[kimg]

I saw a interview in Heise now, where Gabe Newell, President of Valve, tell the lack of Directx10 in consoles hurt vista, and releasing DX10 only for Vista and not XP was a mistake.

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869

[_xxx_]

Vista was a mistake to begin with, what's new?

[Davros]

I still havnt seen any dx10 visuals that have impressed me

[Color me Dan]

This discussion seems to be one of convinience for devs. Mr. Newell should be well informed on their HL2 engine supporting DX6 for old hardware, Now how is DX6 holding the HL2 engine back?

Having DX9 level (and i know this is a designation made for confusion...) "effects" and code on current consoles should be a non issue. If anything, shouldn't it be a good thing for multi-plat devs to be able to just focus on DX9 as a baseline. Also since Devs are targeting fixed hardware they can extend their code beyond the virtual limit (because it is really just a virtual limit) of a DX or OpenGL specification. This in turn leads to what people could call "DX10" effects being possible on DX9 gen hardware. So what is the big deal?

I didn't really bother to read the link, sorry about that but my internet crapped out on the link; I just feel bad when i see these kinds of comments. So i guess i'm just ranting.

[Lux_]

Steep system requirements, couple of bugs and small learning curve are hurting Vista. Relatively slow firstgen hardware is not of a help either - DX10 midrange is slower than DX9 midrange and no amount of porting the DX10 under older versions of Windows is going to change that.

As for now, DX10 is a means to lose some fps for about same IQ (in Bioshock) or to lose lots of fps for prettier explosions (Company of Heores).

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think Newel's point is that it's fracturing an already fractured market. If DX10 was available on consoles, or Windows XP, there would be a much larger target market for DX10 games, and it would make the work worth the while of the developers.

Devs are seeing a small minority of Windows gamers on DX10 with DX10 hardware. Developers doing DX10 programming work are seeing no benefits for the much larger WinXP/DX9 installed base, or even cross-platform for consoles.

If DX10 had been available for Windows XP, it would be a good way to translate gamers from DX9 to DX10 relatively painlessly with development benefiting a large number of people, and thus increasing the cost-benefit of doing that DX10 coding at all.

[Arwin]

I thought DX9 was limiting consoles? I.e., that developers on PC use DX9, whereas on consoles you're not bound by such an API and can go much lower level. So that doesn't seem to make much sense.

On the other hand, he's probably right about his comments re XP and DX10.

[Lux_]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

If DX10 had been available for Windows XP, it would be a good way to translate gamers from DX9 to DX10 relatively painlessly with development benefiting a large number of people, and thus increasing the cost-benefit of doing that DX10 coding at all.

But it seems that in every title/demo the DX10 mode is running slower than DX9 mode. And current DX10 hardware is not up to the task of running said apps in DX10 above 30 fps anyway (except for highend). The picture may be different same time next year, but the embracement of Vista will be different also.

From technical standpoit - how would MS port DX10 under XP - all the features or only subset?
- If subset, then it would be quite an exception, because AFAIK the DX has been uniform across all versions of Windows where said version was supported.
- If all the features, including driver model, then AMD/NVidia/Intel had to maintain another set of drivers (XP Classic, XP DX10, Vista DX10; another two sets if you include 32 and 64 bit versions), and their driver departments are not excatcly out of work as it is.

All in all I'm not unhappy that DX10 is Vista only - if MS/industry really wanted to have a "clean break", wanted to rewrite all and everything from ground up for 21st century, then let them have it and all the consequences, including slow uptake. It just seems unfair to force everyone else to support "DX10 on XP" temporary need, which goes away in couple of years, but has to be supported for 15.

If it is hard for developers to show DX10 benefits from visual and performance standpoint (and currently it seems it is), then there is absolutely no need to demand support for it. If MS Technology Evangelists or gamedevs succeed in actual improvements, besides evangelism, then let us see the numbers!

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Lux_

Steep system requirements, couple of bugs and small learning curve are hurting Vista. Relatively slow firstgen hardware is not of a help either - DX10 midrange is slower than DX9 midrange and no amount of porting the DX10 under older versions of Windows is going to change that.

As for now, DX10 is a means to lose some fps for about same IQ (in Bioshock) or to lose lots of fps for prettier explosions (Company of Heores).

DX10 is pretty much the same speed as DX9 in Bioshock. It also gives some nicer shadows and particle effects which while not a huge improvement, is good for free.

Regarding Vista and DX10, theres no doubt its hurting the adoption of DX10 not being on XP but then MS doesn't really care about the adoption of DX10, it cares about the adoption of Vista and im sure being the only platform with DX10 is helping push sales (although by how much is debatable).

[Lux_]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

DX10 is pretty much the same speed as DX9 in Bioshock. It also gives some nicer shadows and particle effects which while not a huge improvement, is good for free.

You are right - there is no performance difference in Bioshock, as benched by Firingsquad. Smoother particle effects (no fog clipping) is what I remember from another title also, which seems to be common improvement then.

