DirectX 10 Games

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
that IS my point . . . they are ALL DX9 and also all Unreal engine . . . but LOOk way DIFFERENT
[damn caps keeP getting STUck]

DE:IW was slow and buggy as hell and neither the shadows nor textures were particularly impressive . . . . 6 months later Thief-DS came out with a MUCH faster and less resource intensive game BUT with MUCH BETTER shadows, lighting and textures . . . and now Unreal3 games are taking even MORE advantage of DX9c . . .

same DX9

same basic Unreal engine getting updated to be more efficient and to 'do more'

What do textures have to do with DX9? Texture packs have been released for both DX2 and DS's and neither game has a limit on texture size (or probably anything else, for that matter) that the other one doesn't. They both contain the same physics system (although DS's is toned down), they both contain the same level of dynamic lighting... hell, they both even use the same models and textures at certain parts. Ignoring artistic talent the two games are pretty much identical graphically. Speed doesn't matter too much either... the 1.1 patch of DX2 fixed many of the problems with lag. I'd hardly call a change in version a large difference in engine capabilities.

EDIT: Isn't the Unreal3 engine something completely different? They both support DX9 but that alone doesn't make one a mere upgrade from the other. The U3 engine is very much next-generation technology while the Unreal2 engine is more 2003-era.

 

[apoppin]

have you played them both, HamburgerBoy? and when?

they "played" very differently on the same HW . . . and still do even now . . . although the HW is SO MUCH more powerful than it was in '04.

DEIW was Unreal 2+ . . . it is constantly evolving . . . they covered Unreal 2.5 and games are just now starting to show up as Unreal3.

again the POINT was to show the EVOLUTION of the same DX9 and same Engine

expect the "same" to happen with DX 10 games. We will get mostly DX9c games released for the next year to three or more [remember xbox360 is mostly DX9]. Some . . . like Crysis, Bioshock, etc will be DX9 games with added "features" that are exclusive to DX10 [like DE:IW was DX9 but 'barely' . . . like FC had to be patched into SM3.0] . . . eventually they will be PATCHED to include more DX10 features.

Finally, in '08 . . . we will start to see the first of the "full Dx10 games".

Heck . . . DX9 has barely been tapped . . . as i remember you can write shader with 100 instructions .... the most advanced DX9c [unreal3] games are barely doing 20.
[my numbers may be way off . . . someone may have the correct nos. . . .but i hope you get the idea]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
have you played them both, HamburgerBoy? and when?

they "played" very differently on the same HW . . . and still do even now . . . although the HW is SO MUCH more powerful than it was in '04.

DEIW was Unreal 2+ . . . it is constantly evolving . . . they covered Unreal 2.5 and games are just now starting to show up as Unreal3.

again the POINT was to show the EVOLUTION of the same DX9 and same Engine

expect the "same" to happen with DX 10 games. We will get mostly DX9c games released for the next year to three or more [remember xbox360 is mostly DX9]. Some . . . like Crysis, Bioshock, etc will be DX9 games with added "features" that are exclusive to DX10 [like DE:IW was DX9 but 'barely' . . . like FC had to be patched into SM3.0] . . . eventually they will be PATCHED to include more DX10 features.

Finally, in '08 . . . we will start to see the first of the "full Dx10 games".

Heck . . . DX9 has barely been tapped . . . as i remember you can write shader with 100 instructions .... the most advanced DX9c [unreal3] games are barely doing 20.
[my numbers may be way off . . . someone may have the correct nos. . . .but i hope you get the idea]

I played them both on a 9200 (bare minimum) and would be able to tell the difference in lag between the two better than people that had 9800's and X800's when they played it. Thief 3 wasn't as slow as DX2 and could support slightly larger maps but regardless they were similar enough.

You still haven't shown me how the Unreal 3 engine is a simple evolution from the Unreal 2 engine. The people at Ion Storm toyed around with the Unreal 2 engine for a bit and added dynamic shadows, but that didn't change the engine as a whole since UT2004 didn't. There is much more work going on with the Unreal 3 engine... just look at screenshots of UT2007 for yourself. Unless you consider the Unreal 2 engine to have evolved from the original Unreal engine that makes no sense at all.

 

[Drayvn]

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Most of what they are saying is that they are increasing the breadth of the engine to incorporate many different and new features, as well as expanding the core technologies that are in it.

