Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #161
3 years later
MICROSOFT ANNOUNCES DIRECTX 15, WITH SUPER REALISTIC AMBIENT OCCLUSION THAT EATS UP 90% OF YOUR PERFORMANCE AND LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE YOUR AVERAGE SSAO SHADER.
IN OTHER NEWS, MICROSOFT HAS ANNOUNCED THAT DIRECTX 16 WILL SUPPORT DYNAMIC B-B-B-BLOODY SCREEN SIMULATION. NOT ONLY DOES IT SUPPORT ALPHA, BUT IT ALSO SUPPORTS REPOSITIONING OF BLOOD SPRITES ON THE SCREEN AND DYNAMIC SCALING OF THE SPRITES, EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THIS WAS POSSIBLE AGES AGO.
-
-
DirectX is now a graphics framework as the CoD engine is a game engine
Updates are incremental and fucking useless.
-
Who gives a shit.
-
considering we've barely harnessed DX10, I do
and so do a lot of people
-
Direct3D sucks balls anyway, developers should just use OpenGL.
-
Isn't DX11 compatible with "DX10 cards"? The same will most likely be true for DX12.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Graphics APIs like D3D and OpenGL are becoming more general with each version. Something as specific as SSAO would never be implemented. I think it will lead to developers being able to write "to-the-metal" like they do with consoles, but still having compatibility with all new cards because they are becoming more and more like normal CPUs with many, many cores. Direct3D has to support that.
-
DirectX 11.1 is confirmed.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4806/b...n-direct3d-111
-
The last one messed up everyones XP computers right? Hopefully it wont mess with vista on 11.1 and 12 will it? (Messed meaning it wasn't compatible without the xpdiag hack)
Actually it doesn't matter to me because im running windows 7 but my laptop runs vista so thats why im concerned.
-
Maybe because graphics technology is advancing quicker than it used to?
-
Simply not true, there are games from 2007 that still look better than games today (Crysis for example), we've limbo'd out in the past few years due to consoles eating up all the developers and will continue to until the new generation of consoles are released.
-
Maybe it will be released late 2012?
either way, I'm still chillin with dx9
-
I remember when I ran on DX7 and now DX12! D: and now we start to see games that almost look real life and stuff.
-
for santas sake I'm going back on ubuntu XD, barely managed to buy a dx10 card and dx12 is near to reach day light ....
-
If you're going back to Linux, at least use a decent distro.
-
Pretty much every decent game I've played runs in DX9 still and the graphics and effects often don't compare badly to games in DX10/11
-
I was very happy with it altrough(typo?) back then I also had XP which I rarely used
-
Get used to it people...technology moves at a faster and faster rate. It's just the way of things.
I totally get how people feel...dx10 comes out and barely any software takes advantage of it, but also remember games take 'years' to develop and at some point the developers make a decision on what kind of platform they are gonna use.
But should DX developers not continue forward and just stop for awhile? The answer is no.
If anyone is to blame it's the video card makers and there marketing pitches about Direct X support when very little software is actually using it, or for that matter, using it properly at high performance levels.
Make a purchase and try and be happy with it, or you can second guess yourself to the wee of hours of the night.
-
Because DX9 is soo shit graphix compared to DX11 and rest of hardware+new games+os are cheap.
This is exactly why i got myself PS3, no more hardware/software drama, while i can still watch videos and do internets on my PC.
-
I couldn't agree more. The one thing that PC's struggle with against consoles is the amount of draw calls it can make, and that's causing frame rate issues. OpenGL is obviously more efficient, just by the fact it can make more draw calls than DirectX.
-
I'm pretty sure the xbox 360 uses direct X.
Like. 8.0b though.
-
I thought Xbox 360 uses an advanced Direct x 9?
-
When I searched, the answers were all over the place, some say 9, some say 8.1
etc. etc.
-
It's not normal DirectX, it's highly specific to the hardware on the console.
-
Because more often than not, devs are forced to cater to the lowest denominator.
-
not really, the quality of the game's graphics depends mainly on the assets used rather than the API used to display them, this may have been a limiting factor back in the day but the new features in DX10/11 just aren't that noticeable
-
That's because you can often get those same features with dx9, but you usually have to implement them in hacky non native ways which more often then not also have a performance impact. And since a dev can't be bothered to rewrite the stuff for dx10,11 the hacky code usually carries over. Same thing with multiplatform games.
On the other hand, you can often see that games that only support dx10 and higher and only come out on the PC usually do have a tang of that extra graphical fidelity with lower hardware impact.
Also if a dev decides to only use the native functions the difference is pretty massive.
-
I remember a thread about that DirectX is holding back PC gaming because DirectX is becoming more focused on the consoles (Xbox since DirectX is owned by MS)
Digged it up again, it was from the AMD CEO, if developers had control over the computers hardware they could do some greater shit, instead its going through DirectX.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/API...ing,12418.html
-
OpenGL and DirectX's main purposes are to abstract the PC hardware behind a single API, if we went back to the era where every card used it's own API we'd have the same issues back again.
The abstraction does make it slightly slower, but imagine if every "Runs best on Nvidia!" only ran on Nvidia cards, etc.
-
I think the Xbox has that 'X' there for a reason. (hint: It's because of DirectX)
(User was banned for this post ("Dumb bump" - Craptasket))
-
Oh my god stop bumping this thread.
(User was banned for this post ("Posting to complain about a bump." - Orkel))
Dumb x 9
Informative x 2
Funny x 2
Agree x 1
Disagree x 1
Zing x 4
Late x 5
