Yeah I think DX10 will likely be skipped by many developers. Currently there isn't much reason to support DX10 since:
(a) still less than 25% of the average gamer PC can run DX10 (vista + DX GPU)
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
(b) the Xbox 360 doesn't support it
(c) we have yet to see any huge image or framerate improvements over the DX9. In fact, many early benchmarks showed the same games ran at lower FPS in DX10 than DX9, but that was likely early driver issues.
Personally I'm going straight from XP to Windows 7. Early benchmarks show Win7 is good for gaming even in beta. Whatever version of DX the next Xbox supports will likely be the one that hangs around for years like DX9.
Windows 7 & Directx9 ?
d) DirectX 11 supports DX9 and DX10 hardware :p
Also regarding image/performance improvement, the main issue is that generally when there is both a DX9 and DX10 path, the DX10 path has more complex shaders, which isn't always obvious when looking at the game, but in the end it means it won't be faster either.
However as drivers evolve (DX10 is still recent, and see how much a driver update can still do with DX9 games) there'll be much more space for improvements with DX10 (and even more with 11) than DX9, mostly because of the design itself...
Also regarding image/performance improvement, the main issue is that generally when there is both a DX9 and DX10 path, the DX10 path has more complex shaders, which isn't always obvious when looking at the game, but in the end it means it won't be faster either.
However as drivers evolve (DX10 is still recent, and see how much a driver update can still do with DX9 games) there'll be much more space for improvements with DX10 (and even more with 11) than DX9, mostly because of the design itself...
Here is the way I see things: To MS, having DX10 and DX11 work with XP can only hurt Vista sales since, to the average user/gamer, that's about the only thing Vista has to offer over XP, beside the ridiculous useless bloat of course. So they're not going to do it, and whether the "driver model" business is real or just a bullshitical excuse becomes irrelevant. Following similar reasoning, I don't think backwards compatibility with DX9 will not be dropped any time soon. OpenGL is, as mentioned above, a complete mess, becuase it's in the hands of a bunch of people who are seemingly either not interested anymore or are simply inadequate.
What should happen is Nvidia should just make an API for their drivers that developers can use to directly access graphics, physx, and CUDA stuff! These guys are real fanatics... who better to trust the future of PC gaming with? This would have a lot of various effects, including geometry shaders on XP... yay! But until then, I think sticking with DX9 is the way to go.
What should happen is Nvidia should just make an API for their drivers that developers can use to directly access graphics, physx, and CUDA stuff! These guys are real fanatics... who better to trust the future of PC gaming with? This would have a lot of various effects, including geometry shaders on XP... yay! But until then, I think sticking with DX9 is the way to go.
Nobody seems to have mentioned one of the main reasons D3D9 won't get killed off anytime soon. The Aeroglass desktop is D3D9Ex based. Upgrading Aeroglass to a newer API is surely going to be easier than the initial change to a 3D system. But, I don't think Microsoft is eager to rewrite the desktop any sooner than needed.
I don't think Microsoft is eager to force a huge percentage of their existing customers to purchase new hardware, again, just to upgrade their next OS. Especially the ones who just got a new machine or D3D9 card to run Vista, which wasn't that long ago. Those cards can still render the desktop just fine.
Killing D3D9 support anytime soon just wouldn't be a good move. It will be there for quite a while.
I don't think Microsoft is eager to force a huge percentage of their existing customers to purchase new hardware, again, just to upgrade their next OS. Especially the ones who just got a new machine or D3D9 card to run Vista, which wasn't that long ago. Those cards can still render the desktop just fine.
Killing D3D9 support anytime soon just wouldn't be a good move. It will be there for quite a while.
Actually, rumor has it that Aero in 7 is based on 10.1 with 10level9 for backwards compatibility.
That doesn't change the fact that DirectX9 support isn't going anywhere. Other than the hundreds of products using it, XNA Game Studio is DX9 only, and I doubt there are plans to cut XNAGS support.
[EDIT] and while we're on the topic, even DX3 games run fine on Vista (and probably 7 too), so saying there's no support for DX7 in Vista seems incorrect.
That doesn't change the fact that DirectX9 support isn't going anywhere. Other than the hundreds of products using it, XNA Game Studio is DX9 only, and I doubt there are plans to cut XNAGS support.
[EDIT] and while we're on the topic, even DX3 games run fine on Vista (and probably 7 too), so saying there's no support for DX7 in Vista seems incorrect.
I've got a couple DX5 games that run fine on my DX9/XP computer. These games also run on Vista. Not sure where you got the idea that every new version of DX cuts support for the old ones.
Microsoft dropped the Retained Mode and VB6 bindings from the Vista runtime, which breaks backwards compatability to a bunch of applications but otherwise its business-as-usual on the compatability front for XP/Vista/7.
IMO, getting rid of RM was a good thing - it was a horrific API and not very useful. The VB6 bindings were a shame though as a lot of developers used those and other than the support/maintenance I don't really see what the problem with them was...
But this has been discussed to death in a million threads in every forum under the sun.
Cheers,
Jack
IMO, getting rid of RM was a good thing - it was a horrific API and not very useful. The VB6 bindings were a shame though as a lot of developers used those and other than the support/maintenance I don't really see what the problem with them was...
Quote:To MS, having DX10 and DX11 work with XP can only hurt Vista sales since, to the average user/gamer, that's about the only thing Vista has to offer over XPWell its hardly a USP of Vista if most people are skipping it for the various reasons (e.g. XB360) discussed above. The technology reasons are very real and very reasonable - the enterprise market would get absolutely ballistic if MS ripped out XPDM and dropped in WDDM 6 years after RTM, and the games/graphics developers would hardly be impressed at having to write and test D3D10-XP and D3D10-Vista codebases if it were a simple wrapper/port.
But this has been discussed to death in a million threads in every forum under the sun.
Quote:What should happen is Nvidia should just make an APINo, that wouldn't be good. Nvidia might've bought out the left overs of 3DFX but I would rather they left Glide in its coffin.
Quote:The Microsoft hater comments are probably because of your use of "M$"Yup, there is a very strong correlation between the use of that term and threads being closed, people getting banned and everyone having a bad day. To be taken seriously, it should never be used - its that simple.
Cheers,
Jack
Author
Quote:Original post by flobadob
Oops - I didn't realise that M$ was offensive.
I already sorted that out. You seem determined to put a negative slant on this thread. Leave it be.
Quote:Original post by flobadobNo need to be unpleasant. You didn't like my initial reply, so I was adding my confirmation of Steve's explanation as the correct one. Nothing more than that.
You seem determined to put a negative slant on this thread. Leave it be.
As for the topic in general, I've seen this so many times is so many ways that I have no problem stepping in before it turns into yet another "Vista suxorz, M$ are evil" bore.
Currently we're sticking above that level and there is some useful and interesting commentary on the subject. Lets keep it that way.
Cheers,
Jack
Quote:Original post by jollyjeffersQuote:What should happen is Nvidia should just make an APINo, that wouldn't be good. Nvidia might've bought out the left overs of 3DFX but I would rather they left Glide in its coffin.
A cross-platform API for their hardware wouldn't be bad, and comparing that with Glide is not fair, since that was a long time ago and done by different people, and things were really different back then. They have brought us CG, and an API like the one I spoke of should be considered as going a step farther, not repeating Glide. That said, I only said that half-jokingly. While I do think it would be a good and interesting thing, I don't believe it would change the world of professional PC gaming given the number of issues that using such an API would entail, not the least of which would be the lack of support for anything other than a PC with an Nvidia graphics card.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