One game that springs to mind that uses the Unreal 2 engine is the Splinter cell series, see how fare it came from the 1st to Chaos Theory. They probably pushed the Unreal 2 engine the furthest in terms of technology. Where they used the Unreal 2 engine as a masic building block then added stuff on to it.

Some of the new technologies that they have included into the Unreal 3 engine is totally new, like HDR and per pixel shadows, and what not, that many of us saw in Chaos Theory. But mainly the engine has been built from the Unreal 2 engine. They are even working on the Unreal 4 engine right now, which is an extension from the Unreal 3 engine and what theyve learnt from it on how to push Graphics engines even further.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: apoppin
have you played them both, HamburgerBoy? and when?

they "played" very differently on the same HW . . . and still do even now . . . although the HW is SO MUCH more powerful than it was in '04.

DEIW was Unreal 2+ . . . it is constantly evolving . . . they covered Unreal 2.5 and games are just now starting to show up as Unreal3.

again the POINT was to show the EVOLUTION of the same DX9 and same Engine

expect the "same" to happen with DX 10 games. We will get mostly DX9c games released for the next year to three or more [remember xbox360 is mostly DX9]. Some . . . like Crysis, Bioshock, etc will be DX9 games with added "features" that are exclusive to DX10 [like DE:IW was DX9 but 'barely' . . . like FC had to be patched into SM3.0] . . . eventually they will be PATCHED to include more DX10 features.

Finally, in '08 . . . we will start to see the first of the "full Dx10 games".

Heck . . . DX9 has barely been tapped . . . as i remember you can write shader with 100 instructions .... the most advanced DX9c [unreal3] games are barely doing 20.
[my numbers may be way off . . . someone may have the correct nos. . . .but i hope you get the idea]

I played them both on a 9200 (bare minimum) and would be able to tell the difference in lag between the two better than people that had 9800's and X800's when they played it. Thief 3 wasn't as slow as DX2 and could support slightly larger maps but regardless they were similar enough.

You still haven't shown me how the Unreal 3 engine is a simple evolution from the Unreal 2 engine. The people at Ion Storm toyed around with the Unreal 2 engine for a bit and added dynamic shadows, but that didn't change the engine as a whole since UT2004 didn't. There is much more work going on with the Unreal 3 engine... just look at screenshots of UT2007 for yourself. Unless you consider the Unreal 2 engine to have evolved from the original Unreal engine that makes no sense at all.

this is not a discussion of the Unreal Engine . . . and no, Unreal 3 is not a "simple" evolution of Unreal 2. ... my comments were intended to be 'generalized'

you are taking my simple analogy and twisting it into . . . what?

again my idea that 2 games may both be DX9 . . . and both Unreal Engine games . . . but "look" little alike as they have evolved from 'primitive' to more complex even as the HW becomes more powerful to run them.

expect the same thing to happen with DX10 games and HW

let's keep it really simple . . . it doesn't require "analysis"

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: Drayvn
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Most of what they are saying is that they are increasing the breadth of the engine to incorporate many different and new features, as well as expanding the core technologies that are in it.

One game that springs to mind that uses the Unreal 2 engine is the Splinter cell series, see how fare it came from the 1st to Chaos Theory. They probably pushed the Unreal 2 engine the furthest in terms of technology. Where they used the Unreal 2 engine as a masic building block then added stuff on to it.

Some of the new technologies that they have included into the Unreal 3 engine is totally new, like HDR and per pixel shadows, and what not, that many of us saw in Chaos Theory. But mainly the engine has been built from the Unreal 2 engine. They are even working on the Unreal 4 engine right now, which is an extension from the Unreal 3 engine and what theyve learnt from it on how to push Graphics engines even further.

Eh, it all comes down to how you define the difference between and enhancement and a new engine. Ion Storm announced in 2001 that they were using a modified version of the Unreal 2 engine to make their game. Not many people are announcing UT2007 as using the same terminology, AFAIK.

