Quote: "What doesn't make sense is - Calculating the Same numbers over and over in your graphics card - if you can precalc it and then just use the texture - there is less instructions neededing to occur to get same effect otherwise."
What I was trying to tell you is this: if you need some precalculations (like combine several textures to one), you can do them with shaders too and you can use the result in your shader. And it is never slower than with FFP.
Quote: "every shader I've looked into the source, I notice a string of commands - like sin this, matrix that - those instructions AREN't always necessary if the effect can be reached another way."
Like which way? FFP? If you do a basic transformation in vertex shader, it's a serie of matrix multiplications. If you do it with FFP, those transformations are there even though you don't see the default shader which is performing them! How else would it transform the vertex?
Quote: "Also I'm grateful you explained the DirectX10 Implications."
Actually I didn't explain much. It's an amazingly well designed API a far better than any predecessor, but stay away from it some years if you are not planning AAA title
Quote: "Executing commands because you can and not because they are needed CAN add up to to slop... I just don't want to bloat my software more than necessary - regardless where its actually running."
It's not the way I suggest. Using shader will never increase the work of the video card. As I explained before - imagine the FFP as high-level interface for performing the basic 3D stuff. It can't do that faster, because it uses shaders for the job in the background. So you probably made more stuff than necessary when you switched to shaders - if you can precalculate something for FFP, you can do the same for shaders etc.
But don't take me wrong. I'm not trying to persuade you, that you must learn/use shaders. I'm just explaining how it works so you can make an "informed decision".
//rem
