Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: RandomTiger on February 16, 2004, 07:31:29 am
-
Note this does not mean a card that runs DX9, this means a card that fully supports hardware DX9 features.
-
Um...this is tricky, as my card (FX5600) supposedly doesn't properly support Dx9 (i.e. is a botch-job), despite the label on the tin (so to speak).
-
Mine only has full hardware support for DX8. :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Mine only has full hardware support for DX8. :sigh:
Same here until I upgrade. And I don't see that happening very soon. :sigh:
-
Wish i had a card that supports even DX8...
-
I have a powercolor Radeon 9600 Pro with 256MB DDR ram. so in short I have one. unfortunatly am, running a 800mhz duron 100FSB :hopping:
-
Durons are supposed to be 266 FSB (though mine won't go past 213 without locking up)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Um...this is tricky, as my card (FX5600) supposedly doesn't properly support Dx9 (i.e. is a botch-job), despite the label on the tin (so to speak).
But it will support the DX9 shaders wont it?
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
But it will support the DX9 shaders wont it?
Well, i think so, but I'm not sure whether it's worthy of the term 'support'. I need to read up and check...I can't really remember the details - I think the allegation was that the hardware support wasn't worth a damn, and it was having to be hacked in via the programmable pipeline and with game-specific drivers.
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Durons are supposed to be 266 FSB (though mine won't go past 213 without locking up)
2 different models of the duron. older ones used 100mhz FSB and the newer ones run anywhere from 200-266Mhz FSB.
-
GeForce3 here, DX8.1.
-
9800 Pro so I think mine supports it :)
-
I'm running a GF2 MX card, so someone else can do the math.
Later!
-
GF4MX here, so I only support DX7 fully. Saw something about vertex shaders one time, but no pixel shaders. :(
-
I think the GF4MX supports DX8.1 but no higher than that, if not, I've posted the wrong poll entry ;)
-
GF2 GTS on my main gaming machine.
-
Both the GF2 and GF4MX can only work up to DX7
-
I currently have a GF3 which only goes up to DX8 but will be upgrading in a week or two (probably to a R9800 pro 256).
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I currently have a GF3 which only goes up to DX8 but will be upgrading in a week or two (probably to a R9800 pro 256).
You're a bastard. :)
-
GeForce 5200 FX. Tell me, I'm not sure. I says DX9, but someone said that the 5600 didn't fully support it...
-
radeon 9700, I suppose it's a DX9 card?
-
Mine fully supports DX9 (Radeon 9800XT)
-
[color=66ff00]A radeon 9800 pro, fully DX9 supporting IIRC.
[/color]
-
I have the 9600 XT so I can support DX9 like a mutha...
-
More than a third! My word.
-
looks like people have been makeing the wise choise of chooseing the Radeon.
-
well, i have a brand new Radeon 7000, but it's the best i could get for my mobo. not that is supports DX9 or anything.
-
GF4 Ti4200 rocks the lower-end FXes and Radeon 9000 series, but it only has DX8.1, but that is much betta than my old GF2 MX, ah how she served me well
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
looks like people have been makeing the wise choise of chooseing the Radeon.
Might have to go that way myself when the time comes.
-
MX440 here, not that I'm complaining, but it's still a DX7 card. So, 'other' for me.
-
TNT2 and G4MX so I'm at 6/7
I blew most of my GPU money on Babylon5 DVDs!
-
I dont think DX6 existed so I guess it must be DX7.
I can think of worse ways to spend the cash.
Are the extras any good?
-
Radeon M10 aka the 9600 mobility pro
P4 2.8ghz (800mhz fsb)
512MB RAM
on my laptop. :)
and my 3dmark score:
http://recon.homeip.net/3dmark.gif
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I dont think DX6 existed so I guess it must be DX7.
I can think of worse ways to spend the cash.
Are the extras any good?
a couple of commentries. Not much else.
-
radeon 9k. which means DX8. I still haven't done any shader demos of any sort so i don't know how well it works
-
The Nvidia DX8 SDK has some nice openGL shaders.
-
Erm, I can tell you for sure that DX6 existed... it's on my NHL99 cd ;)
-
I'm running a GeForce4 4600Ti, it's DX8 only I'm afraid - and I don't see an upgrade any time soon.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Erm, I can tell you for sure that DX6 existed... it's on my NHL99 cd ;)
Maybe it was DX4 they skipped then.