Originally posted by: apoppin
this is not a discussion of the Unreal Engine . . . and no, Unreal 3 is not a "simple" evolution of Unreal 2. ... my comments were intended to be 'generalized'

you are taking my simple analogy and twisting it into . . . what?

again my idea that 2 games may both be DX9 . . . and both Unreal Engine games . . . but "look" little alike as they have evolved from 'primitive' to more complex even as the HW becomes more powerful to run them.

expect the same thing to happen with DX10 games and HW

let's keep it really simple . . . it doesn't require "analysis"

I'm not doubting that game engines do evolve. UT2003 to UT2004 was a clear evolution, with the latter supporting much larger maps and (IIRC) better shadowing, among other things. My point is that your example didn't make much sense in the case of DX2 -> T3 or T3 -> UT2007/Huxley/<insert UE3 game here>.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: Drayvn
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Most of what they are saying is that they are increasing the breadth of the engine to incorporate many different and new features, as well as expanding the core technologies that are in it.

One game that springs to mind that uses the Unreal 2 engine is the Splinter cell series, see how fare it came from the 1st to Chaos Theory. They probably pushed the Unreal 2 engine the furthest in terms of technology. Where they used the Unreal 2 engine as a masic building block then added stuff on to it.

Some of the new technologies that they have included into the Unreal 3 engine is totally new, like HDR and per pixel shadows, and what not, that many of us saw in Chaos Theory. But mainly the engine has been built from the Unreal 2 engine. They are even working on the Unreal 4 engine right now, which is an extension from the Unreal 3 engine and what theyve learnt from it on how to push Graphics engines even further.

Eh, it all comes down to how you define the difference between and enhancement and a new engine. Ion Storm announced in 2001 that they were using a modified version of the Unreal 2 engine to make their game. Not many people are announcing UT2007 as using the same terminology, AFAIK.

Originally posted by: apoppin
this is not a discussion of the Unreal Engine . . . and no, Unreal 3 is not a "simple" evolution of Unreal 2. ... my comments were intended to be 'generalized'

you are taking my simple analogy and twisting it into . . . what?

again my idea that 2 games may both be DX9 . . . and both Unreal Engine games . . . but "look" little alike as they have evolved from 'primitive' to more complex even as the HW becomes more powerful to run them.

expect the same thing to happen with DX10 games and HW

let's keep it really simple . . . it doesn't require "analysis"

I'm not doubting that game engines do evolve. UT2003 to UT2004 was a clear evolution, with the latter supporting much larger maps and (IIRC) better shadowing, among other things. My point is that your example didn't make much sense in the case of DX2 -> T3 or T3 -> UT2007/Huxley/<insert UE3 game here>.

UT2003 used the same exact engine and technology as UT2004, just an FYI.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
UT2003 used the same exact engine and technology as UT2004, just an FYI.

Really? UT2003 lagged much more on my computer (never bought it for that reason) than UT2004 did, and the only levels I remember from the demo were pretty small by the standards of UT99/UT2004.

EDIT: Just looked it up, and you're defenitely right about it being the same graphically.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: Drayvn
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Most of what they are saying is that they are increasing the breadth of the engine to incorporate many different and new features, as well as expanding the core technologies that are in it.

One game that springs to mind that uses the Unreal 2 engine is the Splinter cell series, see how fare it came from the 1st to Chaos Theory. They probably pushed the Unreal 2 engine the furthest in terms of technology. Where they used the Unreal 2 engine as a masic building block then added stuff on to it.

Some of the new technologies that they have included into the Unreal 3 engine is totally new, like HDR and per pixel shadows, and what not, that many of us saw in Chaos Theory. But mainly the engine has been built from the Unreal 2 engine. They are even working on the Unreal 4 engine right now, which is an extension from the Unreal 3 engine and what theyve learnt from it on how to push Graphics engines even further.

Eh, it all comes down to how you define the difference between and enhancement and a new engine. Ion Storm announced in 2001 that they were using a modified version of the Unreal 2 engine to make their game. Not many people are announcing UT2007 as using the same terminology, AFAIK.

Originally posted by: apoppin
this is not a discussion of the Unreal Engine . . . and no, Unreal 3 is not a "simple" evolution of Unreal 2. ... my comments were intended to be 'generalized'

you are taking my simple analogy and twisting it into . . . what?

again my idea that 2 games may both be DX9 . . . and both Unreal Engine games . . . but "look" little alike as they have evolved from 'primitive' to more complex even as the HW becomes more powerful to run them.

expect the same thing to happen with DX10 games and HW

let's keep it really simple . . . it doesn't require "analysis"

I'm not doubting that game engines do evolve. UT2003 to UT2004 was a clear evolution, with the latter supporting much larger maps and (IIRC) better shadowing, among other things. My point is that your example didn't make much sense in the case of DX2 -> T3 or T3 -> UT2007/Huxley/<insert UE3 game here>.

my examples don't always . . . true

and for the life of me i couldn't figure out what you were asking

from DE2 to T3 was minor but still very noticeable From T3 to U3 will be 'night & day' . .. same [evolved] engine . . . same DX9c

look at Morrowind > Oblivion

or FC to Crysis [forget the 'added dx10 features'] on the DX9 pathway.

