Crysis dx10 on windows xp?!
category: general [glöplog]
http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=419463f72ddc3116e54afc7c85aecdd6&topic=11837.20
these snotnoses have apparently hacked the game and devided that the dx10 support is flimsy at best, as you can just turn on 'very high' settings and get all the effects in the game supposedly reserved for vista rigs.
'very high' should not be avaible via dx9, but there it is. What do coders make of this? Is the dx10 support in this game a duck, is dx10? vista sure is!
Im not really sure what im looking at, allthough i can see on the image documentation (given thats it genuine) that there is a massive difference between the two settings in dx9.
can anyone explain to me what this is, and why it is possible?
these snotnoses have apparently hacked the game and devided that the dx10 support is flimsy at best, as you can just turn on 'very high' settings and get all the effects in the game supposedly reserved for vista rigs.
'very high' should not be avaible via dx9, but there it is. What do coders make of this? Is the dx10 support in this game a duck, is dx10? vista sure is!
Im not really sure what im looking at, allthough i can see on the image documentation (given thats it genuine) that there is a massive difference between the two settings in dx9.
can anyone explain to me what this is, and why it is possible?
i checked out the files attached in the forum - not much of a "hack", basically they just re-enable options that have been disabled in the .cfg files (which are plain text)...
i guess it was a marketing decision?
i guess it was a marketing decision?
ah yes, cheers Gargaj
properbly. Doesnt seem very honest, but there you go. So dx10 is more about giving programmers new tricks for the future, where current 'dx10' games are in just dx9+bells and whistles?
yeah, I believe crytek sold out. but if the game is good, and it looks that way, then why not. as long as the settings are re-enableable so people with dx9 graphics cards and xp can gawp at the beautiful 5fps graphics.
hehe true that. however people do repport fairly impressive numbers with dx10 cards on the dx9 OS of prefference, where dx9 cards obviously struggle. the 8800gt+ line of cards produce 35-45fps maxed out at 1680*1050 according to one of the user tests in the thread, thats not too bad..35 is playable, perhaps even enjoyable ;)
i just thought that dx9 and dx10 where really different animals, but apprently not =/
example from a guy who tweaked the settings (the hack)
10fps isnt a terrible loss bad, unless ofcourse you started out with 20fps
Quote:
Awesome! Looks so much better. Lose about 10FPS, but looks waaay better.
10fps isnt a terrible loss bad, unless ofcourse you started out with 20fps
ok sorry for taking up your time, i think i found what i was looking for unless this guy is speaking out of his arse that is
Quote:
You don't know ****. It's not a DX10 effect. DX10 doesn't have any "exclusive effects". The majority of what DX10 brings to the table is just an improvement of already existing features, expanded certain limits, (IE: DX9 can support 2048x2048 sized textures max; DX10 supports 4096x4096 sized textures), stuff like that. Crysis has yet to utilize all these things. It is still a first generation DX10 game and is no where near to the point of utilizing all of the leg room DX10 has to offer. Don't get me wrong, DX10 is going to be great when the hardware that can fully support all of what it has to offer. But, Crysis for the majority of its development cycle had been a DX9 game. It began to be shown off as a showcase for DX10 after the hype picked up for it and it became a "Games for Windows" title. The DX10 features put in use are just small improvements over already existing DX9 features just to make DX10 an overall "nicer" experience. Things like parallax occlusion mapping, light shafts, and god rays were there for a good while and running perfectly and absolutely fine with DX9 hardware. Those things were "excluded" from DX9 to make DX10 more appealing. It's simply marketing.
why do i have the thought that someone somewhere just discovered the dx9 references for some non-breakthrough dx10 code for some game?
aaaand that's complete BS again. texture sizes? come on... seriously. don't even bother quoting 3d api rants from gamer forums, they simply don't have a clue what they're talking about :)
really new d3d10 features are mainly geometry shaders and the ability to write geometry/vertex shader output back into memory again. the rest is mostly incremental improvements, like increasing the minimum values for a lot of limits (indeed including texture sizes, but more importantly, also shader instruction count limits etc.) and lots of api and implementation changes (mostly to lower per-batch and state change costs).
if they're not using geometry shaders for their "d3d10 effects" (don't know what they are), they probably don't really need d3d10, which makes the whole thing a (rather detestable) marketing stunt that's apparently already turning into another vista publicity disaster (fine by me).
oh, and another point: "DX10 is going to be great when the hardware that can fully support all of what it has to offer." - er, no. a DX10 card is required to fully support everything in the D3D10 spec. that's one of the main points about d3d10 (eliminating subtle differences between same-generation hardware that can be a bitch to work around). later dx10 cards may (well, probably will) be faster, but before dx10.1 hardware, the feature set isn't going to change.
