DX10 pic.

I still have a hard time believing that this is even an actual render, seeing as the reflection of the dx9 sky is still in the dx10 water...
 
Sigma said:
That picture is a visualization, not an actual DX10 screenshot.

I find it hard to believe that there are DX10 beta testers when there are no actual DX10 video cards released yet... hrmmm...
Click to expand...

It is fairly common for Microsoft to release reference drivers/rasterizers for future DirectX versions without the hardware to support the new functionality. This is achieved through software emulation.

It is entirely possible to develop and test games using DirectX 10 right now without having access to hardware capable of doing so.
 
diskmagnet said:
The caption from the source site, that triple posted:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1989817,00.asp

"Flight Simulator X -- DX10 render
This isn't an in-game screenshot, but it?s a test render of what the Flight Sim team honestly believes they can achieve in DirectX 10. The leap over DX9 is pretty dramatic."


(click on the pic itself)
Click to expand...

what, are you trying to prove me wrong? you realize im arguing it was a render, as opposed to a photoshop - im not saying its a screenshot as opposed to a render.

(of course, most screenshots are renders by definition, but thats another discussion.)

so lets recap: "it's a test render"
 
Last edited:
triple said:
what, are you trying to prove me wrong? you realize im arguing it was a render, as opposed to a photoshop - im not saying its a screenshot as opposed to a render.

(of course, most screenshots are renders by definition, but thats another discussion.)

so lets recap: "it's a test render"
Click to expand...
the source of the water is a 2D, flat image. this is what people are getting at, whether it was done in Photoshop or whatever is irrelevent. its the implication, not the technical details.
 
imo the only real noteworthy diff in those two is the water.

the clouds/sky is different art and doesnt reflect and technology breakthrough imo.

i *yawn* at this
 
Blotter said:
the source of the water is a 2D, flat image. this is what people are getting at, whether it was done in Photoshop or whatever is irrelevent. its the implication, not the technical details.
Click to expand...

"geometry shaders"

Just think about that dx10 feature for a second.

"Hey what's a Geometry Shader?"

The traditional model is: Vertices come in at the front of the pipeline and get transformed, then get re-grouped to produce triangles. Then the rasterization system goes in and converts the triangle into fragments and the individual fragments get processed by the Pixel Shader.

The Geometry Shader sits in-between those two pieces, and it has access to the vertices for one of those triangle primitives, right after it's been assembled, and can operate on all the vertices at once. It can do a couple different things. It can amplify the number of triangles, so it can take those vertices and generate a new set of triangles. Or it can just generate a new set of points, or a new set of lines, and send those to the rasterizer for generation of pixel fragments. We can do things like take a point and generate a set of triangles around that point and expand it into a sprite. Or you could decompose a triangle into a smaller set of triangles that you could then think of as tessellation. Or you could extrude the edges of the triangle and turn it into a volume or a tetrahedron.

One of the problems that we've often seen is being able to get enough data from the CPU into the graphics processor, and so we can generate data internally in the graphics processor, and we've sort of eliminated this transfer bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Didn't you guys bitch at me for calling whats being used on the water a "shader"? eh?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top