[redmenace]

Here is an interesting article from www.tomshardwareguide.com.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/busine...0307/index.html
THere are more their concerning the new cards from ATI and nVidia. Aparently nVidia is getting their butt handed to them.

[Fetty]

errr www.tomshardware.com
and i guess you ment this article

err sry

[Fry_Day]

DirectX 9 is all but irrelevant.
At least hafl the people here don't have hardware that supports DirectX 8, not to mention DirectX 9, and by the time DirectX 9 features are used, those cards will be far too slow for them (As games like Splinter Cell can already take them down to their knees).

[IceFire]

I don't know about being far too slow for them.  Performance isn't really a linear one dimensional thing...its multifaceted and a card that supports DX9 + a game that supports it and makes full use of it quite possibly would run very well.

[Fry_Day]

Games that truly utilize the DirectX 7 capabilities are not very old. UT 2k3, for example, uses basically DirectX 7 features (Even though it does support PS and VS, there's no effect there that can't and isn't able to be done in the fixed-function pipeline), and it's one of the most graphically advanced titles in the market.
By the time games truly use DirectX 9, the situation will be the same, even though since DirectX 9 includes the specifications for VS 3.0 and PS 3.0, there'll be a longer period of time before the next version of DirectX is released.

[IceFire]

Works just fine on my GeForce 2....case in point.  I think your agreeing with me

[phreak]

plus you ned VC.NET to compile DX9 stuff, i dont know anyone here has it

[redmenace]

Well from what i have gleamed from reading, nVidia does plan to have cards that are inexpensive that support direct X 9. How ever this also means that they will several class of cards. But that aside, it will to see from a buisiness point of view who wins out.

[Grey Wolf]

Last time I checked, most nVidia cards, including the GF4 MX and Ti series, are built on a DX8 architecture. The Ti4200 sitting in this computer, for example. And that wasn't really that inexpensive (over $100).

[redmenace]

This is about the future nVidia Cards. If you read the article you might understand what I am saying. How ever those cheap cards will be just that, cheap.

[Krom]

The GF3/Ti cards are DX8 generation, however dont be fooled by the GF4 MX series, they are NOT DX8 cards (meaning they do not support pixel and vertex shaders).

The low end GF-FX cards will be the first low end nvidia cards to support the full DX8/9 APIs.  Currently Nvidia does not have a low end DX8 card, the GF4 MX cards are little more then more optimized faster GF2 cards.

-Krom

[##UnknownPlayer##]

I can sum up the situation like this: No. I can't speak for RT (who did most of the work on the DX8 port) but personally I haven't started using DX9 yet in my other projects and don't plan to for a while at least. If we hit a feature-set barrier with FSSCP, then by that stage I'll be more then happy to start porting upwards again, but DX8 in the main branch right now is giving its share of trouble.

[redmenace]

I realize that it might or never be implemented into Into the SCP. I just thought the before mentioned article was very interesting.

[Fink_Ployd]

Just out of curiousity, how hard would it be to go from directx 8 to directx 9?

[Liberator]

Well, it depend how far along the programmers are, and if they think they can get the conversion done is a reasonable time frame.  

If the programmers have virtually finished and the call comes down to go to DX9 you're looking at an additional six months coding and of angry people.

[CmdKewin]

Originally posted by PhReAk
plus you ned VC.NET to compile DX9 stuff, i dont know anyone here has it

that's not true. There are packages out there for other compilers than the .NET language.


http://www.purnomosidi.com/ (for MinGW -> Compiler used By Dev-C++)

and I'm sure that there is one for Delphi too.

The only thing about .NET... it's a looot easier to program Dx applications, trust me.