January 25, 200620 yr Ok I found this on the following website. The screenshots were taken down though already..http://www.gamershell.com/news/27536.htmlThe first DX10 game announcedBack in September 2005, at the PDC Microsoft Conference, CryTek, developers of Far Cry, released a movie that showcased some of the capabilities of the Cry Engine 2 under DirectX 10 API: dynamic day/night cycle, fully interactive enviroments, sunrays and diffuse transmission, real time soft shadows, soft particles, interactive/destructrible enviroments, volumetric clouds, and advanced shader technology. Courtesy of DocSEAL, we have the official version of the movie (hi-res version), along with a German video interview with Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, Sten H
January 25, 200620 yr Ah, so it's pre-rendered movie, not running code. Sure, you could do that, a la Pixar, and would take about as long. I guess they're just patient enough to wait on the software rasterizer.
January 29, 200620 yr Mike,So FSX is being programmed with Shader 2.0 and not 3.0? AFAIK Shader 3.0 is (at least partially) supported with DirectX 9, and a few games coming out have started to use its capabilites. Or is it just easier for you guys to program using the next generation shader and release it along with the DX10 patch?
January 29, 200620 yr The delta between 2.0 and 3.0 is pretty small for what we do and moving to 3.0 would mean even fewer older cards could run the game. That said, we might look at a few specific things where we get a benefit and provide a fallback path to 2.0 or 1.1 but this increases the workload for us so we need to be careful.
January 29, 200620 yr I think it would probably be beneficial to let the dust settle after release and see how FSX runs on our current systems. We can then look at what needs upgrading. I would hate to have purchased components before FSX's release and then find out that a week after release a new piece of hardware is out and you
January 30, 200620 yr Author I thought one of the objectives of FSX was to use it as a platform to show off Vista features like DX10. The FSX guys are kind of saying he same thing. However, they are saying that there is not yet DX10 hardware to utilize it in FSX. So, I guess they will go ahead and release a Shader 2.0 version based on old technology to meet the Xmas release date. I'd rather wait another 6 months for a full DX10 version of FSX so we can have all the great features mentioned including cloud shadows. I think I might try and look up Bill's number this morning before he heads out the door to pursuade him not to release FSX until it is a DX10 version of FSX.RH
January 30, 200620 yr >The delta between 2.0 and 3.0 is pretty small for what we do>and moving to 3.0 would mean even fewer older cards could run>the game. That said, we might look at a few specific things>where we get a benefit and provide a fallback path to 2.0 or>1.1 but this increases the workload for us so we need to be>careful.I'm no graphics programmer, but it would seem that instancing could work well for optimizing autogen, and that the 16 and 32 bit fog effects could display better looking haze, fog, and clouds. Or perhaps these features don't do at all what I think?IMO if you build it they will buy the hardware to run it. The fps hit caused by clouds in FS9 is one of the most irrating aspects. I also hope that the 10nm vis change is fixed and that cloud layers are able to overlap.Finally since this has turned into a sort of wish list please fix the texture popping and blurries. for other laymen, info on shader 2.0/3.0 available here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/partn...l30_NVIDIA.mspx
Create an account or sign in to comment