-
DX2, never happened
-
I think 4 didnt either, doesnt really matter.
I have to say Im very surprised at the number of DX9 cards.
-
So does the FX 5200 suport DX9 or not?
-
www.nvidia.com is the best place where to find the answer
-
Again, the site says it has DX9 support. But in a previous post it was said that the 5600, a later model, had half-assed DX9 support.
-
Actually, technically, the 5600 (and the rest of the FX series) does have full DX9 support.
The problem (and the reason why some people say it doesn't really have full DX9 support) is because of the way nVidia designed the card. Without code written nicely optimized for nVidia's DX9 shaders, the card slows down quite a bit.
An analogy (not a direct translation of course) is how Bobbaue always tells us to try to use less textures, but larger textures. It's the packaging that slows down the nVidia cards.
The Radeons don't have this problem. They also handle AA way better.
The recent driver cheats the nVidia has been employing have largely been removed from the latest driver set. They've mostly got their on-the-fly optimizer in the driver working and hence the FX series is now reasonably fast.
The 5600 is a PO*. It's loud, hot and not really that fast =/. Even with the updated drivers.
In fact, anythig below 5700 is a piece of junk. Don't buy them. Don't even think about buying them.
If you can afford a 5950, you can afford a 9800Pro (or even XT).
The 5700 is actually a very good card for it's price.
The 9600XT/Pro/NP are arguably even better.
-
I'm a Radeon 9800 Pro here.
Gads, I think this is my first post here in a year or more... Well, back to lurkin':)
-
you've made the corect choice sir!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you've made the corect choice sir!
i'm thinking of getting a 9800xt
-
im getting a 5900xt, xt being nvs version of atis SE, as soon i sort my fee troubles.
-
you sir have made the wrong choice!
(hint: a FSO graphics coder is telling you this, the guy who implements things and determines which features get used and wich don't)
-
you sir have made the wrong choice!
(hint: a FSO graphics coder is telling you this, the guy who implements things and determines which features get used and wich don't, I know that at least 3 of the 4 major graphics monkeys run 9800s, I'm not sure what Sicks uses)
-
I got an Asus Radeon 9600XT (http://www.tomshardware.com/firstlook/20040119/index.html), and from what I know I think I have full dx9 support. running 9b atm :D should have a 3dmark score soon as well.
-
My card supports DX9
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you sir have made the wrong choice!
Bob please, I didnt start this thread so you could make judgements on peoples card choices. Im sure SCP isnt the only consideration when getting new hardware anyway.
Im sill running a GF4 for the moment, an ATI card seems likely in the future but that doesnt mean the SCP is not going to run on anything else.
-
Note to radeon users your radeon model number in format Xyyy is DX Ver X card yyy
So my Radeon 9600 (SE :() = DX 9 card 600
[it's funny how bobboau and I are the big Radeon-whores and how he's doing the GFX and I am doing fundamental engine design....]
-
so a 7k would support DX7 hardware at best?
well, could be worse i guess.
-
i dont belive i have made the wrong choice. Games i have x2 the threat, RTCW/ET perform better under NV cards, games like ut2k3 and 4 coming up its about even, Plus ATIs linux support is just crap, i use linux most of the time windows only for games. Then theirs the whole reliablity thing its hard to find a game today with an issue with NV cards. Performance wise the 5900xt is the best performing card in my price range it beats the pants off a 9600xt, only 80$nz more than the 9600xt and 20 than the 5700u.
-
*Cough* Bull *Cough*
ATI linux support is superior to nVidia linux support - but obviously you don't know dick about licensing and underlying implementations of the drivers
Not to mention it's a laugh to say a 5900xt beats a 9600xt - and for that $80 more you could get a 9800 and have money left over.
-------
you ever notice ATI still barely has to put heatsinks on most of their boards and nVidia has to put vacume cleaners on them? If you knew ANYTHING about CprE then you'd understand what that means.
-
no the 9800 is a further 80$ over the 5900xt here, yes and atis support dose suck, theres open source drivers with performace not even close to that of windows, and then theres offical closed source ones from ati that will lock up your machine within a few minutes. Nvidas drivers work and provide performace equal to that of the windows ones.
