Beyond DirectX 10 - A glance at DirectX 10.1 236
Hanners1979 writes "Although we still appear to be some way away from the release of Windows Vista, and with it DirectX 10, specifications for the first point release of the 3D graphics API, DirectX 10.1, have already been finalised and largely made public. Elite Bastards looks at what's new and what will be changing in this release, set to become available not all that long after DirectX 10 — There's more to it than you might imagine."
Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:2, Interesting)
DX9 been around for a while? Well please enumerate for us all what features you were 'missing out on'. DX9 was already ahead of it's time if you recall: most of the DX9 features werent even supported (or fully supported) by the king of the hill video cards at the time it was released.
Look at how great computer graphics were charging forward without Direct X. Um... yeah, right. Programmers are the ones driving acceptance of DirectX, not "teh ev1l M$
And if the Anonymous Coward forgot... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenGL is alive and well. It would be great if some of the Windows developers started using it though, since they are in the majority. Please, feel free to join the rest of the world.
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:2)
tends to be a delay with the same features becoming univerally available on all graphics hardware (ARB, EXT extensions), although vendors are free to introduce their own custom extensions.
If you're an application developer wanting to develop a bleeding edge application for the PC, you're more or less forced to use DirectX.
Not much of a business case for OpenGL ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were in a developer's best interest to use OpenGL they would. OpenGL has a history of having mediocre drivers if you are *not* doing things as Quake does them. In other words OpenGL was of such little interest to ATI and NVIDIA that about all the optimization attention it got was whetever Quake used. Now this was a few years ago and things are bet
Re:Not much of a business case for OpenGL ... (Score:2)
Re:Not much of a business case for OpenGL ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well if they had a clue maybe they'd realize that gamers really couldn't care less what operating system they're using as long as it runs the games. If game companies started basing their products on a stable Linux core instead of that flaky Windoze shit we'd start to see gamers switching overnight. Do you really think they
Re:Not much of a business case for OpenGL ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, since when is the entirety of Linux considered stable? Half the time the drivers are up in the air, and there's enough competition and conflict between various builds and organisations as to achieve bugger all on a standards level. If game companies started porting to a stable Linux core, they'd be porting to Wii - THAT has a Linux OS with Opera installed.
Re:Not much of a business case for OpenGL ... (Score:2)
Not a small market, the consoles alone, with two more systems coming Real Soon Now.
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:5, Funny)
Are you crazy? MS would never delay Vista!
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you can run games using older versions of DirectX in Vista, so how exactly is this a problem. DirectX 10 isn't out yet and you're complaining about the lack of DX10 cards? ATI and nVidia are on development cycles and they would obviously not include DX10 support on current graphics cards, simply because DX10 wasn't mature when today's architecture was under development. I am very sure both nVidia and ATI are dying to get DX10 cards out as soon as Vista is out, since selling the first fully Vista compatible cards is a huge thing. You can't expect today's tech to support something that isn't even released yet. That doesn't make sense.
Even then it makes me wonder what the point is. When games like WoW get all the headlines using technology that barely require DX8. Maybe if you are into FPS games this will matter but for everyone else the featureset you are calling dated far outpaced the software that runs on it years ago.
Excuse me, but are you even aware of how many of today's games rely heavily on DX9 technology? You are also saying that games like World of WarCraft barely use any DX9 tech. Do you have any documentation on that? Also, what is "games like WoW"? In fact, many "games like WoW" today use pixel shaders and therefore require DX9. Yes, FPS games are clearly taking advantage of the latest technology, but the simple reason is that realism is far more important in such games than, say, strategy games. But on the other hand, there are so many types of FPS titles. We have racing games, action games, MMORPG and even adventure games. World of WarCraft may not be the most graphically advanced game, but this is for three main reasons: it's huge and would simply require too many gigs of space if it was more complex than it already is. Blizzard is also targeting a larger mass who isn't constantly upgrading its hardware as much as some other groups do. Last but not least, have you ever thought of how much more time and money Blizzard would have to invest to include the latest technology with the highest level of detail?
I'm pretty skeptical of how OpenGL will survive in games now that Carmack has sold out. It's a bleak future for those of us gamers who want to someday drop Windows and use a real OS.
You know, Carmack has all the money in the world already. I doubt he would kiss Microsoft's ass if OpenGL was more promising than DirectX. After all, as a DirectX developer, you also get to release your games for the Xbox without too much hazzle, which is only one of many reasons why DirectX is more successful. OpenGL is in no way a poor API, but most developers currently support DirectX because it looks more promising than OpenGL. Also, Carmack was one of the main donators to the OpenGL foundation. Why would he fund a project like this and then kill it? I'm sure it was painful but as Carmack is always set on developing the latest in technology, he is also looking at the two API:s individually before deciding what to go for.
