Jump to content

Direct X 10 possible graphical power


Recommended Posts

the interesting thing is that apparently:

 

DX 10 will make the computer run like a console i.e., more dedication and resource management towards the game.

From what I heard early on....apparently vista with DX 10 ...when a game loads up...its kind of like going into the old dos games...so that now all memory, resources are used towards the game.

The main increase in performance and the POSSIBILITY of these kind of photoreal graphics in games is because of the new architecture of DX 10== No more support for earlier DX API's ...so....the code is cleaner....kind of like a brand new engine. :)

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they said the same shit when windows 2000 hit, the same shit when XP hit the market and now the same shit again. I wouldnt expect much more than an encremental increase in performance.

 

At least thats the history.

Asus P8Z68-V GEN3/ 2500k 4.4ghz / Corsair 64gb SSD Cache / Corsair 8g 1600 ddr3 / 2 x 320gb RE3 Raid 0 /Corsair 950w/ Zotac 560TI AMP 1gb / Zalman GS1200 case /G940/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Vista, the UI itself uses hardware acceleration (DX) (if enabled).

This takes up resources. When you start a game it unloads the UI stuff (iirc), to save some resources and you basically have the same situation as pre-vista ;)

 

See it as reducing drag instead of increasing speed.

 

Given Vista's weight, I wouldn't expect any performance increase when migrating from 2000/XP.

 

That said, Vista is the first signficant release since NT4 -> 2K, both for client and server.

Not that XP and Server 2003 are useless, they just aren't < that > different from their predecessor. Vista is ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. So far I can't see Vista being anything but an awesome, slide show inducing system hog. Claims of fantastic performance, awe-inspiring graphics etc will have to stand the test of time. And unloading UI's etc, or whatever it does, takes time no doubt - 2 Gb is already a necessity for XP, will Vista need about 10 or so? Or do I get to stare at my HDD's blinking light even more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly a fake, no doubt about it. I don't think it could even be a display of DirectX10 capabilities, because, AFAIK, FSX already uses DirectX10 and the screenshot above pictures that situation. Ok, Directx10 will support "volumetric clouds" and other nice features, but the second screen is just a fake ps.

 

BTW do you really like those painted backgrounds like in some older PSOne - PS2 games?

 

Negative, not fake at all!

 

It was mentioned on that website that the second picture was rendered but 100% true DX10 material.

Of course you need a rendering farm for that (multiple computers are running for hours to render just 1 minute of movie)

:beer:

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

errm...they aren't "faked." Of course the second picture isn't real, I hope we can all tell, that it's just an photoshop/artist impression of whats to come in MSFS with DX10.
Yes, that would be considered "faked" ... or "Amped".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative, not fake at all!

It was mentioned on that website that the second picture was rendered but 100% true DX10 material.

:beer:

Wrong, on the source web site they said the following:

This isn't an in-game screenshot, but it's a test render of what the Flight Sim team honestly believes they can achieve in DirectX 10. The leap over DX9 is pretty dramatic.
Rendered in 3DSMax or something, not with DirectX10.

 

I'm surprised that the MSFS team (larger than ED afaik and with a larger budget) need DX10 to create a sunray effect, while Lockon (and perhaps other games) pull off a sufficiently realistic sunray effect with DX8 ;)

 

Since it's all smoke and mirrors, it can probably be pulled off with DX6 or so :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, on the source web site they said the following:

Rendered in 3DSMax or something, not with DirectX10.

 

I'm surprised that the MSFS team (larger than ED afaik and with a larger budget) need DX10 to create a sunray effect, while Lockon (and perhaps other games) pull off a sufficiently realistic sunray effect with DX8 ;)

 

Since it's all smoke and mirrors, it can probably be pulled off with DX6 or so :)

 

Anyway the foam on the water could be done with DX8 I guess! :D

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SHIII has foam, IL-2 (with PS3 water) has foam ;)

 

Btw, that first screenshot of MSFS X supposedly uses DX9.

Seriously, that is poor looking water, for DX9.

 

Anyway, graphics aren't the most important thing in a flight sim. But they shouldn't be 5 years old ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're improving the graphics ... but not the things that really matter, for a flight sim. Nice to see their PR is still good though. ;)

 

Biggest innovation in MSFS2004? MSFS2002? ...

 

 

Terrain, weather, and ultimately immersion, are important to me. All of which is being built/improved upon in FSX. In-depth avionics and other more intricate aspects are handeled by the various freeware and payware developers. I'm suprised you don't consider things like terrain and weather improvements as things that matter in a flightsim. lol

 

There have been some very nice add-ons designed for FS2K4 that have really changed the "feel" and look of the product (GE Pro, AS6, UT, etc..).

