PDA

View Full Version : wheres DX10?


Arbitard1171
02-17-2012, 06:53 AM
it says its a DX10 game, but its running in DX9 for me. anyone else?

Jumpy-B-L
02-17-2012, 06:58 AM
Are you on XP?

Arbitard1171
02-17-2012, 06:59 AM
nope, windows 7

Stixsworld
02-17-2012, 07:50 AM
Ya I noticed that too...

& I too am running Win 7 64-bit...and how do I know for shure its DX9 not DX10? Because of using the ingame FXAA I inject SMAA and well I attempted to do it the DX10 way but when doing so it never activated SMAA in the game nor could the way I inject SMAA take screenies like it should...so then I tried the DX9 way...and it works...but not the DX10...

---Stixsmaster

Pjuice
02-17-2012, 08:42 AM
i think they said they dropped it, they were going to do it when they were developing it for both platforms and dropped it for the port.

TheSomian
02-17-2012, 10:53 AM
It says it requires a direct X 10 card, that doesn't mean it takes advantage of the DX10 features :X

Louie82Y
02-17-2012, 11:06 AM
It only uses DX9. DX10 cards are reccomended because there aren't any DX9 cards powerful to run it. However, Alan Wake was originally going to use DX10 in 2006, but they dropped it. I don't see any real advantages with DX10 anyways. DX11 on the other hand is a whole new ball game.

Wonderglue
02-17-2012, 11:16 AM
DX10 and 11 are just pointless gimmicks. While DX10 performed better than DX9 on some games, it didn't really bring any advantage. Especially considering there are only a few special effects that require either DX10/11 to run.

rupok2
02-17-2012, 12:10 PM
DX10 and 11 are just pointless gimmicks. While DX10 performed better than DX9 on some games, it didn't really bring any advantage. Especially considering there are only a few special effects that require either DX10/11 to run.

Dx11 is not a gimmick it just that devs show it that way cause a game has to be dx11 from ground up to take advantage of it. Now cause of consoles most games are programmed in dx9 and then ported to a half assed dx11. When the next gen consoles come out you will see the advantages of dx11 they are pretty big.

SHSPVR
02-17-2012, 01:03 PM
DX10 and 11 are just pointless gimmicks. While DX10 performed better than DX9 on some games, it didn't really bring any advantage. Especially considering there are only a few special effects that require either DX10/11 to run.
That is other way around DX9 and 10 that are just pointless gimmicks.
DX11 is not a gimmick it far more advantage then DX10 see below web page on this
http://www.overclock.net/t/597046/dx11-vs-dx10-vs-dx-9-pics

The real problem is that developer try make compatible across two diff platforms

Now cause of consoles most games are programmed in dx9 and then ported to a half assed dx11
It more then that rupok2 DX11 Upgrade will more like need all this stuff re-done, best guest in enhancement modeling/mapping and high resolution environmental objects textures and so on.

Only a few developer have redone there game like Crysis 2

Damien_Azreal
02-17-2012, 01:25 PM
The game uses DX9.
It does not use DX10. It requires a DX10 graphics card because they are stronger, faster cards.

There is no "DX10" version of Alan Wake. The game runs DX9.

Wonderglue
02-17-2012, 02:06 PM
I'm saying that currently not many games are using the full potential of DX10 or even DX11. Just some little good for nothing effects that are nice, but nothing really important. When, and if something big comes out that pushes the DX11 to it's limits. Then that will be a whole different story.

DX10 wasn't really used much as the devs hoped it would. DX11 isn't also used much either and it's out for quite some time.

Also, wasn't the tessellation effects available on DX10 or even DX9?

Arbitard1171
02-17-2012, 05:36 PM
Also, wasn't the tessellation effects available on DX10 or even DX9?
no, it was only DX11.

well that kinda sucks. i thought this was a DX10 game. i suppose theres not THAT much of a difference...oh well

Damien_Azreal
02-17-2012, 06:42 PM
There are various forms of tessellation that have existed on past forms of DX. Tessellation is not specific to how it's used in DX11.
The term has been around since the before the Quake Engine days.