But what about World in Conflict, again benched by Firingsquad?

In all honesty, it was very tough to spot differences between the DX9 and DX10 code paths during the public beta. [...]
We’ve been told to expect changes to the final game that should hopefully highlight the differences a bit better in favor of DX10.[...]
We’ve been told that last minute tweaks to the game have significantly improved the performance of the DX10 path. [...]
What we will tell you about DX10 performance however is that at 1600x1200 with 0xAA/16xAF the GeForce 8800 GTX ran 19% slower under DX10 in comparison to DX9. The GeForce 8800 GTS 640 was 22% slower while the 320MB card was 30% slower. The GeForce 8800 Ultra fared best, only losing 15% of its performance.

Let's hope for significant improvements then.

[Albuquerque]

Too many people are pointing to badly coded games as some sort of "reason" why DX10 = sux0r.

The problem here is understanding the difference: some developer pulling DX10 out of their collective asses to make some HUGE change to the rendering path is not the same as using DX10 to optimize things that could already be done in DX9.

Most of these developers used for examples in this thread are using DX10 as some sort of excuse to make big-jeezus whiz-bang things that absolutely destroy performance, and then point the finger at the new API versus the shoddy setup.

Here's a reminder: damn-near anything you can do in DX10 can also be done in DX9. But here's the caveat: DX10 is VERY capable (ie: provably so) of performing quite a bit faster than DX9 in a very large number of places.

Was DX7 in trouble because consoles didn't have it? If you answered "What the hell?!?", then you have the right answer. DX10 != Consoles just like DX9 != consoles just like DX(x) != consoles.

[MJP]

Originally Posted by Lux_

You are right - there is no performance difference in Bioshock, as benched by Firingsquad. Smoother particle effects (no fog clipping) is what I remember from another title also, which seems to be common improvement then.

But what about World in Conflict, again benched by Firingsquad?


Let's hope for significant improvements then.

I wouldn't put an overwhelming amount of faith into firingsquad's abilities to spot graphical improvements, at least if their Bioshock evaluation is anything to go by. Their first comparison set, designed to show the difference in shadowmap edge filtering, is instead a very nice shot of a spotlight's penumbra.

Of course we are talking about a feature that would probably need to be explicitly pointed out for most folks to actually notice, but I do think it opens the possibility that there analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

[Geoson]

Isn't PS3 using a Playstation custom version of OpenGL?

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by MJP

I wouldn't put an overwhelming amount of faith into firingsquad's abilities to spot graphical improvements, at least if their Bioshock evaluation is anything to go by. Their first comparison set, designed to show the difference in shadowmap edge filtering, is instead a very nice shot of a spotlight's penumbra.

Of course we are talking about a feature that would probably need to be explicitly pointed out for most folks to actually notice, but I do think it opens the possibility that there analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

They made an update whch shows the improved shadows. Thanks to a tip off from yours truly

[CouldntResist]

Originally Posted by Lux_

From technical standpoit - how would MS port DX10 under XP - all the features or only subset?
- If subset, then it would be quite an exception, because AFAIK the DX has been uniform across all versions of Windows where said version was supported.

The role of 3D API is to expose functionality of hardware. There is no technical basis for believing that any feature of g80 or R600 would have to be missing in such "subset".

- If all the features, including driver model, then AMD/NVidia/Intel had to maintain another set of drivers (XP Classic, XP DX10, Vista DX10; another two sets if you include 32 and 64 bit versions), and their driver departments are not excatcly out of work as it is.

Driver model is not a feature of DX10. There won't be a DX10 game engine advertized "we use driver model to draw cool stuff". There won't be "driver model test" in the next 3DMark. 3D application doesn't talk to driver, it talks to 3D API. The I in API stands for interface. This interface is there to separate you from stuff you don't want to know. Making DX10 API available for XP apps doesn't imply necessity of moving Vista driver model to XP.

All in all I'm not unhappy that DX10 is Vista only - if MS/industry really wanted to have a "clean break", wanted to rewrite all and everything from ground up for 21st century, then let them have it and all the consequences, including slow uptake. It just seems unfair to force everyone else to support "DX10 on XP" temporary need, which goes away in couple of years, but has to be supported for 15.

It would be easier to believe that Microsoft's motive was to give industry "clean break", if Vista was 64-bit only.

Both XP 64bit and Vista 32bit have their own backward compatiblity problems (and no amount of blaming "badly coded apps" would change that). Microsoft must have been aware of that in advance. Since it was clear for them that customers would be going to feel the pain of transition, any advantage of dragging 32-bit legacy evaporated. Not to mention that 32-bit limits are actually beginning to hurt today. Also, your argument about one less driver to write applies here too.

From the standpoint of benefit of industry, MS have done double wrong, if you ask me. They should have tied 64-bitness to Vista, not DX10.

Add to that Microsoft's brilliant idea to selling 32-bit and 64-bit Vista as separate products (OEM and Upgrade versions). Clean break my ass.

