Slashdot Mirror
DX10 - How Far Have We Come?
MojoKid writes "When DirectX 10 was first introduced to the market by graphics
manufacturers and subsequently supported by Windows Vista, it was generally
understood that adoption by game developers was going to be more of a slow
migration than a quick flip of a switch. That said, nearly a year later, the
question is how far have we come? An article at the
HotHardware site showcases many of the most popular DX10-capable game
engines, like
Bioshock ,
World In Conflict , Call of Juarez, Lost Planet, and
Company of Heroes, and features current image quality comparisons versus DX9
modes with each. The article
also details
performance levels across many of the more popular graphics
cards, from both the mid-range and high-end." PC Perspective has a similar look at DX10 performance.
DirectX Will make just the advancements it needs to keep programmers from going SDL and OpenGL. Thats what it is for. The question is not how far has DirectX come, its how far does SDL and OpenGL have to go.
I think that the "realism" isn't worth it. Go out and create DX7 games that are fun :P !! (or openGL games that don't require much extensions;)
.... um, hello?
Oh, come on, everyone will buy the PS3 because it has better graphics than the Wii
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"shadows in DX10 are crisper and more accurate than in DX9. In the image below, the shadow in DX9 has blurry edges while the same shadow in DX10 has sharp and crisp edges"
That's great, except for the fact that shadows don't have crisp edges in the real world. Unless it's illuminated by a point-source (which immediately excludes the sun, lamps, flashlights, and pretty much every other light source you're likely to encounter), there will be a penumbra. The DX9 image here: http://www.hothardware.com/articleimages/item1031/big_stateofdx10_wic_shad.jpg is more realistic.
Simple flash example: http://www.goalfinder.com/Downloads/Shadows.swf
G
Who cares about cool special effects to fake optical accuracy? Within a few years we'll have real-time ray tracing and everything using rasterized graphics will look so fake.
I think that XP+DX9 would have made useful supplements to the results they gave, but their goal was to measure DX9 vs DX10, and you don't do that by changing two variables.
Yup. That's when I tested the speed of my car vs a train, I ran the car on the tracks. I was testing the speed of a car vs train, and you don't do that by changing two variables.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
As someone who writes AI for text-based games, let me clear you of some misconceptions.
First, the goal of "AI" isn't always to be as smart as possible. Often, the goal is to make something believable and/or of the appropriate difficulty level. It's possible that Bioshock missed the mark there, but I haven't played Bioshock yet, so I don't know.
I can write "AI" that will kick your ass every time, even without cheating. (Mobs have the advantage of being on home turf, and they outnumber you.) But that's not fun for the player, so I don't do it. Instead, I'll write something with a pattern you have to figure out. Once you learn one of the ways to beat it, the mob will be easy for you, and it's time to move on to the next area. Very few mobs get the full "try to survive at all cost" treatment, and even fewer are programmed to actually learn from your behavior.
You're describing the classic "I wish this mob would keep getting harder" remorse, but think about it: would it really make sense for those mobs to learn from your new tactics? Are they supposed to be smart, or are they just supposed to be an obstacle?
As for your dead bodies example: would you really prefer to have an infinite standoff as the mobs decide it's not worth getting killed, so they go hide somewhere with their own traps and wait for you to attack? Right... so get over it. If games were realistic, you would realdie on level 1.