PDA

View Full Version : Some Direct X 10 Images



KOM.Nausicaa
08-21-2006, 05:32 AM
Some images from games using the new Direct X 10 technology:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/702/702309/crysis-20060419092903240.jpg

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/702/702309/crysis-20060419092919286.jpg

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/702/702309/crysis-20060419092933550.jpg

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/699/699050/crysis-20060329002212361.jpg

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/698/698600/crysis-20060327065422577.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/222/reviews/931252_20060811_screen001.jpg

CrazySchmidt
08-21-2006, 05:55 AM
No!, please tell me this isn't true. This looks like a plastic implant into reality. Damn have we learnt nothing from our mistakes??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

justiceboy
08-21-2006, 06:14 AM
sure beats this
http://www.atariage.com/features/contests/CombatRedux/thumbs/JohnTielli_2.png

LEXX_Luthor
08-21-2006, 06:23 AM
And they still ignore cloud modelling. No grafix advance in 10 years.

Anyways, the AI will still see in the dark, lala...

slipBall
08-21-2006, 06:29 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Grue_
08-21-2006, 06:37 AM
Blimey, you're a miserable lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

They look pretty good to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
08-21-2006, 09:21 AM
Pfft. Bring back sprites

Jarza_Death_Man
08-21-2006, 09:34 AM
Looks good to me. That is top of computer craphic, why it should look like photo that is taken form real world?

Haigotron
08-21-2006, 09:40 AM
Crysis - i hoping its as awesome as FarCry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Troll2k
08-21-2006, 09:48 AM
I do not know about the rest but the fsX pic is an artist rendering and not a game photo.

Divine-Wind
08-21-2006, 09:53 AM
Holy shizzlenuts.

I want one. Now.

Edit: Lol, I noticed the middle face on the fourth picture looks like my aunt.

PF_Coastie
08-21-2006, 10:07 AM
Those are not actual DX10 screenshots, they are CGI.

flakwagen
08-21-2006, 10:21 AM
Regardless of the above eyecandy, I do wonder if we're due for a big increase in gaming horsepower. I didn't think my desktop box would last this long when I built it. I thought we'd all be rocking and rolling with 5.0+ ghz CPUs by now.

As I understand it (i.e. not very well) the manufacturers have reached a point where it is often easier to increase performance by eliminating bottlenecks rather than boosting processor speeds. But doing this is [apparently] more challenging than making a chip faster.

We shall see.

Flak

leitmotiv
08-21-2006, 10:32 AM
Astounding. Link, please.

F6_Ace
08-21-2006, 11:16 AM
Notice no FPS counter?

It would be

Min:0
Max:1
Avg:1E-19

triad773
08-21-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by flakwagen:
Regardless of the above eyecandy, I do wonder if we're due for a big increase in gaming horsepower. I didn't think my desktop box would last this long when I built it. I thought we'd all be rocking and rolling with 5.0+ ghz CPUs by now.



Yes I thought Moore's Law would have had me upgrade my two year old Athlon 2.2 ghz rig 8 months ago(I have tried to upgrade every time I could reasonably double my processing power) too. I understand that heat is an obstacle that has sent chip designers back to the drawing board in regard to not making chips more powerful n a raw sense; but to take what energy they have and make it be used more efficiently.

I think that the new eye candy will be great; it will add to the immersion level. But that game that was mentioned before (http://www.battlestations.net/) in a similar thread leads me to beleive that multi-role sims (or, at least games) are the future and Oleg & Co are crafting BoB to be able to do this acceptably.

Maj_Solo
08-21-2006, 11:33 AM
shadowing need to be more context sensitive. Looks like they want everything to be an object and self shadowing and be shadowed by other object. Looking at it it feels like the engine forgets some shadows or something. And or that the objects reflect too much light. Something is wrong. I think it is too few light sources and too little ambient light refracting and bouncing around. Too few light sources means it looks like the forest is on a platform in space. A context sensitive shadowing system would understand you are in a forest and with little direct sunlight but that the light is coming down from holes and bounching off trees. And so could preshadow most plants simulating more ambient light than direct and lowring the contrast. If they go for the "everything is an object and not a texture approach" then mother nature is going to give them head aches for eternity.

WE WANT CLOUDS!
WE WANT CLOUDS!
and physics modelling
instead
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Maj_Solo
08-21-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by triad773:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
Regardless of the above eyecandy, I do wonder if we're due for a big increase in gaming horsepower. I didn't think my desktop box would last this long when I built it. I thought we'd all be rocking and rolling with 5.0+ ghz CPUs by now.



Yes I thought Moore's Law would have had me upgrade my two year old Athlon 2.2 ghz rig 8 months ago(I have tried to upgrade every time I could reasonably double my processing power) too. I understand that heat is an obstacle that has sent chip designers back to the drawing board in regard to not making chips more powerful n a raw sense; but to take what energy they have and make it be used more efficiently.

