Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Bioshock dev: DX10 offers nothing to gameplay


Recommended Posts

link: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=176043

------------------------------------------------

Seems as though a reputable developer of bioshock from 2K australia has openly said that;

"DirectX 10," he said, "probably for the next three, four, five years is not important to you. Microsoft are going to tell you everything under the sun differently. Everybody under the sun is going to tell you differently."

He also stated;

DirectX10 "offers your gameplay nothing".

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one to say "I told you so", but I believe I posted almost exactly "probably for the next three, four, five years (DX10) is not important to you" in the forums a few weeks ago - and I'm not even that much of a tech head - it's plainly obvious to anyone who reads PC news and actually plays DX games how far off any real benefit is. Nice to read a developer saying the same thing, or not so nice depending on how you look at it.

Short of an exponential increase in processor power, 3 years is what I thought.

BTW, does this mean you are back Papa? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably mate. I had to get away from here for awhile mate. the GRAW/GRAW2 thing got on my nerves. ;)

@anyone. i think the article could prove that DX10 should be added to XP SP3. XP has better performance.

But as you said Rocky, if there are no tangible benefits, maybe they should redo DX10 for XP or even do up DX11 accordingly.

But I'll stick with XP/DirectX9c for now.

I'm a admin at SandA computing forums. I ran into news that that MS is going to a leaner kernel link: "http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36" target="_blank">

Vista's current kernel is like 5000 files at weighs in at a fat 4GB! minwin, the first look at the new kernel for Windows7(formerly Vienna), MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB. that coud increase, but a good start.

Vista is through it would appear

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

probably mate. I had to get away from here for awhile mate. the GRAW/GRAW2 thing got on my nerves. ;)

@anyone. i think the article could prove that DX10 should be added to XP SP3. XP has better performance.

But as you said Rocky, if there are no tangible benefits, maybe they should redo DX10 for XP or even do up DX11 accordingly.

But I'll stick with XP/DirectX9c for now.

I'm a admin at SandA computing forums. I ran into news that that MS is going to a leaner kernel link: <a href="http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36" target="_blank">http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36</a>

Vista's current kernel is like 5000 files at weighs in at a fat 4GB! minwin, the first look at the new kernel for Windows7(formerly Vienna), MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB. that coud increase, but a good start.

Vista is through it would appear

Um vista isn't that big... lol you are measuring it after it does the shadow copy backups aka previous versions. All versions of windows have it... but only business and ultimate can restore from it. It's about 2gb before that unless you mean ultimate.

Here is a fair comparison of DX9 and DX 10 and it even mentions the config file change to try to make DX9 run DX10 ultra high setting

http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

Personally, i would not want to modify my config and since i have vista which runs my games smoothly, with a 8800gtx, why wouldn't i like the direct x 10. In crysis as stated there is a big difference, although not as much as perceived since dx9 gets limited (probably to save fps for older cards)

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably mate. I had to get away from here for awhile mate. the GRAW/GRAW2 thing got on my nerves. ;)

@anyone. i think the article could prove that DX10 should be added to XP SP3. XP has better performance.

But as you said Rocky, if there are no tangible benefits, maybe they should redo DX10 for XP or even do up DX11 accordingly.

But I'll stick with XP/DirectX9c for now.

I'm a admin at SandA computing forums. I ran into news that that MS is going to a leaner kernel link: <a href="http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36" target="_blank">http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36</a>

Vista's current kernel is like 5000 files at weighs in at a fat 4GB! minwin, the first look at the new kernel for Windows7(formerly Vienna), MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB. that coud increase, but a good start.

Vista is through it would appear

Um vista isn't that big... lol you are measuring it after it does the shadow copy backups aka previous versions. All versions of windows have it... but only business and ultimate can restore from it. It's about 2gb before that unless you mean ultimate.

Here is a fair comparison of DX9 and DX 10 and it even mentions the config file change to try to make DX9 run DX10 ultra high setting

http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

Personally, i would not want to modify my config and since i have vista which runs my games smoothly, with a 8800gtx, why wouldn't i like the direct x 10. In crysis as stated there is a big difference, although not as much as perceived since dx9 gets limited (probably to save fps for older cards)

Hey, the info of the unimportance of DX10 came from a dev. I stated the facts with a link to the article. I doubt you get smoothe FPS as those with top of the line PC's say it slows down their systems performance.

