Does anyone dx10 one of the most pointless features out their?

Every time I see games with dx10 and all I can say is "why couldn't that be done in dx9? Well because it could really. I can play Crysis on very high with my XP system and it looks pretty much the same in every possible way.

Stuff like cloud shadows in WiC or bioshock soft smoke can all be done in dx9. I personally find it pretty stupid TBH. So really why do developers use dx10? Why do they implant it in their games? I don't get it at all.

have you seen the heat effect or fire effect done in dx10 when you are running a game at 1920x1200 on very high setting? that alone should convince you that DX10=winAzNs3nSaT1On

[QUOTE="AzNs3nSaT1On"]have you seen the heat effect or fire effect done in dx10 when you are running a game at 1920x1200 on very high setting? that alone should convince you that DX10=winJangoWuzHere

That and DX10 in it's basic implementation is more graphics heavy, however some effects like anti-aliasing (not sure which type) come at much less cost of the GPU capability percentage wise. I think some DX10 games like STALKER Clear Sky barely take a framerate hit when you enable AA in DX10 mode, but you need a brute of a graphics card to run that game with all the effects enabled.

Honestly though, DX10 right now is just a wet dream unless you have insane amounts of GPU horsepower. Some of the effects are nice, but could be done in DX9 anyways, but that would probably piss M$ off. The basic reason for DX10 is too provide more built in support for new effects in the API as well as increase the efficiency of other effects such as AA so that it doesn't tax the graphics hardware like it does in DX9 mode.

Well I dont know really what ur asking but I have DX10 on my Xp rig and I think the difference is remarkable. seancollins1987

Crysis is a great example of DX10 done right.Marfoo

This is a lie. Crysis is native DX9 with some DX10 features built onto of it.

If it was native DX10, it would have run much smoother on DX10 cards.

DX10 isn't pointless. It's called technological advancement. I can barely handle Crysis on DX10 so I can't speak for that game, but on Lord of the Rings Online I know a fairly big difference, and I'm sure future games will have noticable differences as well, particularly more dynamic shadows and lightning.

The majority of DX10's changes were under the hood. And yes, many developers didnt use it because it required a seperate code base for DX 9 and DX 10. DX 11 "fixes" this by making it so that coding to DX 11 provides automatic compatibility to DX 9.

The biggest thing about DX 10 is that it completely opened up shaders to developers in way that were never possible Shaders of nearly any length could be made. However it also gave rise to huge, inefficient shader code. It was more of a "just because you can doesn't mean you should" kind of thing. Many of the DX10 only shaders were too complex for the hardware to process properly. Which is why alot of developers didnt write shaders that were only possible in DX 10 because the hardware wasnt up to par to process them.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="AzNs3nSaT1On"]have you seen the heat effect or fire effect done in dx10 when you are running a game at 1920x1200 on very high setting? that alone should convince you that DX10=winMarfoo

We still have yet to see a true DX10 game. Most of its been marketing nonsense to get people to upgrade to Vista or to get more game sales from the tech enthusiast crowd.

Features locked out of DX9 and called DX10 effects. Like Bioshocks so called DX10 effect:soft smoke edges. COD 2 has that feature.

DX10 also skips on some DX9 features, hence why some prefer sticking to a DX9 engine.lucky326

Well I dont know really what ur asking but I have DX10 on my Xp rig and I think the difference is remarkable. seancollins1987

Far Cry 2 and World in Conflict look and run better in DX10.

People bashed DX9 too.