THAT'S what to expect with the First Dx10 games - this year - compared with the full DX10 games of 2 years from now . . . and the DX10 HW that is released in g80/r600 will barely be able to cope.

better?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
my examples don't always . . . true

and for the life of me i couldn't figure out what you were asking

from DE2 to T3 was minor but still very noticeable From T3 to U3 will be 'night & day' . .. same [evolved] engine . . . same DX9c

look at Morrowind > Oblivion

or FC to Crysis [forget the 'added dx10 features'] on the DX9 pathway.

THAT'S what to expect with the First Dx10 games - this year - compared with the full DX10 games of 2 years from now . . . and the DX10 HW that is released in g80/r600 will barely be able to cope.

better?

Ah, ok. Understood and agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

lookie when FilePlanet expects to have Crysis Demo Available:

http://home.comcast.net/~cheapherk/fp.jpg

Est. Date Availabile: Wed, January 01, 2010

 

[A554SS1N]

The most realistic looking games in that link are CrySis and Alan Wake - the others don't really look any better that current standards IMO though, with some looking a bit poor.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin
lookie when FilePlanet expects to have Crysis Demo Available:

http://home.comcast.net/~cheapherk/fp.jpg

Est. Date Availabile: Wed, January 01, 2010

It says Jan 01, 2020 you photoshopper

 

[PingSpike]

...already covered.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
What are you guys talking about? I dunno about all of them, but some of those screenshots (Bioshock, for example) are a few months old and most likely DX9. Alan Wake looks like STALKER with 2006-era textures. Nothing special on that one either.

Thats what I was thinking. Most of those games look like something rendering on DX9. And since DX10 isn't available yet (what is its availability to developers?) I'd wager a guess that they are rendered on DX9. Many of them look great, but they don't look impossible with current hardware.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
lookie when FilePlanet expects to have Crysis Demo Available:

http://home.comcast.net/~cheapherk/fp.jpg

Est. Date Availabile: Wed, January 01, 2010

It says Jan 01, 2020 you photoshopper

not i

Crysis Demo from FilePlanet

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Yanagi
Alan Wake is absolutely stunning.. Me will upgrade to Conroe/Kentsfield with whatever next gen card!

uh oh...the Max Payne 2 successor....this WILLLLL be good.... !!!

but

"""
Markus from Remedy has said ?Alan Wake would pretty much not run on any single core processors, although it may be possible to run on single-core Pentium 4 processors with Hyper Threading enabled, with noticably reduced image quality/experience.?
"""

Jeeeezzz...here goes my A64.....in the trashcan 80% of CPU usage JUST for the physics...and the other CPU-core for the game......

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I thought that Dx10 wasn't finished and wouldn't be released until after Vista launched. Where are the people getting these renders getting their hardware/API to give us these looks? Even Crysis will be launching as a DX9 only, with Far Cry'ish DX10 add ons later...

Nat

uhm...dx10 is THERE right now on my HD, it's with Vista.

Problem is the hardware....but DX10 is "out" already...basically.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
lookie when FilePlanet expects to have Crysis Demo Available:

http://home.comcast.net/~cheapherk/fp.jpg

Est. Date Availabile: Wed, January 01, 2010

wrong..says 2020 here

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I thought that Dx10 wasn't finished and wouldn't be released until after Vista launched. Where are the people getting these renders getting their hardware/API to give us these looks? Even Crysis will be launching as a DX9 only, with Far Cry'ish DX10 add ons later...

Nat

uhm...dx10 is THERE right now on my HD, it's with Vista.

Problem is the hardware....but DX10 is "out" already...basically.

I thought Vista was shipping with DX9 and later to be upgraded to DX10 through windows update?

Me so confused.

Is DX10 in Vista now or not?