-
only if you look in the wrong place
nVidia = only closed source drivers, not even using the standard pipelines
ATI = older boards have drivers in the DRI project, newer cards had ROCK SOLID drivers. If your machine was locking up it's because YOU did something wrong.
-
ROCK SOLID? no i wouldnt call them that, the 3.7 ones. They are closed just like the nvidia ones as well. Their performace isnt all that good ither performing badly in ut2k3, mates 9800se couldnt beat my mx440.
-
the drivers are not the problem with ut2k3
what processor did your "mate" have and what processor do you have? what AGP speed are each of you running.
Do not try to argue with me about which card is technologically better - i have been BUILDING computers and programming them for 10 years now
-
well he has a 2500xp i have a 2400, dosnt matter whats technologically better the 5900xt will still beat a 9600xt by a alrge margine, it being the fastest card within my price range.
-
<--- Geforce FX 5900 Ultra 256 MB.
-
GeForce 4 4200 something can suport DX9, right? :D
-
No, it only supports DX8.1
-
I am a Ati whore:D
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
GeForce 4 4200 something can suport DX9, right? :D
I hope you are joking.
Im starting worry about the acuracy of this poll
-
Originally posted by HellToupee
well he has a 2500xp i have a 2400, dosnt matter whats technologically better the 5900xt will still beat a 9600xt by a alrge margine, it being the fastest card within my price range.
Its NOT a large margin :p
-
15-20%
-
Its less than 15%, but the speed of a graphics card does not determine the actual level and quality of detail. Its the features of the card and the software provided (This includes the driver, compatibility issues and the support a game will provide for the card). Right now I would say (excluding PCI-Express based graphics cards) That the FX5950U and the 9800XT are winners but they both produce different levels of performance and detail and it also depends on what game you are playing and what system you have...:blah:
In this case its Freespace2 So Kazan and his Coders have final say.. :nod: unless you plan a rogue SCP faction which is unlikely anyway, ATI Rules for Gamers so meh :p
-
Double post. Look down.
-
Hard to say. Proper specs for these sorts of things ain't so simple to come by when you're running singleboard. It's pretty new still, though, and I got it specifically because it was about the sweetest piece of all-purpose graphical hardware available at the time, so I'd say it probably runs most features.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I hope you are joking.
Im starting worry about the acuracy of this poll
If you really are, get rid of this poll, start a new one, and this time set out which cards support what. Put the options in the poll, in fact. Something like:
1. Supports DX9 (ATI Radeon whatevers, GeForce FX 5900 etc.)
2. Supports DX8 (...)
3. Other (S3 Savage :D)
That'll get you more accurate results, by the look of it.
-
add point 4: "What is this DirectX you speak of?"
:rolleyes:
hehehe.
And yes, another ATI fanatic here.
-
Oh, and why exactly that thread ? you plan to make a DX9 FSO ?
-
Skippy: we've pondered it because sonme of the graphical features, you'd have to ask the gfx guys though
-
Its bound to happen, its just a question of when.
The fact that nearly 50% of the community seem to have DX9 cards would certainly help to justify it.
I cant speak for any of the other coders but I am going to insist we get a few key things done (mostly optimisation) before we move onto DX9.
If you guys continue to support our project by making new art and missions and spreading the word then I cant see any reason for us not to be around for a while and upgrade to OGL2 and DX next (or whatever the hell they are calling it).
Though once we reach a certain level Im hoping we might start to focus on gameplay again.
-
Does the move to DX9 mean that the engine will automatically support all its pixel shaders and new effects? Or does this only give you the oppurtunity to use them AFTER more programming on your parts?
-
The latter of course.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
OGL2
Its backwards compatible with OGL1.3 but better with OGL1.4 :D
Originally posted by RandomTiger
DX next (or whatever the hell they are calling it).
Personally I think DX9 is what you'll be working on, at this stage if a DX10 does come out it'll be just like the next IE, it'll only be compatible with the next Windows OS and onwards
-
Originally posted by Xelion
Its backwards compatible with OGL1.3 but better with OGL1.4 :D
Personally I think DX9 is what you'll be working on, at this stage if a DX10 does come out it'll be just like the next IE, it'll only be compatible with the next Windows OS and onwards
just a comment, but DX 10 is not coming out for a log while.