Re:DirectX does not seem good for the industry (Score:3, Informative)
Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Nonetheless, despite all this, DirectX 10 is likely to see a number of point revisions during its lifespan and the first of these, imaginatively titled DirectX 10.1, will be the first of these. It may surprise some of you reading this, but the features which will be added by DirectX 10.1 have already been decided upon and information made available about them, so in this article we'll be taking a look through what we can expect to see in DirectX 10.1 compliant hardware.
I would imagine this goes without saying, but before tackling this article I'd well and truly recommend beginning by reading our look at what DirectX 10 has to offer in our article entitled "ATI on the possibilities of DirectX 10" to get yourself up to speed on everything that this major inflection point in 3D graphics rendering entails, from geometry shaders through to (more importantly for this article) the WDDM driver model. So, if you feel that you know all you need to know about DirectX 10, let's move onwards to the future world of DirectX 10.1.
Introduction
Before we begin outright, we should remind ourselves briefly as to exactly why the API will be seeing point releases as of DirectX 10. The main reason for this move is the removal of cap (or capability) bits in the API. In the past, cap bits allowed for graphics vendors to basically pick and choose what features their hardware would support (albeit within some fairly strict guidelines to ensure compliancy to particular DirectX and Shader Model revisions). Although this left the likes of NVIDIA and ATI with plenty of room to develop and tout features that the other didn't have, it also had the side effect of creating development Hell for any game developers working on titles, leaving them to sort through a myriad of cap bits for different GPUs and configurations to ensure that they were supporting the right features for the right boards - More often than not, this simply meant that advanced features that only one graphics vendor supported were left out of the vast majority of titles altogether (Truform anyone?). The removal of this labyrinth was one of the main things developers were screaming out for when it came to discussing what was required of DirectX 10, and so it came to pass.
Of course, this removal of cap bits had to be offset against the ever changing and progressing world of GPU development, so the graphics vendors still needed a way to push the technology forward and allow new technologies to find their way into games. Thus, DirectX 10 will be seeing point releases, one of the main facets of which will be to facilitate the inclusion of new funtionality for compliant graphics hardware to make use of. This makes life easier both for developers (who can target DirectX 10, 10.1 etc rather than individual features) and consumers - How do you explain to the man on the street that yes, a Radeon X800 and GeForce 6800 are both DirectX 9 parts, but both support different Shader Models in their respective architectures. It isn't much fun, trust me. As DirectX 10 and its point releases will also have very little in the way of features that are only optional in the API, buying a graphics board compliant with a particular DirectX 10 version will ensure that it does everything it needs to do to satisfy game titles that use that level of technology. No more Vertex Texture Fetch-esque confusions this time around then.
The other question to answer (or not answer, such is the way these things work) before we start is - When will DirectX 10.1 be released? From what we've heard thus far, it appears that it may well become available not all that long after DirectX 10 itself. What isn't so likely however, is that we'll be seeing DirectX 10.1
Re:Article Text (Score:2)
Re:Article Text (Score:2)
Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were a DX developer I'd be more interested in playing "ubiquitous developer" than "Windows Sock Puppet".
I may get modded down for this comment, but honestly, what is so special about windows that makes DX infeasible to implement for other platforms?
Tom
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
The real reason you don't see DX for Linux or BSD [or MacOS] is that they use it to prop up Windows. E.g. "Experience the coolness of DX games, as only brought to you by Windows." The problem is that DX is a viable technology [just like Visual Studio and Office] that in any other market would not be tied to the OS.
Tom
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe lack of driver support? Then again, even though its feature set moves like molasses and causes developers extension headaches, I still prefer the OpenGL API over DirectX9 even though I use C++ a lot more than C. DX10 is supposed to have an entirely different API so maybe I'll give it another chance.
If someone did make an Open Source implementation, I wonder if Microsoft would pounce with patents. I feel like they only tolerate Cedega because it's far from perfect and in a way helps put out a mess
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
As you point out, we have a hard time getting that kind of critical mass that would prompt people to actually do proper native ports, partly because Wine will never be perfect. Es
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Same thing with the the rest of the Windows API. It could be implemented on Mac/LINUX (Wine tries to do it by reverse engineering), but it does not help them (Microsoft). It keeps people from running windows apps on platforms other than Microsoft Windows.
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Tom
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Technically it's easier to port the API if you are a license holder and have the right to look at the original source code and port it to a new platform.
Technically it's harder if you have to reverse engineer it on your own WITHOUT access to the source code (like the wine/transgaming people are trying to do)
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
My point is people should shun not celebrate DX.
Tom
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Now, that's not fair. Windows DirectX games aren't locked to windows APIs, they're totally portable to the xbox and xbox360.
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Legally it could be done with almost 100% compatibility (of course you'd have to recompile your app for the target platform) IF microsoft licensed somebody to look at the real source code and port it to another platform.