[Lux_]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

They made an update whch shows the improved shadows.

Apart from really weird hand I like the softer appearance of DX9 better .

Originally Posted by CouldntResist

The role of 3D API is to expose functionality of hardware. [...] Driver model is not a feature of DX10.

I get the opposite impression from our own Will Direct3D 10 ever come to Windows XP?.

As for 64-bit Vista - I agree completely that MS should have been made 64bit at least default, if not the only option.

[Color me Dan]

A bit OT but i never got why they didn't just go 64bit. We've got to make the step someday and the sooner the better. Also it'd add incentive to upgrade to Vista when program x and y are 64bit that you need.

[Lux_]

Originally Posted by Color me Dan

A bit OT but i never got why they didn't just go 64bit.

I think they would have, if they'd knew Vista would be ready only at the very end of 2006. As the release kept slipping, it was probably decided not to revise aging decisions, 32-bit-by-default among them.

Take the recent "mp3 reduces netspeed" for example. As Mark Russinovich writes, there are hardcoded limits in Vista to guarantee glitch-free playback on singlecore CPU, 100MBit network (and all the "bloat" Vista brings along). This particular decision was probably made with an assumption that Vista would ship at least a year earlier.

[Color me Dan]

Even though Ms is saying "Windows 7 will be the last OS shipped in both 32 and 64bit versions"

That descision is even weirder because then you suddenly have people on Vista with Core 2 duos and comparable AMD products which are all 64bit to be capable of "Vista premium". It just doesn't make sense, Windows 7 will even have backwardscompatibility with Dos! I just read it on Wikipedia and winsupersite.com and i don't get why they would do this. What are they going to do next, DX11 on 32 and DX12 on 64bit in 7? By the sounds of it they are capable of anything...

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Lux_

Apart from really weird hand I like the softer appearance of DX9 better .

You have to see it in motion to see the real difference. The shadow edges in DX9 have a disjointed shimmery effect while in DX10 they retain their shape as them move.

[psorcerer]

Originally Posted by CouldntResist

3D application doesn't talk to driver, it talks to 3D API. The I in API stands for interface. This interface is there to separate you from stuff you don't want to know. Making DX10 API available for XP apps doesn't imply necessity of moving Vista driver model to XP.

Err... do you know why MSFT needs DX10 API?
Why it was made? Why it's much more dependent on uniform hardware functionality?
If you can answer these questions correctly, you'll see why the driver model is important.

[CouldntResist]

Originally Posted by psorcerer

Err... do you know why MSFT needs DX10 API?
Why it was made? Why it's much more dependent on uniform hardware functionality?

I have no idea what you're alluding to, so get straight to the point.

If you can answer these questions correctly, you'll see why the driver model is important.

Important to whom? Is abstraction layer no longer an abstraction layer, in DX10 case?

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

DX10 is pretty much the same speed as DX9 in Bioshock. It also gives some nicer shadows and particle effects which while not a huge improvement, is good for free.

Regarding Vista and DX10, theres no doubt its hurting the adoption of DX10 not being on XP but then MS doesn't really care about the adoption of DX10, it cares about the adoption of Vista and im sure being the only platform with DX10 is helping push sales (although by how much is debatable).

DX10 wasn't even a consideration when I purchased Vista. Vista was (at the time of purchase) a questionable upgrade for me in my mind, but I thought I'd give it a chance.

Now that I've been using Vista 64 for a while...

1. Going back to a 32 bit operating system is painful. Even Vista 32. When I get the time I'm going to see how well Vista 64 works on my tablet PC.
2. Using Windows XP is agonizing and I liken it to sticking needles in my eyes. I had a similar experience upgrading from Win2k to WinXP although that was a far more questionable upgrade than going from WinXP to Vista.

If I didn't use and rely on multiple displays for almost everything in daily computing, then going back to Vista probably wouldn't be "as" bad. Even still, doing simple things in Vista just takes so much longer in XP that it just isn't worth it for me from a time constrained standpoint.

OH, and DX10 still isn't really a concern. Just like DX9 wasn't really a big selling point for me for at least the first year it was around.

As to tying DX10 to Vista. Well, I much prefer that, than have MS spending 1-2 more years shoe-horning it and the underlying OS graphics handling changes into the XP kernel.

Although I'd have been much happier if they'd also found some way to try to force people into using the 64 bit version. 32 bit OS's need to die. The sooner they die, the sooner we can move on to even more graphically rich titles. Or maybe the few titles hitting the 2gb virtual addressing barrier are just an anomaly and not indicative of an upcoming limitation.

Regards,
SB

[psorcerer]

Originally Posted by CouldntResist

Is abstraction layer no longer an abstraction layer, in DX10 case?

It's still an abstraction layer, but much thinner one.
And it depends on some new driver model functionality, like user-mode driver components.

[Sopa_de_letras]

Who cares? I'll upgrade my PC when Shader model 5.0 comes out with whatever cute named tech they put int.