 

[flexy]

m21s, want a dxdiag screen as proof ? Every vista beta-user has DX10 already.

Edit: also..the screenies are nice...but you really p*** your pants if you SEE the movies....eg. the crysis trailers w/ all the dynamic lightning and the physics.

Makes the old engines like Source look like %$!$!.....i dont even WANT to see trailers of Alan Wake or better, Unreal 7.....i would probably start crying

 

[m21s]

I'm not doubting you.

But why are people saying the latter? About it shipping with DX9?

See where the confusion sets in

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I thought that Dx10 wasn't finished and wouldn't be released until after Vista launched. Where are the people getting these renders getting their hardware/API to give us these looks? Even Crysis will be launching as a DX9 only, with Far Cry'ish DX10 add ons later...

Nat

uhm...dx10 is THERE right now on my HD, it's with Vista.

Problem is the hardware....but DX10 is "out" already...basically.

I thought Vista was shipping with DX9 and later to be upgraded to DX10 through windows update?

Me so confused.

Is DX10 in Vista now or not?

the Vista Desktop is DX9c --OoB

DX10 will be added in SP1 or 2

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1982033,00.asp">
The People Behind DirectX 10?Part 1: Microsoft</a>

ExtremeTech: Speaking to that point, we know that the desktop in Vista is drawn using DirectX 9. What happens if you have a DirectX 10 card? Does the desktop still use DX9, or does that switch over and use DX10?

Blythe: It continues to use DirectX 9. Largely the reason for that is when we built the desktop, that was being done concurrently with the design of DirectX 10. It becomes somewhat more complicated to build both the low-level technology and the thing on top of it, concurrently. It's better to sort of have a time gap between those. At the same time, we were making some minor tweaks to DirectX 9 to accommodate new features that were needed to do the desktop. For us, it's best to have one consistent platform. Even though we could imagine there being benefit to the desktop using DX10, it's better to do all the debugging and get it to work with DX9 and ship that. Then over time, as the hardware base builds up for DX10, by the time we do the next major release, we'd be looking at trying to move the entire desktop onto 10.

 

[flexy]

apoppin, dopnt confuse him.

You probably mean VISTA SUPPORT (means: the fact that vista, the windows engine, itself actually utilizes DX10) will be added in a later SP.

Right now it only uses DX9 and NOT DX10, that's right.

But DX10 is already in Vista.

edit:

"
Then over time, as the hardware base builds up for DX10, by the time we do the next major release, we'd be looking at trying to move the entire desktop onto 10.
"

makes them sound like Vista is something like a game-engine...lol. I mean the little Vista 3D effects are nice....but where does DX10 come into play there, in regards to the DESKTOP ????

Much more interesting what game-engines will use Dx10 and not what DX method the vista window-flipper uses...not really too exciting

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
I thought that Dx10 wasn't finished and wouldn't be released until after Vista launched. Where are the people getting these renders getting their hardware/API to give us these looks? Even Crysis will be launching as a DX9 only, with Far Cry'ish DX10 add ons later...

Nat

uhm...dx10 is THERE right now on my HD, it's with Vista.

Problem is the hardware....but DX10 is "out" already...basically.

I thought Vista was shipping with DX9 and later to be upgraded to DX10 through windows update?

Me so confused.

Is DX10 in Vista now or not?

the Vista Desktop is DX9c --OoB

DX10 will be added in SP1 or 2

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1982033,00.asp">
The People Behind DirectX 10?Part 1: Microsoft</a>

ExtremeTech: Speaking to that point, we know that the desktop in Vista is drawn using DirectX 9. What happens if you have a DirectX 10 card? Does the desktop still use DX9, or does that switch over and use DX10?

Blythe: It continues to use DirectX 9. Largely the reason for that is when we built the desktop, that was being done concurrently with the design of DirectX 10. It becomes somewhat more complicated to build both the low-level technology and the thing on top of it, concurrently. It's better to sort of have a time gap between those. At the same time, we were making some minor tweaks to DirectX 9 to accommodate new features that were needed to do the desktop. For us, it's best to have one consistent platform. Even though we could imagine there being benefit to the desktop using DX10, it's better to do all the debugging and get it to work with DX9 and ship that. Then over time, as the hardware base builds up for DX10, by the time we do the next major release, we'd be looking at trying to move the entire desktop onto 10.

There we go.