And really, DX10... DX9... the difference between the two and what they can do is basically nothing.
Several developers and studios have said over the years that there's nothing that could do in DX10 they couldn't do in DX9.

Arbitard1171
02-17-2012, 07:19 PM
There are various forms of tessellation that have existed on past forms of DX. Tessellation is not specific to how it's used in DX11.
The term has been around since the before the Quake Engine days.

And really, DX10... DX9... the difference between the two and what they can do is basically nothing.
Several developers and studios have said over the years that there's nothing that could do in DX10 they couldn't do in DX9.

ahh interesting. i figured it was a new thing, as i only heard about it when the Nvidia 400 series came out.

RavN
02-17-2012, 07:35 PM
ahh interesting. i figured it was a new thing, as i only heard about it when the Nvidia 400 series came out.

Nope, they basically haven't invented any new rendering technologies since dx9. Dx 10 and 11 were meant to be more efficient at certain tasks that existed in dx 9 but were not practical in games for a while. For example, true depth of field and tesselation respectively.

I think dx11 is a gimic until a game actually shows that it is more efficient and results in a better looking game. I am still waiting for that game. I would rather have games like the witcher 2 that push the optimized dx 9 technology farther rather then have some added tesselation instancing take a crap on my frame rate.

Darkseid187
02-17-2012, 07:53 PM
DX11 hasn't been used properly because of consoles. Right now it's just gimmick that developers add to console ports, to be able to claim they have new and advanced engine. Situation will hopefully change when next gen consoles are released.

I've read that with DX11 you can make effects more efficient but in recent games it's been the opposite. Tessellation barely makes any difference in Metro 2033 for example but drops the fps down to unplayable levels.

trek554
02-17-2012, 08:05 PM
yeah luckily we can blame consoles for everything...

I hate to break it to you but even if consoles did not exist, things would not be as different as you think. for the most part, games are made to sale to the widest audience so its not like developers would be pushing the limits all that much higher than they do now. sure we have a lot of console ports but even many of those will tax the fastest single gpus out there with max settings at just 1920x1080. hell there are some games where it takes crossfire/sli just to fully max games out and even then there are some settings in some games that put a hurting on you.

and please dont tell me we would have faster gpus either because that is false. Nvidia and AMD push the power envelopes on high end gpus way higher now than anyone would have thought 5-6 years ago. bottom line is don't kid yourself into thinking their would be some magical age of unlimited gpu power and life like graphics if consoles were not the main focus.

Darkseid187
02-17-2012, 08:50 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those blind console haters. I even own two consoles, PS3 and first Xbox.

Still the fact is that consoles slow graphics and physics evolution. How much is up to debate. Most of the console ports have not been properly optimized so it's no wonder ugly game like GTA IV needs insane amount of power. I'm fully aware that photorealistic graphics would still be only a dream in a world where consoles don't exist.

When it comes to GPU power, both Nvidia and AMD have been disappointing lately. GPU development used to be much more rapid. Part of the reason is console gaming, other part is that people want to have small mobile computers instead of big and power hungry cubes.

trek554
02-17-2012, 08:54 PM
TBH the only consoles I have in my house are the old PS 1 and the Gamecube. I do my current gaming on a 2500k/gtx570 pc that I built.

you are still wrong blaming consoles for gpu development. we would likely have the exact same gpu level even if consoles did not exist. what has slowed down development as been been manufacturing issues and gpus getting more complex. if AMD and Nvidia could turn out gpus faster then they would.

cmoyano
02-17-2012, 09:02 PM
DX10 and 11 are just pointless gimmicks. While DX10 performed better than DX9 on some games, it didn't really bring any advantage. Especially considering there are only a few special effects that require either DX10/11 to run.

the actual graphical leap is on dx10, not on dx11. If anything i believe dx11 is a gimmick. Tesselation is nothing compared to a graphical leap. Crysis is a perfect example of this. Alan wake is a dx9 game, however, it requires a dx10 card to play because of the raw power of the graphics and advanced dx9 features. While all DX's are a limitation to the developers. If we didnt have dx we would have massive graphics. Open gl is an example of how much better it is than dx. Uncharted 3 uses it, rage and doom 3 used it. Its carmacks preferred engine cause it doesnt have the limitations dx does.