[QUOTE="acsguitar"]

Currently:

No Dx10 Cards can Handle Dx10's Advanced Features.

Dx10's Advanced Features barely exist because many programmers haven't learned them yet

Drivers haven't been made to use the few Features that DX10 has already introduced.

Its a learning curve obviously for everyone.

Personally I have Vista and XP installed dual booting.

So I don't feel that bad.

I do feel bad looking back at this formentioned screen shot.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6115/comparisonshotxt0.jpg

Holy poop thats a difference. Although i do think Crysis looks amazing now the other one is real life its so realistic!

Right now XP > Vista for gaming

However, you never know in a month that might change due to a driver. 1 Driver correctly programmed could change the whole game really really quickly.

SacrificiaLamb

Wow. The demo looks like crap compared to the early build.I guess it would have been totally unplayable.

It makes you wonder what kind of hardware they were running it on.

I am thinking that was total CGI. I guess we all fell for it.

[QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

Philmon

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

Finally a voice of reason! You can use World In Conflict as a perfect example. You can clearly see differences between DX10 vs DX9. The same can be said for Company of Heros and Bioshock(already noted). I wonder if any who is against DX10 has actually played a game in DX10 settings.

Let's take Crysis as an example. While game did a fantastic job comparing the differences what they didn't show is video. When in DX10 mode, the lighting completly changes. One can even argue that it looks realistic. You can't DX9 and that alone makes DX10 worth while.

[QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

Philmon

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

Finally a voice of reason! You can use World In Conflict as a perfect example. You can clearly see differences between DX10 vs DX9. The same can be said for Company of Heros and Bioshock(already noted). I wonder if any who is against DX10 has actually played a game in DX10 settings.

Let's take Crysis as an example. While game did a fantastic job comparing the differences what they didn't show is video. When in DX10 mode, the lighting completly changes. One can even argue that it looks realistic. You can't DX9 and that alone makes DX10 worth while.

[QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

Philmon

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

Finally a voice of reason! You can use World In Conflict as a perfect example. You can clearly see differences between DX10 vs DX9. The same can be said for Company of Heros and Bioshock(already noted). I wonder if any who is against DX10 has actually played a game in DX10 settings.

Let's take Crysis as an example. While game did a fantastic job comparing the differences what they didn't show is video. When in DX10 mode, the lighting completly changes. One can even argue that it looks realistic. You can't DX9 and that alone makes DX10 worth while.

[QUOTE="Baroncx"]

have not had any problems with it - but as far as improved graphics is concerned, the first game that you are really going to be able to tell is difference is Crysis.

artur79

Hmm, sure about that?

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html

I take my previous statement back, there is no reason to upgrade to Vista yet. Well, there is one, it's nice to look at, but your in-game visuals will not get any significant boost if you upgrade. I guess I'm going to wait longer.

Please just stop right now. There is clearly a diffference between DX10 vs DX9. You won't notice them by looking at a picture. I mean the shadows are a big difference.

No.iwokojance

x2

I am already busy playing a MMO. It's called real life.

She got no ass. She need to eat some green bananas, corn bread,yams n ish.tramp

I guess that's the other "half" of her. LOL!

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]i don't care too much. i've read some things about it that don't sound all too appealing. i'd rather have kotor 3, jedi knight 3, or x-wing/tie fighter 2.DQ25

Are you sure? Pulling down Imperial Star Destroyers from the sky is a bit much, even for the Star Wars universe.

Wow this game is really cool. I am playing it is 1280x1024, dx9, everything set to medium. I am getting between 27 and 34 FPS measured with FRAPS. My system is 4200+ X2 (Oced to 2.6GHz(, X1900GT (OCed to 580MHz), 1 GIG RAM. The game is very playable like this.

So far I am loving the game, the weapons are great. But it really does seem exactly like FarCry. Just way updated. But it's the same basic thing. You are be directed by some guy on a radio and the island, bad guys, boats, bad guy camps, etc are EXACTLY like FarCry! There is nothing wrong with that because FarCry is one of the best games of all time. But why didn't they just call this FarCry 2 and extend the game off of that story line? Or if they are still going to do a FarCry 2 it will be weird because it will be so much like this game.

Store24

I thought I was the only one that noticed this. I thought Far Cry was horrible and this clone is no different. *right-click delete*

[QUOTE="Selrath"]

rofl.. Am I the only one that thinks this is like.. /care? It's not that much better. -_-

mrbojangles25

My thoughts exactly.

Its a freaking game people, lets try to keep it focused on the gameplay most of the time! You want pretty pictures, go outside, go to the beach, and go to an art museum.

Yes, Crysis is impressive but comeon.

Sadly most people forget this. Oh, well.