MS admitted that the VISTA OS is a bust. the article I offered shows that MS is going to the minwin kernel, currently MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

also traut, a MS engineer stated; link: http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...;intsrc=hm_list

-----------

"A lot of people think of Windows as this really large, bloated operating system, and that may be a fair characterization, I have to admit," said Eric Traut, who holds the title of distinguished engineer at Microsoft. "[so] we created what we call MinWin. It's still bigger than I'd like it to be, but we've taken a shot at really stripping out all of the layers above and making sure that we had a clean architectural layer there."

Traut talked about MinWin last Saturday at a conference on computing sponsored by the university's student-led Association for Computing Machinery. Much of the hourlong presentation was taken up with a discussion of Microsoft's virtualization efforts -- Traut's specialty.

Traut showed off MinWin and bragged about how much leaner the microkernel is than the current core of Windows. While Vista uses 5,000 files for its 4GB core, MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

so Roco, my quote was correct. how can that be? because i read the article. the fact that this distinguished engineer stated this adds light to how jacked up vista really is. :thumbsup:

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes not supprised, used both OS for a year now on most new games.

DX10 looks a little better in certain areas but thats it.

If you look for problems relating to Vista dx10 and games you will find thousands.

XP is the only real gameing platform, I cant see Vista improveing much before may next year.

The other side of the coin is Drivers we have not had an absolutely stable driver for sound or GPU from the big names, in fact we have had the reverse poor support all year.

Since the release of Vista, BSOD/CTDT tec threads have trebbled since January, its just not worth the hastle.

MS have done a real job on gameing I dont think, where Vista is concerned.

As an OS it may be fine for a gameing platform definatly no way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably mate. I had to get away from here for awhile mate. the GRAW/GRAW2 thing got on my nerves. ;)

@anyone. i think the article could prove that DX10 should be added to XP SP3. XP has better performance.

But as you said Rocky, if there are no tangible benefits, maybe they should redo DX10 for XP or even do up DX11 accordingly.

But I'll stick with XP/DirectX9c for now.

I'm a admin at SandA computing forums. I ran into news that that MS is going to a leaner kernel link: <a href="http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36" target="_blank">http://www.sandacomputing.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=36</a>

Vista's current kernel is like 5000 files at weighs in at a fat 4GB! minwin, the first look at the new kernel for Windows7(formerly Vienna), MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB. that coud increase, but a good start.

Vista is through it would appear

Um vista isn't that big... lol you are measuring it after it does the shadow copy backups aka previous versions. All versions of windows have it... but only business and ultimate can restore from it. It's about 2gb before that unless you mean ultimate.

Here is a fair comparison of DX9 and DX 10 and it even mentions the config file change to try to make DX9 run DX10 ultra high setting

http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

Personally, i would not want to modify my config and since i have vista which runs my games smoothly, with a 8800gtx, why wouldn't i like the direct x 10. In crysis as stated there is a big difference, although not as much as perceived since dx9 gets limited (probably to save fps for older cards)

Hey, the info of the unimportance of DX10 came from a dev. I stated the facts with a link to the article. I doubt you get smoothe FPS as those with top of the line PC's say it slows down their systems performance.

MS admitted that the VISTA OS is a bust. the article I offered shows that MS is going to the minwin kernel, currently MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

also traut, a MS engineer stated; link: http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...;intsrc=hm_list

-----------

"A lot of people think of Windows as this really large, bloated operating system, and that may be a fair characterization, I have to admit," said Eric Traut, who holds the title of distinguished engineer at Microsoft. "[so] we created what we call MinWin. It's still bigger than I'd like it to be, but we've taken a shot at really stripping out all of the layers above and making sure that we had a clean architectural layer there."

Traut talked about MinWin last Saturday at a conference on computing sponsored by the university's student-led Association for Computing Machinery. Much of the hourlong presentation was taken up with a discussion of Microsoft's virtualization efforts -- Traut's specialty.