I think that the new eye candy will be great; it will add to the immersion level. But that game that was mentioned before (http://www.battlestations.net/) in a similar thread leads me to beleive that multi-role sims (or, at least games) are the future and Oleg & Co are crafting BoB to be able to do this acceptably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They are probably giving up and going for multi-processor systems. Once they start and have figured most of it out then one might be sitting with a cube containing 8x8x8 processors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Deedsundone
08-21-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by flakwagen:
Regardless of the above eyecandy, I do wonder if we're due for a big increase in gaming horsepower. I didn't think my desktop box would last this long when I built it. I thought we'd all be rocking and rolling with 5.0+ ghz CPUs by now.

Shouldnâ´t we somewhere around Jupiters moon right now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KOM.Nausicaa
08-21-2006, 05:29 PM
Haha, those Crysis shots are actual game shots, really. I saw the demo played and it it is not only this eyecandy, also every single tree and leave is interactive and can be shot and destroyed. The physics are quite impressive.
And it runs really well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif the engine is outstanding.

I posted this because I think Sow:BoB will be somewhere in the category. I am even 100% convinced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
08-21-2006, 05:50 PM
I think most of you are looking at that and thinking how much GPU and CPU power is required. But you shouldn't look at that at all. Its the architecture thats designed to support said features in action. So a feature that was once really expensive in CPU/GPU cycles is now fairly easy to do because the hardware's been designed to do it. Simple shadows like in IL-2 right now used to be a very expensive thing. The specular lighting in IL-2 used to be restricted to the top graphics processors. Then they came up with hardware ways of doing things and it was less and less of a problem. Now its barely even something people notice.

I have high hopes for what the next 5 years offer with DX10 and the upcoming cards that support it.

staticline1
08-21-2006, 08:56 PM
Hey whats the spectulation about older sims or games with DX10 and vista, will they be left by the wayside or be compatible, something only a few years old?

VW-IceFire
08-21-2006, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by staticline1:
Hey whats the spectulation about older sims or games with DX10 and vista, will they be left by the wayside or be compatible, something only a few years old?
You mean DX9 and earlier? DX9 is has quite a bit of compatibility modes stretching back most of the DX releases. DX10 does not. Vista employs DX10 and DX9 modified for Vista at the same time.

Older DX9 and earlier games should, in theory be fine. The new user level operations in Vista and modes will be more of a challenge than DirectX probably.

BiscuitKnight
08-21-2006, 10:06 PM
Using windows vista is like getting a stick of 512MB RAM, snapping it in half, then installing Windows ME, unless I'm very much mistaken.

VW-IceFire
08-21-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
Using windows vista is like getting a stick of 512MB RAM, snapping it in half, then installing Windows ME, unless I'm very much mistaken.
From my experinces with Beta 2...yes that'd be a good analogy. But Beta 2 was a long time ago in the development cycle process. It'd be hard to say the same thing about the finished product till its actually tested. I've heard that there are impressive improvements over the last several weeks of testing so I HOPE that maybe they will pull it off.

WinXP was a mess till release and then it turned out to be quite alright.

BiscuitKnight
08-21-2006, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
From my experinces with Beta 2...yes that'd be a good analogy. But Beta 2 was a long time ago in the development cycle process. It'd be hard to say the same thing about the finished product till its actually tested. I've heard that there are impressive improvements over the last several weeks of testing so I HOPE that maybe they will pull it off.

WinXP was a mess till release and then it turned out to be quite alright.

I've heard very little about Vista except gossip really, but the main thing I heard from anyone who talked about it was the 512MB RAM usage, which was apparently constant, and that it was buggier than ME, though some bugs are expected for Betas.

I hope they pull it off - XP was all I could hope for, I've had one crash to date (When my SATA seagate Barracuda decided that the read/write heads needed to travel at high velocities through the platters) and lockups and crashes were always caused by bugs in the programs from my experience, no XP itself. I'd hate to have to learn to use Linux just to save my RAM.

Haigotron
08-22-2006, 01:07 PM
Those are not actual DX10 screenshots, they are CGI.

I can assure you that those Crysis screenshots are 100% ingame. The company behind it, Crytek has been known to deliver serious graphics engine in the past - FarCry (published by none other than Ubisoft) was such a sight to behold in its time. Those screenshots are why soem gaming websites have given Crysis the best graphics for E3 2006

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/index.html?q=crysis

for more info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

PF_Coastie
08-22-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those are not actual DX10 screenshots, they are CGI.

I can assure you that those Crysis screenshots are 100% ingame. The company behind it, Crytek has been known to deliver serious graphics engine in the past - FarCry (published by none other than Ubisoft) was such a sight to behold in its time. Those screenshots are why soem gaming websites have given Crysis the best graphics for E3 2006

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/index.html?q=crysis

for more info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said they were not "in game" shots. I said they were not DX10 shots. There is no hardware currently available for DX10, although ATI will have thiers out soon enough.

They are quite spectacular and I have no doubt this will be a fabulous game. Its just that this thread was about DX10. Well these pics show what DX10 can do. But they are Not actual DX10 shots.

SeaFireLIV
08-22-2006, 02:25 PM
wow, some of you guys are hard to please....


Or maybe whining is a disease you get from being on the forums too long.

I think if God presented real life people in computers some of you would still whine.