What makes you think the windows API's are not used in the xbox and/or xbox360?
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly a workable strategy. End users don't care one jot about the OS, but what they can do with it, and Microsoft have been very good at pouncing on those opportunities and communicating what you can do with Windows.
"what is so special about windows that makes DX infeasible to implement for other platforms?"
90% of gamers use Windows?
Microsoft owns both Windows and DirectX and wants gaming on PC to stay a going concern, and i
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Proping up one failing business with another is a good sign [but not sufficient] of a monopoly. Microsoft wants to lock you into their platform so they invest in otherwise good tools and then lock them down.
Visual Studio strives DESPITE windows. Many people use it for things other than writing windows applications. More people would use it if it worked under other OSes [e.g. port it to Q
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Does this make their practices monopolistic and / or predatory?
What is inherently magical about Spotlight that it could not technically run on Windows? Why, then, is it something you can only get with Apple and OS X? Is this a monopolistic practice? (Remember of course that you can engage in monopolistic practices without being a monopoly.)
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Microsoft is just the punching bag here since this is a thread about DX.
Tom
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Generally, in terms of software, I'd draw the line at software which is platform specific [for no technical reason] which uses proprietary standards [when published ones exist, or more
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
Re:Why is directX still tied to windows? (Score:2)
A more sound solution for smaller companies
1. Write game with a flexible framework [e.g. C++ class driven, can even emulate them in C]
2. Write first game [edition/release] for Win32
3. As you get money from game spend time on writing Linux [e.g. X11/ALSA] plugins
This is nicely "self-pacing" as you don't use time on porting unles
Why don't they... (Score:2, Funny)
2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Anyone REQUIRING it before then will be severely limiting their consumer base; games failing to be picked up due to a small consumer base will also affect the adoption rate since other game manufacturers will be watching those g
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Besides, that time frame sounds about right for how long DirectX 9 games came along. Atleast, the ones that really utilized it. I'm pretty sure the pattern is the same for each iteration of DirectX: The API is released on X date but it isn't until X+1 year that we see games that really use it. Heck, DirectX 9 is still being pushed further and further with g
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
You can probably safely bet that with the exception of hardcore gamers, these statistiocs will probably transfer to the average consumer as well. Those purchasing Vista will also be in for a suprise due to the monitor DRM and will probably re-install XP before purchasing a new monitor... especially if gas prices co
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering [...] DirectX10 is only available on Vista and that 50% of employers say they are not going to purchase [soon], it's a safe bet to say that we won't be seeing any games [...] for at least 2 years.
I think I found the flaw in your logic. Employers != Consumers.
The fact is, games will probably drive Vista adoption more than any other factor save factory pre-installs. We proabaly won't see much requiring DX10 for a year or more, but that is because most big games take 1-3 years to develop so that's about the earliest that we'll see stuff.
This may cause game manufacturers to change tactics since OpenGL is supported on ALL OS's.
That fact has always been true, and it hasn't made much of a difference so far, even back when OpenGL and DirectX were much closer in abilities (without needing extensions and such).
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
It's not just the perceivable costs but the unperceived costs that will affect adoption.
Don't forget what consumers buy, man... (Score:2)
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
revenue protection (Score:2)
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
ahh, I posted on this before and reposted it, but this topic seems to keep coming up and I'll just link it this time if someone wants to read my thoughts on this
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192814&cid=15
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2)
Are you sure? I seem to recall that most game-heavy PC users went through a heavy upgrade cycle whenever id Software announced a new "Doom" or "Quake" game. If "Doom IV" were to require DirectX 10.1, you can bet that Microsoft would find a lot of upgrad
Re:2 years for adoption (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm... like, for example, Crysis? Or UT2K7? Or Halo 2 (PC obviously)? Or Flight Simulator X? Come on out from under your rock, buddy... these are all games that use DX10 and they'll be out well within 2 years.
No company should want DX 10+ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No company should want DX 10+ (Score:2)
Who wants to lose their old dos games (Score:2)
Re:Who wants to lose their old dos games (Score:2)
Re:Who wants to lose their old dos games (Score:2)
Re:No company should want DX 10+ (Score:2)
You mean like the vast number of companies whose games no longer support Win98 or Win2K and require WinXP? Once adoption reaches a certain point devs will feel safe requiring the usage of Vista, like it's always been. Whether you'd like to admit it or not, each iteration of DX has given us more and more power that devs are just itching to tap.
Re:No company should want DX 10+ (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would any company want to lose out on the win98,2000,XP crowd when they market their game? Only Microsoft has any interest in selling stuff that uses DX10+. To me DX10+ is dumb, stupid, and inane.
People said the same stuff about DirectX 9, DirectX 8, DirectX 7.... you get the idea.
