Will 3DMark_Next support DirectX10.1 [Shader Model 4.1]
- Thread starter Shtal
- Start date
IE is just 1 example, I dont even wanna know with how many horrible programms Vista is stuffed. If you had a Windows which tells the user to pick&choose a browser to download (free or paid) the first time they want to get online why would that be too much for the average user? (Linux manages to do it nicely with Packet-Managers)
Thats just stoopid politics, just that MS can rip you off even harder doesnt raise any point. You pay for WMP wether you have it already installed, dl it for "free" or never use it.
CouldntResist
Regular
Sorry, did I mention Microsoft OS unit earns more than five times this "hell of a lot of money" that it costs them to make and maintain the OS? Actually, I did.
If you don't believe me, google for Microsoft profit reports, where the numbers are given separately for each unit. OS development is obscenely lucrative business for Microsoft. Why people attempt to show it as some kind of burden for the company, deserving sympathy (along the 300$), is beyond me.
$50 game also cost "hell a lot of money" to develop. However, $50 games don't sell in hundreds of millions of copies. No $50 game is preinstalled on every new computer on shelf. And no $50 game has hold on 90% of the market. Hence I continue to consider the comparison in question unjust.
CouldntResist
Regular
You're pulling my leg, aren't you? It just doesn't seem serious to keep on finger pointing at costs, and at the same time keep on ignoring revenues.
If you want to retract that comment i have no problem, but don't suggest I'm the one making silly comparisons when it was you that made it.
Ah, there's your problem. You think Microsoft making money is unjust. Give it up man. You get vastly more value from a $300 Microsoft operating system than you get from a $50 game.
Prune please
Would a mod please prune all the arguing over the value of Windows out of this thread? If you feel it is worth it, you can give it a new thread. Alternately, just lock the thread. The title question has been answered. It is a DirectX 10.1 benchmark.
I keep foolishly opening the thread again each time it is bumped to the top of the forum, hoping to find new information about the next 3DMark. Instead I just read more bickering over the value of Windows. I don't see how that can be considered on topic.
Would a mod please prune all the arguing over the value of Windows out of this thread? If you feel it is worth it, you can give it a new thread. Alternately, just lock the thread. The title question has been answered. It is a DirectX 10.1 benchmark.
I keep foolishly opening the thread again each time it is bumped to the top of the forum, hoping to find new information about the next 3DMark. Instead I just read more bickering over the value of Windows. I don't see how that can be considered on topic.
Video now available. Multiple resolutions and formats.
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/6147.html
Hope that gets us back on track.
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/6147.html
Hope that gets us back on track.
Woot!
I look forward to seeing that when I get back home. >o< I can't watch videos at work. Thanks for saving the thread... XD Well at least I'm assuming I won't get home and find that the video in all its multiple resolutions and formats... isn't arguing the value of Windows!
I look forward to seeing that when I get back home. >o< I can't watch videos at work. Thanks for saving the thread... XD Well at least I'm assuming I won't get home and find that the video in all its multiple resolutions and formats... isn't arguing the value of Windows!
OK, Ive got a really pointless thing to say:
In the video towards the end where the crafts fly past the camera and the camera wobbles. If space was a vacuum then surely it wouldnt be possible for the camera to move since there would be no air particles flowing through to push it?
Maybe its the propulsion system doing it. It just looked like the sort of motion an f1 car would give a ground based camera when driving past it at 200mph.
*shrug* end of pointless ramble.
Actually not really pointless. Space may very-well be a vacuum, but it doesn't mean it's utterly void of material for energy to reverberate through. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that does include sound... You'd just have to be incredibly loud inside a fairly dense cloud of matter [which may be see-through to you] to be heard by human ears).