-
Recon thats a pretty good system for a laptop - since you posted your 3dmark score and my system is similar enough I got a 3dmark score as well, the prog is a bit dodgy :nod: though. Heres my system specs (http://home.iprimus.com.au/nexus387/forums/systemspecs.gif)
(http://home.iprimus.com.au/nexus387/forums/3d2003benchmark.gif)
-
Only 8.1 DirectX support here. GeForce4 MX440. 64 MEGs.
-
GeForce 4 Ti 4200 here, so DX8.1.
-
rofl, no offence but there's a reason very few games use DX9 ATM.
As for ATI vs NV there's good and bad points to both groups, I personally prefer the NV though I got stuck with a 5200 for the time being (student budget), In terms of utilities/support functions, the ATI Cards tend to be better, and, they also tend to be slightly (read SLIGHTLY) more stable, however NV Cards, especially if you build a system around them, like most of the ATI whores do with their cards (NV tends to be the casual gamer type more often so people throw the card in as an after thought, but anyone with a 9800XT probably built the system around it 9/10, simply because of the money..), are typically faster (even if a little loud), and though they have some dodginess with their pipelining they aren't that unstable, especially if you stick to WHQL Cert Drivers.
Anyway, to my point...
Why would you want to make features that would be extremely exclusive at this point in time?
I doubt this poll is accurate at the moment, and, even if it is, most of you are coders, computer enthusiasts, so how does your system compair to a casual user?
Am I making any sense here?
Who are you developing SCP for, yourselves, or the general public?
Though with how user friendly your installs are atm I think I could answer that myself :P
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
but anyone with a 9800XT probably built the system around it 9/10, simply because of the money..), are typically faster (even if a little loud
I'd hardly think a 9800XT would be a little loud unless you've got a frickin' sink attached to it with an ordinary house fan. I have a 9600XT and it makes less noise than by my generic AMD cpu fan...
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Why would you want to make features that would be extremely exclusive at this point in time?
The SCP Project can't be manipulated to the extent it can support everything the coders and community wish to have thus Kazan has come up with the Ferrium project. So I'm assuming they'll end the SCP soon, but before that happens I think they want to achieve as much as they can with the SCP. Hence the reason for trying to find out what DX version is most common and of course ATI support is specifically in there because thats what the coders obviously have.
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Who are you developing SCP for, yourselves, or the general public?
Both I would assume but to the extent that allows them to. The SCP gets no funding which means that coders have to do with what they have and unless you intend to join them. It looks like DX9 and ATI support will continue to be the most recommended choice. :D
-
Until nVidia redeems themselves and produces a worthy video card again, there's little reason to tailor the SCP to their video cards. Especially when the ATi ones don't require such tailoring in general.
Truform isn't really tailoring to ATi since the feature was activated for the SCP relatively easily according to Bobboau.
-
That doesn't stop it from being "ATI only"
-
Originally posted by Xelion
I'd hardly think a 9800XT would be a little loud unless you've got a frickin' sink attached to it with an ordinary house fan. I have a 9600XT and it makes less noise than by my generic AMD cpu fan...
The SCP Project can't be manipulated to the extent it can support everything the coders and community wish to have thus Kazan has come up with the Ferrium project. So I'm assuming they'll end the SCP soon, but before that happens I think they want to achieve as much as they can with the SCP. Hence the reason for trying to find out what DX version is most common and of course ATI support is specifically in there because thats what the coders obviously have.
Both I would assume but to the extent that allows them to. The SCP gets no funding which means that coders have to do with what they have and unless you intend to join them. It looks like DX9 and ATI support will continue to be the most recommended choice. :D
You didn't understand a word I said -_-
I'm saying, HLP is a /small/ part of the /larger/ FS2 community, get that? SMALL.
A poll here means sweet FA to your average joe, most FS2 pilots of this age probably haven't even heard of this place, you have virtually no presence on moddatabases around the net, and the only people that find out about you are random surfage through google and the like, or people who are refered by old vet's of the game.
Sure everyone at HLP uses ATI Cards, okay, but the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD who aren't Coders/Hard core gamers/Trying to keep up with some of the changes SCP/Other mods are doing technologically (well poly counts for the mods...) use lower end NV Cards.