Corporations realize $$$ when they can market the newest, fastest, shiniest whatever. For PC games, this is especially true - how realistic a games graphics are drive sales, and often make a game more fun.
More import
DirectX shuts out porting of games to LINUX/Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
Until somebody writes a game that does something on LINUX/MAC that can't be done on windows because of the underlying OS that is successful I doubt if we'll see any change.
Re:DirectX shuts out porting of games to LINUX/Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
They simply don't care. The fact is Half-Life was one of the best selling games of all time. They promised a Mac port and showed it off in '98 or '99 but it was never released. I don't think that was because of DirectX.
Actually one of the things that I've heard about the Mac is Havok is a problem. It runs, and Havok as written a port, but no one is willing to pay for it (they have to pay for the port and the license, despite the fact it is already complete). I think I got this from MacGamer, but I'm not su
Re:DirectX shuts out porting of games to LINUX/Mac (Score:2)
In these days of massive development costs, any game dev company not looking with one eye to porting is making poor financial decisions.
DX10 sounds like it's going to be great. I want OpenGL to match and exceed it though, to spur devs to use it for the portability it provides.
OpenGL doesn't help. (Score:2)
Re:OpenGL doesn't help. (Score:2)
While there is a port of PS2GL, no one in their right mind would ever use it for an actual shipping title, due to some operations will _never_ be supported in hardware. i.e. Stencils. The only way to get performance out of the PS2 is to write to the bare metal, because you know your render data better then anyone.
Tired of these articles. (Score:2, Insightful)
OpenGL vs. DirectX (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OpenGL vs. DirectX (Score:5, Informative)
Insightful? (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, DirectX IS a standar
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
The best thing about DirectX 10.x... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best thing about DirectX 10.x... (Score:2)
OpenGL Now Natively Supported in Windows Vista [dailytech.com]
Even more vaporware ! (Score:2)
Re:Even more vaporware ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even more vaporware ! (Score:2, Funny)
Sure. Here: microsoft.com/windowsvista/features [microsoft.com]
Re:More copying from Apple! (Score:2)
Later releases of DirectX will include GUI window tiling effects (set to debut in DirectX10.3 "Panther") and a "widget" layer complete with water ripple effects (curently scheduled to appear in DirectX 10.4 "Tiger").
Not a fanboi (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Those wacky Elite Bastards. (Score:2)
But this one tickled my fancy.
"Elite" implies they are impervious to
The "Bastards" part implies they will kick my ass if I ever deemed challenge them(Which would be a waste of time as I am not worthy).
Its odd. As I trudge nostril deep through the sewerage that is my work place, this "page cannot be displayed" bought me a smile. And my day feels better for it. Thanks Elite good guys.
Beta? (Score:3, Funny)
More importantly.. (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously the 10th point revision would be DirectXXX.
So much hatred, so little love (Score:2)
DirectX is not just graphics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sounds boring (Score:2, Funny)
Re:sounds boring (Score:2)
for when you need that little extra 'push' to go over the edge.
WHOM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WHOM (Score:3, Informative)
In modern English, the accusative and dative cases that existed in Old English (and are still used in modern languages such as German) collapsed into a single objective usage. That is, "whom" can be used either as a direct object p
Re:WHOM (Score:2, Offtopic)
Actually, "accusative" [wikipedia.org] just means "objective case" (used to mark the direct object of a transitive verb). The link you posted [wikipedia.org] lists "whom" as being able to be used in Modern English as the accusative, dative, or instrumental. "Objecti
If only I had mod-points... (Score:2, Funny)
It's whom! (Score:5, Funny)
Jack O'Neill: It's whom!
Samantha Carter: Actually, it's what.
Re:WHOM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If I hear "DirectX" this or "DirectX" that agai (Score:5, Funny)
DirectX! DirectX! DirectX!
GPUs already are "computers on a chip" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPUs already are "computers on a chip" (Score:2)
Re:GPUs already are "computers on a chip" (Score:2)
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:2)
Obviously, if that rumour is actually true, Microsoft is pulling a fast one on "consumers" just to force an upgrade. They know that their market share is in danger (ref: OS X on x86 and being only a baby step away from licensing to OEMs when Jobs comes to his senses, Linux rapidly maturing over the last three to four years, etc.) so they need a short-term bo
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:2)
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:2)
Improvement (Score:2)
Yes, i need to do better with my proof reading. I type way too fast, and tend not to care about the outcome.
Why would i want to switch to another platform when what i have fufills my needs already? I can complain about 'modern technology' all i want, and still not be part of it.
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:2)
Besides that obvious double standard, I like how slashdotters gleefully mocked MS for removing features from Vista and/or backporting features to XP, thus lowering incentive to upgrade to Vista, and at the same time bitch at MS for keeping a new feature exclusive to Vista. (Not the consistency has ever been a ha
Re:Would it be that difficult... (Score:3, Insightful)