Edit - Don't think I really explained that the best... If the craft are pushing forward through some variety of invisible gasseous matter they're going to create a compression wave pattern, which is going to spread out like ripples on a pond (or a sonic boom might be a good descriptor, too)... If we assume the camera is a physical object, too, then the compression waves should preturb it, as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
OpenGL guy
Veteran
There's not enough matter in space to create a shockwave you could feel, unless the moving object was traveling at relativistic speeds and you experienced gravity waves or something
.And sound vibrations in space? No way. You can't hear sound from a single vibrating molecule.
There's not enough matter in space to create a shockwave you could feel, unless the moving object was traveling at relativistic speeds and you experienced gravity waves or something
And sound vibrations in space? No way. You can't hear sound from a single vibrating molecule.
Yes way.O_O Google it. It wouldn't be audible from a single vibrating molecule, obviously, but who stated that was the case? Not I. Not all space is empty, it's actually rather full of regions of miscellaneous matter (not exotic particles, by any means, just trace gasses [some not visible to our eyes], which is important in this frame of reference, because the scene appears rather clear). Objects moving through any such region at any velocity, still displace material within the cloud in predictable ways based on velocity, trajectory, temperature, viscosity, density of the cloud, cohesion of the cloud, size of the cloud, shape of the cloud, spape of the moving body, position of the moving body within the cloud, direction the cloud is moving, location of the "observer", etcetera - All of which change the wave pattern and frequency differently, and all affecting the resultant wave frequency delivered to the "observer". All those variables will affect the fact of if or not any sound can be heard by a *human* observer. Black holes for example generate sounds, in the classical deffinition within their accretion bodies, but those sounds are too low frequency for any animal to hear (IIRC ~53-59 Octaves below middle C) It is only due to the virtue of our distance from them that we can see their wave-forms in full; Were we closer, we'd likely need ears larger than Jupiter to hear them or make heads or tales of the pattern.
That, however is one unique case, and each case will differ.
Suppose nothing really is... Space as a whole seems to be, but regionally, it isn't... Planets, for example... Earth is obviously not a vacuum, we have a relative surface pressure, due to gravitational confinement, but we exist in a void where anything whispy enough, anything gravitationally confined just not well enough simply bleeds away with the cosmic wind so to speak
leaving neglible or no internal confinement (single molecules dispersed too distantly to interract), or a vacuum.
OpenGL guy
Veteran
So you want to fabricate some contrived example to prove your point? I call that grasping at straws. An accretion disc? Hardly interstellar space. 53-59 octaves below middle C? You're talking 278 / (2^53) Hz (= 3 * 10^-14 Hz = over a million years for a single wave!) at best? Give me a break, that is not "sound". You wouldn't just need big ears, you would need a tremendously long lifespan.
Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere, space is near enough to a vacuum that sound will not transmit. And by sound, I mean something you can hear, i.e. as the definition of the word implies:
Code:
From webster.com:
mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure
waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearingLook, I was being friendly, hence the smiley, don't get arrogantly dickish. My example can be located, just make an effort, instead of being a dick... Might even wish to start with space.com, or sciam.com (Scientific American) - Could be closer than google. And again, just because you can't hear them, it doesn't mean it isn't a sound - Can you hear whale song? Dog whistles? How about elephant grumblings? No? Deal with it, because I assure you they're still classified as sounds. It is the method in which it traverses that makes a sound what it is, not that it is audible to you, it is the method in which light traverses that makes it light, not that it is visible to you.
A shame, a side comment about random trivia throws someone such as you into a rage.
A shame, a side comment about random trivia throws someone such as you into a rage.
OpenGL guy
Veteran
How many movies have there been where a space ship passes by the camera and you can hear the engines rumble? Completely bogus. Hence, my "rage" at seeing people talk about "sound" in space. Fine, if you want to call something that vibrates at 1 wave per million years, be my guest. Space is very quiet. Head out out there and "hear" for yourself.
Of course, your dog can hear a dog whistle, at least *something* can hear it. Something that (theoretically) vibrates on the order of a million years "sounds" like mental masturbation to me.
Similar threads