Traut showed off MinWin and bragged about how much leaner the microkernel is than the current core of Windows. While Vista uses 5,000 files for its 4GB core, MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB.

so Roco, my quote was correct. how can that be? because i read the article. the fact that this distinguished engineer stated this adds light to how jacked up vista really is. :thumbsup:

Papa... there is no whitepaper released stating the size so i will have to show my experience. The images we use at the office are roughly 2.4gb for vista business compressed under fast compression. When uncompressed that image becauses roughly 3gb, not 4. Now with basic it is way less and home premium a little more. Ultimate however will hit the 4gb mark do to all it's add ons. This is the whole O/S though, not the kernel only.

Colin... Vista for new pc's has changed. With my quad core and 8800GTX i get 95+ fps on COD 4 with everything maxed out. In GRAW2 i do 130 on a server with 4 peeps or less. Vista is good for new pc's... it's the old one's that it sucks on. Gaming is fine, now that creative and nvidia have fixed there drivers although one bug with coming out of sleep on nvidia still exists (aero disables) Fix is shut off sleep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roco yopu're talking about images while I'm talking about th eactual files themselves after install. this came straight from a MS engineer who stated the size of vista's kernel versus minwin's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roco yopu're talking about images while I'm talking about th eactual files themselves after install. this came straight from a MS engineer who stated the size of vista's kernel versus minwin's

Papa ... i said compressed and uncompressed. Uncompressed is all the files after transferred to the hard drive.

It is a fully functional o/s that has had the pre-install ran on it so the end user can put his name in and network settings. Before compression on the initial build we run the pre-install which packages it so the user can activate it. The pre-install kit comes when a systembuilder like us orders a 3 pack of Vista... we get one systembuilders kit with every 3 we sell. The guy on that article apparently was either talking about ultimate and all it's files (not the kernel files) or is full of BS.

You have a copy of Vista... test is by doing a properties on the kernel (no other files whatsoever such as program files and such) use printscreen, paste in paint and then show us. oh and remember shut off the system restore and shadow copying aka previous versions before you do it.

Oh and btw my windows directory right now is 14gb... with all the previous versions that it saves (drive snapshots and restore)

and it runs like a top. takes me about 5 seconds to login and 3 to the desktop after entering my password. Really the size doesn't matter if it doesn't effect speed all in all but i figured i would answer you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roco yopu're talking about images while I'm talking about th eactual files themselves after install. this came straight from a MS engineer who stated the size of vista's kernel versus minwin's

Papa ... i said compressed and uncompressed. Uncompressed is all the files after transferred to the hard drive.

It is a fully functional o/s that has had the pre-install ran on it so the end user can put his name in and network settings. Before compression on the initial build we run the pre-install which packages it so the user can activate it. The pre-install kit comes when a systembuilder like us orders a 3 pack of Vista... we get one systembuilders kit with every 3 we sell. The guy on that article apparently was either talking about ultimate and all it's files (not the kernel files) or is full of BS.

You have a copy of Vista... test is by doing a properties on the kernel (no other files whatsoever such as program files and such) use printscreen, paste in paint and then show us. oh and remember shut off the system restore and shadow copying aka previous versions before you do it.

Oh and btw my windows directory right now is 14gb... with all the previous versions that it saves (drive snapshots and restore)

and it runs like a top. takes me about 5 seconds to login and 3 to the desktop after entering my password. Really the size doesn't matter if it doesn't effect speed all in all but i figured i would answer you.

I'll end the debate here because you make an outrageous claim as being able to login in 5 seconds..or do you mean the time it takes to boot up to the login screen? i find it impossible that you can be at desktop 3 seconds after login..that's extreme BS. I'm startled that you debate a MS engineer who clearly provides the details about the kernel size of vista.

you claim 14GB of harddrive space for the install (vista business install is 15GB according to the manuals etc.). I have Vista business that I got from the power together campaign back in 06. see link --> Here and my copy looks just like that in the picture on the site with the cardboard folder and a CD-Key that is unique.

I couldn't see myself buying into Vista after alot of bad publicity and thought, "what better way to test vista without paying big $$$ to test it legitimately?

vistabusfree2.jpg

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Locking this.. it's going nowhere. Papa6, it's apparent that you have a venue at which to discuss these things..as such, it's probably best to do so with like minded individuals.

This is not the first time that you and Roco aren't on the same page..

Cheers :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...