Quote: "Um, Mass Effect is only on the 360, so I don't know what you're referring to It's not DX10."
I was giving examples of games on the 360 that use DirectX9 to how good you can make it look; as to point out that what TGC have claimed possible (and tbh clouded the minds of many over how much better graphically DirectX10 is) isn't entirely accurate.
You can make some truely beautiful stuff with it.
However there are still geometry limitations having to rely on the CPU for transformations and lighting.
A huge problem with DirectX10, while it does certainly open up more possibilities for developers; most right now just aren't using them. Instead they're keeping with the same pipelines they used for their DirectX9 games and then everyone cries out that DirectX10 is pointless.
It's much like when Shader 3 first hit. The promises were that it could dramatically enhanced performance while graphically there wasn't anything in it that Shader 2 couldn't do.
This is still true, but developers have now learnt that what Shader 3 actually provides is the ability to branch so less code is physically run. So while technically you have no visual quality difference, you do have code that is capable of doing exactly what you want, when you want. Rather than a static program that'll run from start-to-end.
It all really leads to what is DirectX10s not only best feature but also the most problematic one too. That is that it really provided developers more freedom to program exactly how they want, but the flipside of this is; lazy programmers will see absolutely no performance benefit really boiling it down to is the API worth it?
I mean so far all I've seen developers do is throw more complex shaders at it and shout "HEY! Why isn't this any quicker?!". Problem with these numbnuts is they seem to be the ones pushing out the titles right now.. who are still completely ignoring DirectX9's Streaming Memory system that when uses DRAMATICALLY improves engine performance. As does using the new device context system that allows you to lock the low-level driver and pass between threads.
In-fact there are so many unused features of DirectX9 that honestly we've not seen anything push it to it's peak performance yet. Although Unreal Tournament 3 does do quite a good job, there are a few documents on the GameFest where they outline the issues they ran in to and the solutions they did which Microsoft has now discovered the problem with.
I mean most of this actually boils down to rather than learning something they rely on someone else to tell them how it works than figuring it out themselves.
Quote: "No, of course not, I'm just pissing into the wind .
Yea, I have.
I just like OpenGL more.
Just like i prefer Irrlicht over the Dark GDK. Personal choice."
And I know someone who prefers VB over C#... doesn't mean performance is any better on a system where the APIs performance for the most part boils down to the driver implimentation.
True, with OpenGL you get raw access from the get go; but this is also it's biggest weakness as engine development on the level of todays standards is extremely lengthy to achieve the same results as Direct3D.
There is a firm reason that OpenGL is only really used by those who refuse to use Direct3D and students... it just isn't cost effect. In-fact using Direct3D directly isn't these days, usually only engine developers will get thier hands dirty while game developers will modify something someone else has done.
