me concerned that what is already a small market is just going to get smaller. My last video card upgrade was $400 and it was an upper mid-range card (x850 xt platinum) not top of the line. My friends and family thought I was insane since many of their pc's cost less than that. I cant even count how many clients I have that get pissed off that their new dual core system cant run a two year old game because the video included was an onboard intel gpu.

    IMHO thats whats wrong with the PC gaming world and what pushes users to "casual" gaming. Most folks I know dont even bother to look at the new games on the shelves because they assume they cant run it and refuse to put up the cash to upgrade what they see as a minor part of their pc. I understand Microsofts and their vendors desire to get people upgrading again but unless computer manufacturers either start uncluding decent video cards or intel increases their integrated performace by leaps and bounds the market is just going to dwindle even more.

    1. Re:further fragmenting the market by cliffski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed 100%. I dont make 'casual' games like most of the causal market (they tend to be puzzle games) but I do aim squarely at people like yourself. I'm still doing 2D stuff, and happily using DirectX7. The beauty of it is that I dont care what vertex shader or pixel shader version your card has, I don't even care what version of DX you have, because unless your on windows 95 or ME, you'll have DX7 pre-installed.
      I see no real reason to even move to directx8 unless I did a flight sim or an FPS, the extra bells and whistles aren't neccesary for my genre. And why *anyone* would build a game engine around a dedicated physics card that 0.01% of the market has is totally beyond me. Still, I dont understand why Civ4 was so 3D. Was it to limit the number of people who could play? or just make it expensive to develop?
      I'm sure that the vast majority of games designers (as opposed to graphics programmers) would rather the pace of API and technology releases slowed dramatically. Then we could all concentrate on this legendery 'fun' thing, that used to be the whole point of these 'tech demos' that pass for modern agmes.
      Bah. Rant mode off...

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  5. What about virtualisation? by Corngood · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Vista, GPU resources are virtualised by the operating system; it's similar to the transition between real and protected mode operating systems on x86. It's kind of like asking for DirectX 9 on Windows 3.1. You could argue that it's just a different driver model, like 98->XP, but I would imagine that adding virtualisation would make the transition much more difficult than that.