 

With regards to "what really matter", that depends on each individual. You really shouldn't comment on "what really matters" for a flightsim when everybody has a different opinion. Some of the features in FSX have been added in to increase immersion, and from the looks of it, they probably will accomplish that for a lot of people. Some people may think the animals in FSX are a waste of time, but others may not since they spend a lot of time flying low VFR. To each his own.

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, on the source web site they said the following:

Rendered in 3DSMax or something, not with DirectX10.

 

I'm surprised that the MSFS team (larger than ED afaik and with a larger budget) need DX10 to create a sunray effect, while Lockon (and perhaps other games) pull off a sufficiently realistic sunray effect with DX8 ;)

 

Since it's all smoke and mirrors, it can probably be pulled off with DX6 or so :)

 

 

FSX uses bloom effect and a few other features that Lockon can't do at all, not yet anyways. A sunray in Lockon or some other DX8 game will probably not look quite as good as a sunray in a DX10 product. If the developers are building FSX with DX10 in mind, it will utilize it (or the various development groups out there will create add-ons that will). That is one thing the FS series has going for it, it has always been extremely moddable.

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrain, weather, and ultimately immersion, are important to me. All of which is being built/improved upon in FSX. In-depth avionics and other more intricate aspects are handeled by the various freeware and payware developers. I'm suprised you don't consider things like terrain and weather improvements as things that matter in a flightsim. lol

Improved graphics should be normal (MSFS:ACOF was released in 2003 after all), not the highlight of a new version. Flightsims like F4/AF don't rely on graphics (which are rather poor), but they are still among the best flight sims ever, because they focus on the flight simulation.

 

You seem to talk only about nice graphics and "extensibility" (which is required given the default content).

In-depth avionics and other more intricate aspects are handeled by the various freeware and payware developers.

When you buy a car, you don't expect that you have to look for decent (third party) brakes, head lights, tyres ...? It should be part of the original product. Extensibility should be a bonus, not a necessity. (e.g. OFP)

 

Alas, Microsoft uses games like MSFS to sell their new OS, in this case to promote DX10.

Just like Alan Wake, which will be a Vista exclusive (eventhough it can run perfectly on W2K+ with DX8/9).

I hope you realize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man! lets hope ED gives us water like SH3. SH3 looks and plays amazing. :)

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Improved graphics should be normal (MSFS:ACOF was released in 2003 after all), not the highlight of a new version. Flightsims like F4/AF don't rely on graphics (which are rather poor), but they are still among the best flight sims ever, because they focus on the flight simulation.

 

You seem to talk only about nice graphics and "extensibility" (which is required given the default content).

 

When you buy a car, you don't expect that you have to look for decent (third party) brakes, head lights, tyres ...? It should be part of the original product. Extensibility should be a bonus, not a necessity. (e.g. OFP)

 

Alas, Microsoft uses games like MSFS to sell their new OS, in this case to promote DX10.

Just like Alan Wake, which will be a Vista exclusive (eventhough it can run perfectly on W2K+ with DX8/9).

I hope you realize this.

 

Graphics are important for quite a few people, junky graphics often equals lower immersion in many people's eyes. AF is great, but not nearly as immersive as if it had better explosions, better effects, etc.. You can have all the realism in the world, but if it doesn't really look like you re flying, what's the point?

 

I'm talking only about the graphics since this is a discussion about DX10. But the other aspects of FS are aslo quite good, or maybe they aren't....we don't exactly have any other options available to us. Lomac is good, but it lacks in many areas as well just as FS does.

 

FS delivers exactly what it says. You aren't buying in-depth avionics and whatnot, therefore, you should not expect them. You being let down isn't really MS's fault. They never promised accurate 430's, 530's, FMC's, etc.. Their products do what they say they do. What is "expected" is a moot issue when something is never promised in the first place. ;)

 

:)

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crysis does all that

Huge open world, like Op.Flashpoint

Clouds are volumetric. It's fairly complex weather engine.

 

0604203_20060420_2020073807.jpg

0604207_20060420_1855047186.jpg

0604206_20060420_2058987211.jpg

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks great!

 

I love the sunlight in the second shot, very nice.

 

:)

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man! lets hope ED gives us water like SH3. SH3 looks and plays amazing. :)

They should work on atmospheric effects and weather first. Earth's atmosphere (aka 5th and largest ocean) not water is enviroment our aircrafts are largely interacting with.