Your reply, just highlights and compounds what I was trying to say.... ¬.¬
Even further, compounded by the two comments directly above...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[it's funny how bobboau and I are the big Radeon-whores and how he's doing the GFX and I am doing fundamental engine design....]
funny, I don't know, but handy, it sure is :p
-
well I'm makeing it run the best it will for me, if you happen to have similar hardware as me you too will benifit from the things I implement.
if you made poor hardware choices on the other hand... sorry. the best codeing in the world can't make up for bad hardware
and trueform was basicly
d3d_set_state(TRUEFORM, ON);
I don't know what the _hell_ people are talking about it being hard to implement.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
In terms of utilities/support functions, the ATI Cards tend to be better, and, they also tend to be slightly (read SLIGHTLY) more stable, however NV Cards, especially if you build a system around them, like most of the ATI whores do with their cards, are typically faster (even if a little loud), and though they have some dodginess with their pipelining they aren't that unstable, especially if you stick to WHQL Cert Drivers.
You managed to get your generalizations backwards, NVIDIA is slower with broad compatiblity and ATI is fast and bugged.
But then I'm not sure what complaint you follow, that the source code project would support Dx9 features? The game scales, you won't be able to use the full options but you can still run it comfortably on a 5200.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well I'm makeing it run the best it will for me, if you happen to have similar hardware as me you too will benifit from the things I implement.
if you made poor hardware choices on the other hand... sorry. the best codeing in the world can't make up for bad hardware
and trueform was basicly
d3d_set_state(TRUEFORM, ON);
I don't know what the _hell_ people are talking about it being hard to implement.
would hardly call them "bad", sure the 5200 is crap, its supposed to be, the 5600 isnt that great. Performace varies from game to game some have better performace with ati some with nvidia. The big plus being you pretty much know a game is going to have minimum problems with NV cards generally because of their the way its meant to be played campaign and drivers, i prefer them for those reasons not loyality to NV, as its just a company out there for my money like all other companys.
-
"you pretty much know a game is going to have minimum problems with NV"
untill your card catches fire...
-
...which is funny, because it was an ATi card that shorted my AGP slot. :rolleyes:
-
how can any card sort an AGP slot...
-
I'm running an MSI GF4 MX440, 64Mb. I've been thingking of going for a 128Mb GF4, but now I'm wavering. What's the cheapest nVidia card that supports DX9?
-
I'm not sure about DX9. But FX5200's are fairly common these days and can chug out some decent graphics too. I have the same card as you at the moment, for this computer anyway.
For proper DX9 support you need to spend more cash. Maybe a FX5600? or 5700? I think its the newish Radeon9600XT are pretty good, + it comes with a free copy of HalfLife2 :D (pre-ordered in other words). But yeh, depends on how much money you want to spend and where you live...
-Grug
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
I'm saying, HLP is a /small/ part of the /larger/ FS2 community, get that? SMALL.
A poll here means sweet FA to your average joe, most FS2 pilots of this age probably haven't even heard of this place, you have virtually no presence on moddatabases around the net, and the only people that find out about you are random surfage through google and the like, or people who are refered by old vet's of the game.
Sure everyone at HLP uses ATI Cards, okay, but the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD who aren't Coders/Hard core gamers/Trying to keep up with some of the changes SCP/Other mods are doing technologically (well poly counts for the mods...) use lower end NV Cards.
HLP is the largest fs2 community on the web AFAIK. While the rest of the world are just considered as gamers cruising by playing mods here and there. Having a big presence online is hard to come by especially for a 5+ year old game, and I think everyones satisfied or overly joyed that the game has come this far and is stilll going.
Btw not everyone here @ HLP has ATI cards its just the coders do and maybe quite a few more. Though unlike massive gaming companies that have access to graphics cards from both sides and support from them we obviously don't so if you support nVidia so much you could learn code that could perhaps use features on the card you have and so many others have to. ;)
-
ATI obviously are the best at the moment but its hardly set in stone that its going to stay that way. If NVIDIA doesnt bounce back another company could come along and take the prize.
In general it would be a bad idea to get into card specific features and optimisations although truform is probably the exception to that.
On Bobs truform is easy comment, does that mean you have resolved the crack issue? Also have you considered the problem that very large ships that curve a lot could throw the rendering polygons so far out of sync with the collision model that clipping issues result on close flybys / hull collisions.
