Your Wish List : Things that didn't make D3D10

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Reverend, May 8, 2007.

  1. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Well, out with it then. A number of things were shot down "outright", a number of things were "under consideration" but ultimately was excluded (helps if we can name the reasons), a number of things were "really close" to being included...

    It would be much more interesting to read/discuss "official reasons for exclusions", I suppose.
     
  2. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,267
    Likes Received:
    1,783
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Mandatory AA compatibility/support built into it. :(

    Don't know if that's possible or not, but I'd really have liked to see a bit more effort with it.

    (Just IMHO and all that, don't kill me!)
     
  3. memberSince97

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Palm Springs Area
    I think deferred rendering and AA is possible in DX10
     
  4. SuperCow

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    City of cows
    In my opinion the most glarant missing feature in DX10 is the unability to resolve a multisampled depth buffer (either through ResolveSubResource() or manually in a shader accessing samples). This will be causing special cases in quite a few engines that were looking forward to treat MSAA as an orthogonal feature in their engine.
     
    #4 SuperCow, May 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2007
  5. armchair_architect

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    8
    Out of curiosity, how would you merge the depth samples within a pixel? Averaging (like resolves of color buffers) isn't going to give you anything useful, for the same reason that normal bilinear filtering of shadowmaps is wrong.
     
  6. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    This is currently planed for D3D 10.1
     
    digitalwanderer and Jawed like this.
  7. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,267
    Likes Received:
    1,783
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Are you serious? Or are you playing a modern "dx 9.1" joke on the old Diggers? :oops:
     
  8. SuperCow

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    City of cows
    You're perfectly right that there is no "right" way of resolving a depth buffer. However a "gross" resolve operation that e.g. picks a single sample would be enough to cover a lot of cases like soft particles, depth-based fog and even depth of field. The preferred option would be to let the pixel shader access individual samples in the depth buffer like any other multisampled surfaces however this isn't supported in DX10.
     
  9. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    No the “codenameâ€￾ for the next DirectX version is currently 10.1 and the shader model is 4.1.

    Well Direct3D 10 can support any operation for every format. The problem here is that resolves or subsample loads for depth stencil formats are not required operations to claim D3D10 compatibility.
     
  10. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    That's not true. There are some stuff that's mandatory, some that's optional, and some that outright disallowed so that the runtime prevents such functionality. There's a table in the spec which lists what's mandatory, optional and unsupported/disallowed.
     
  11. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    Thanks for this update. I was aware that there is such a list but I didn’t know that there is a disallowed section.
     
  12. bloodbob

    bloodbob Trollipop
    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Australia
    A teapot primitive.
     
  13. nicolasb

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ray-tracing! :runaway:
     
  14. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    continuous tessellation that rocks....
     
  15. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Looks like ati have been listening to me ;)

    lets hope devs use this feature...
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Location:
    Finland
    The problem is the same as with TruForm for example, only one IHV supports it, before it's adopted by Microsoft for DirectX, there will most likely be handful of games at best supporting it.
     
  17. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    It’s not part of the DX10 API. Therefore the needs another API hack to make it accessible.
     
  18. AlBran

    AlBran Ferro-Fibrous
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    20,719
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Why would they include the tessellator then :?:
     
  19. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    There was a tessellator in some early D3D10 drafts and ATI had the technology from the Xbox anyway. The still could provide support for it with OpenGL.
     
  20. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    I thought it was allready in dx9 ?

    Heres some text i nicked from x-bit review of the parhelia
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/matrox-parhelia.html

    "Adaptive polygon tessellation is one more key feature of Matrox Parhelia. As hardware adaptive polygon tessellation is going to be one of the requirements for DirectX9-compatible graphics cards"

    Was it removed or is the programable tessalator in r600 something different ?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...