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should work on atmospheric effects and weather first. Earth's atmosphere (aka 5th and largest ocean) not water is enviroment our aircrafts are largely interacting with.

 

 

Agreed. Especially if you consider the fact that flight sims take place at altitude. SH3 water looks fantastic, but doesn't look very good at all if you pan the camera up and notice the panel look to the water.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing dynamic weather, different types of clouds, better night lighting, and better lighting at dawn and dusk.

 

With the implementation of the clickable cockpit on the BS, ED is definately heading in the right direction. Hopefully in their next add-on or sim release they take it even further and start working on some real nice environmental effects. :)

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FS delivers exactly what it says. You aren't buying in-depth avionics and whatnot, therefore, you should not expect them. You being let down isn't really MS's fault. They never promised accurate 430's, 530's, FMC's, etc.. Their products do what they say they do. What is "expected" is a moot issue when something is never promised in the first place.

Let's see what's on the MSFS box:

- "As Real As It Gets" (this one is classic for the MSFS series)

- "Made Real by Real Pilots."

- "Take the realism and excitement of flying to a new level"

- "Flight Simulator team worked with aviation experts to create exciting new planes, dramatic effects and detailed landscapes -- all so real that you'll swear you're in the cockpit."

 

At this point I will repeat your quote once more ;)

They never promised accurate 430's, 530's, FMC's, etc.. Their products do what they say they do. What is "expected" is a moot issue when something is never promised in the first place.

For a flightsim that's "as real as it gets", it's not as real as that flightsim from, oh say, 1998 ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see what's on the MSFS box:

- "As Real As It Gets" (this one is classic for the MSFS series)

- "Made Real by Real Pilots."

- "Take the realism and excitement of flying to a new level"

- "Flight Simulator team worked with aviation experts to create exciting new planes, dramatic effects and detailed landscapes -- all so real that you'll swear you're in the cockpit."

 

At this point I will repeat your quote once more ;)

 

For a flightsim that's "as real as it gets", it's not as real as that flightsim from, oh say, 1998 ;)

 

 

Name another flightsim that offers as much in aircraft variation, terrain graphics, open-endedness, playability, capability, etc...... all in one package.

 

Not everybody uses uses full Garmin suites in their aircraft, or Efis displays, of WX Radar, etc.. so it really isn't valid to expect things such as those. You can't really define "as real as it gets" from an everything or nothing point of view.

 

Comparing FS9 to flightsims from 1998 is somewhat invalid since there are practically no similarities except the presence of aircraft. Can I really compare Strike Eagle 3 to LockOn? Or M1 Tank Platoon to SB Pro PE? or even FS98 to FS9? In some regards yes, but in most, no.

 

Sure it would be nice to have all the avionics possible integrated into FS, but it obviously will never happen. However, with FS at least you have the option of adding in your own add-ons that do have these features. If there were other sims that can do this, or sims in the past that could do this, there would be no money in developing the FS Series and development would cease to exist. FS alone is a great product, maybe not for everybody, but that doens't change its popularity with such a wide array of users. For a sim that is "not as real as that flightsim from, oh say, 1998" it sure does have a HUGE community, a community of both non-pilots as well as airline pilots. The FS Series is quite good, the FS Series + a PMDG or Level D or other good development group's add-on can be a remarkable simulation. I can nitpick FS to death, just like I could nitpick any product to death, but we don't have many options these days for flightsims. If it weren't for the FS Series and ED I would have probably stopped playing flightsims LONG ago.

 

Every product has design limitations, and nobody denies that. Expecting a Level-D flightsim you can buy at CompUSA for $49.99 is unreasonable. Taking into account these design limitations, development time, and magnitude of the product, the FS Series is "as real as it gets" on a home computer. The only question that remains is how you define "as real as it gets"....which of course could go either way (and can ultimately never be answered and agreed upon unequivocally). ;)

 

True, it would be nice to have an "out of the box" wonder-sim but that doesn't seem to be possible right now, as you can't please all of the people all of the time. FS can't do it, and niether could LockOn........I'm just happy both exist and development continues. :)

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

well...someone brought up my old thread again...so I guess I'll add a new pic too.

 

INGAME...DX 10 on 8800 GTX world in conflict

 

screenshot4.jpg

 

screenshot3.jpg

 

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_worldinconflict_videos.html

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen in-game video of World in Conflict where they actually dropped that NUKE. It's the best realtime ingame nuke explosion at this moment.

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...