Quick note to anyone interest, Im still committed to a software truform solution for other cards but it wont be as efficient.
Back to cards, I think glide is the example of what is the worst thing that can happen if everyone supports one card maker too much. They try to take over the market and multiple engines have to be constructed. Then look what happens when it goes wrong, the graphics subset becomes useless.
I have to say that NVIDIAs choice to try and follow the same route with a card specific language was a great disappointment and Im glad ATI seem to be going in the other direction with making cards that handle general solutions rather than demanding certain optimisations geared to a small number of cards for a relitively short time period.
My next card will probably be an ATI but Im not going to bow down and worship them and flame everything else, because they are bound to slip up sooner or later.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"you pretty much know a game is going to have minimum problems with NV"
untill your card catches fire...
hmm never encounterd that before.
-
a ****ty GeforceFX 5200 256mb ram -_-
I'm an ATI whore so I want a Radeon 9800XT, but I can't afford one for the very life of me...yet atleast :p
-
Originally posted by HellToupee
hmm never encounterd that before.
The early fx models had an idle and active setting for their fans that didn't properly detect usage, screensavers were very dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
how can any card sort an AGP slot...
someone not knowing WTF they're doing when they install it
QD you're so incorrect it's pathetic - the NV boards are _slower_ than ATI boards, the NV boards require vast cooling systems that sound like vacuum cleaners, NV boards have a pathetically high failure rate (NV will never admit to it though - so you have to believe those of us that work on computers in the real world)
Here is a quick breakdown
Speed: ATI > NV
Stability: ATI > NV [mostly due to thermal considerations]
Features: ATI > NV
Image Quality: ATI > NV
Frame Rate: ATI ~ NV (yes, they both often get about the same framerates - that's cause NV cuts image quality intentionally in favor of frame rate)
Heat: NV runs Hotter than ATI (very bad thing)
Life Expectancy: ATI > NV
Probability Failure: NV > ATI
Driver "Safety": ATI > NV (NV has a higher Probability of drivers DAMAGING the card, due to making their cards overclock via the drivers)
Value: ATI > NV
-
that list just seems a tad biasd :P
-
Try reading some unbiased sites. ¬.¬
People spout less crap then.
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=613
unbiased and ATIs Radeon card wins out by the smallest of margins.
Reading the whole of the conclusion made me wonder if that's why the Nvidia FX cards don't like FS2 so much.
-
I tend to look at it this way. ATI has had the 9700/9800 hardware series out for years, and these cards still beat the **** out of their NVidia equivalents that were developed a great deal of time later. And as Kaz says NVidia have only caught up by putting enormous vacuum cleaner fans on their cards.
But I'm not an ATI whore, indeed, I hope NVidia recovers and gives them a run for their money technology-wise. It's this that keeps competition healthy and prices down. However, there's still no denying that ATI produces superior products atm.
-
Again, religious wars over hardware an not needed here. Let's keep it civil.
-
Can admin take a vote off of DX8 and add one to DX9? I've just upgraded to a DX9 card, not telling you which though :Þ
-
same issue, if you would.
-
IMHO.... no point in going to DX9 - will just alienate half of us for no good reason.
Hell I still play stock FS2 on my Voodoo2 just for kicks sometimes :)
TBH, I'm of the opinion that it's best to used the lowest version of DirectX that does all the stuff you want.
If you *have* to use DirectX.
I'd go with OpenGL personally :D
-
Originally posted by Cyker
IMHO.... no point in going to DX9 - will just alienate half of us for no good reason.
Everyone will be able to run a DX9 fs2_open (excluding voodoo owners), they just wont have access to all *new* features, mainly DX9 shaders.
TBH, I'm of the opinion that it's best to used the lowest version of DirectX that does all the stuff you want.
We want access to shaders, DX9 shaders are a lot more useful than DX8.
If you *have* to use DirectX.
I'd go with OpenGL personally :D
DirectX has many flaws and the fact it isnt portable is a real shame but it has an a few advantages which are very significant to this project. It comes with a lot of high level powerful libs that let us get complex stuff done fast.
-
That;s the whole thing though RT, you may as well upgraqde to DX9 at your own leisure anyway, it will have absolutely no impact on those with DX8 cards, and means that if and when they choose to upgrade, the DX9 specific features are there waiting for them.
If the technology is there and useable, I say go for it :)