pouët.net

Vista look like a DRM nightmare. Is DX10 really worth it? I mean, what's new in DX10? :)

doom: some damn cool stuff - vs4/ps4, create geometry in a shader. would be very useful indeed. =)

Crysis ;)

smash - oh, you mean like exposed in opengl already without everybody changing their freakin' operating system! :/

hornet: yea, just hope you dont have to code everything again for each card vendor's extension set this time.. :)

So. Uhm.. as impressive as the number 10 sounds compared to "9", and even though 4.0 is one greater than 3.0, that picture looks more like "nicely modelled and textured" than "super high-tech".

Anyway what's it all good for if you can't download it illegally. ;)

omg...
"Microsoft Corp., the world’s largest maker of software, will not release next-generation graphics application programming interface (API) called DirectX 10 for the currently shipping Windows XP operating system (OS), instead, the company will keep the new API strictly for the forthcoming Windows Vista OS, despite earlier assumptions about DirectX 10 for the XP."
"DX10 is going to be Vista-only. It relies on the new driver model, so don't expect some sort of eventual back-port to Windows XP."
"The logic behind Microsoft’s decision is obvious, in that it further enforces the idea of Windows Vista as a necessary upgrade for game players, and allows Windows Vista and DirectX 10 to combine much more efficiently, but it also has the risk of further narrowing the market for cutting-edge PC games."

I don't know why but it's the first time I feel that Microsoft ain't on the good road with Vista. Maybe they're just blind this time with a certain lack of pragmatism.

It ain't a groundbreaking tool compared to XP and they're just messing minds in their wilful quest for the perfect vision of the next generation computing.

--> "I don't know why but it's the first time I feel that Microsoft ain't on the good road with Vista"

:: Oops, those words are really funny indeed. Is it the first time I am not driven by all those marketing crap ?
Yep, maybe I am more mature ^-^

I remember being as sceptic but at the same time a bit curious about XP when it came as with Vista now. XP proved to be quite nice and stable after SP2, so maybe Vista will eventually turn out to be something. I just hope all that pointless eye candy can be switched off completely...

it may be all nicer and more stable and secure (blablabla...) but it need a new batch of hardware drivers which is a major pain in the *ss for old hardware >:(

in fact it need brandnew costy hardware and memory, such a surprise! :>

that screenshots makes me think of this:

*cough* :D

baked shadows ftw \o/

Typical fps "gun != game && game != gun" :D

That's what you get for allowing 64 MB games.

that gun is just camouflage

@ [EviL] :

"Microsoft will be releasing DirectX 10 exclusively for Vista and DirectX 9.L for WinXP. What is DirectX 9.L? Well, it's DirectX 10 for WinXP, of course."

"DirectX 9.0 L is simply a renamed and refurbished DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It will make DirectX 10 games to work on Windows XP."

You are joking of course (otherwise the sentence would show a serious ignorance about CG)

Ok that's it, the thread is doomed now :( I can sense incoming ranting, flames and some not so nice c\~/ !

So, if I've correctly understood, the basic user won't be able to run OpenGL apps before he installs external stuff? Can't nVidia and Ati handle this through drivers?

In Vista you will get OpenGL 1.4 out of the box. However it will be wrapped ontop of DirectX 9 so we will have to see how the speed will be. But opengl apps will work from the start.

Then NVidia, ATI and the rest can and will release full native OpenGL drivers just as they have done in all other windows releases. That is will full OpenGL 2.0+ support.

Zest> not THAT so secure..
keops> There was such petition about that on opengl.org, to let nvidia ant ati handle it, but i don't know where the thread goes, such pouëtization happened over there..

"You are joking of course (otherwise the sentence would show a serious ignorance about CG)"

CG is a matter of perception and a lot can be achieved through deception. what is your level of perception when you watch a fancy new massive realtime-calculated 3d volumetric particle explosion in a ps3 game versus an oldskool billboarded/2d prerendered animation of the same explosion? there is no difference in perception.

sure the technology in these new games/consoles is a big jump but people's threashold of what they can actually register mentally has pretty reached its limit with the new consoles.

the next generation of consoles after ps3/360/etc is going to require some RADICAL thinking. so-called improved gfx will not cut it as people will simply not notice the difference.

that jungle environment could have easily been matched by a talented artist using baked vertex global lighting, billboarded fog/light, etc blah. the same impression would be conveyed to the player. so what if the one above requires a $500 gfx card

I don't think so. Take control of the camera, move it a bit, and you will see the perception you get is not the same when realtime ffx or backed lighing (to textures/vertices).

- how you are going to bake into textures all the view dependant lighting effects like specular, subsurface scattering (sss) o atmospheric scattering?
- how do you bake into textures all the shadows from animated geometry (all those leafs in the screenshot DO move and react to players collision).
- how do you bake motion blur

I may be overreacted, but what I understood from Doom was something like: "that is JUST a nice model with nice textures (backed from Max or handdone)". And it think that's not true at all.

About OpenGL on Vista:
http://blogs.msdn.com/kamvedbrat/archive/2006/02/22/537624.aspx