really new d3d10 features are mainly geometry shaders and the ability to write geometry/vertex shader output back into memory again. the rest is mostly incremental improvements, like increasing the minimum values for a lot of limits (indeed including texture sizes, but more importantly, also shader instruction count limits etc.) and lots of api and implementation changes (mostly to lower per-batch and state change costs).
if they're not using geometry shaders for their "d3d10 effects" (don't know what they are), they probably don't really need d3d10, which makes the whole thing a (rather detestable) marketing stunt that's apparently already turning into another vista publicity disaster (fine by me).
oh, and another point: "DX10 is going to be great when the hardware that can fully support all of what it has to offer." - er, no. a DX10 card is required to fully support everything in the D3D10 spec. that's one of the main points about d3d10 (eliminating subtle differences between same-generation hardware that can be a bitch to work around). later dx10 cards may (well, probably will) be faster, but before dx10.1 hardware, the feature set isn't going to change.
besides that, dx10-class hw means support for things that might have worked on dx9 cards, were supported in the api, but might not have been there on all cards or might not have worked efficiently.
useful features like alpha to coverage, floating point texture filtering and blending, early z and not just tiled zcull, and the ability to use longer shaders efficiently all work fine in the dx9 api but only became practical with dx10-class cards.
i can partially understand why crytech might want to avoid calling those features "dx9" if they cant guarantee they'll work on all ps3.0 hw, especially as some of them are difficult or impossible to detect the presence of. but sure, it probably is mainly a marketing issue. :)
by the way, 4096x4096 textures work fine in dx9. i have proof. better tell the gamer to recycle the info he doesnt really understand from a different blog or hw review site, because his sources werent very accurate. :)
useful features like alpha to coverage, floating point texture filtering and blending, early z and not just tiled zcull, and the ability to use longer shaders efficiently all work fine in the dx9 api but only became practical with dx10-class cards.
i can partially understand why crytech might want to avoid calling those features "dx9" if they cant guarantee they'll work on all ps3.0 hw, especially as some of them are difficult or impossible to detect the presence of. but sure, it probably is mainly a marketing issue. :)
by the way, 4096x4096 textures work fine in dx9. i have proof. better tell the gamer to recycle the info he doesnt really understand from a different blog or hw review site, because his sources werent very accurate. :)
thanks, its good with a reply from epople know knows what they are talking about for a change. Ryg and smash that was EXCACTLY the explanation i was looking for.
I did suspect, from other stuff that i had read, that 10.1 would be the real turn point so to speak, and now i have it confirmed. So no vista upgrade for me yet AND im going to play crysis with the settings everybody has been tooting about from the top of the roofs for more than a year now.
Its good alltogether, because i tried vista and somehow i just hated it. Not because it was MS, im allready hooked in their shit, but vista felt like village people looks, sings and dances.
I did suspect, from other stuff that i had read, that 10.1 would be the real turn point so to speak, and now i have it confirmed. So no vista upgrade for me yet AND im going to play crysis with the settings everybody has been tooting about from the top of the roofs for more than a year now.
Its good alltogether, because i tried vista and somehow i just hated it. Not because it was MS, im allready hooked in their shit, but vista felt like village people looks, sings and dances.
Quote:
the ability to write geometry/vertex shader output back into memory again
i thought ProcessVertices was already there for that? (not entirely the same functionality, but...)
so you bought the game?
im amazed and happy that someone actually pays for our hard work...
im amazed and happy that someone actually pays for our hard work...
xenusion: I don't think you should rely on pouet for your customer feedback form. ;)
gargaj: i'm 99% certain that ProcessVertices always uses the software vertexshader emulation, even if the hw should actually support vb writeback.
xenusion. No, but i will, so dont worry. I buy all the games that i like, and the games i dont like, i dont play ;)
There are no media out there, that gives me the same 'bang for buck' as my fave games has and does. 100's of hours invested in a single title, and that is good value for money. So im sorry if people are "sharing" your work.
A question, now that i have one of the makers here. What IS up with this whole dx9-10 thing? Why are these settings locked? to prevent your costumer service being flooded by tards who cant understand that their new modern 8600gt cant run the game at 1680 full settings, or is it, as it has been suggested, nothing but marketing hoo haaa, and as such anyone who can play with the 'extended' settings under XP should just go head and do so?
There are no media out there, that gives me the same 'bang for buck' as my fave games has and does. 100's of hours invested in a single title, and that is good value for money. So im sorry if people are "sharing" your work.
A question, now that i have one of the makers here. What IS up with this whole dx9-10 thing? Why are these settings locked? to prevent your costumer service being flooded by tards who cant understand that their new modern 8600gt cant run the game at 1680 full settings, or is it, as it has been suggested, nothing but marketing hoo haaa, and as such anyone who can play with the 'extended' settings under XP should just go head and do so?
another question for all you game makers here. When I am buying one of your games, why am I being punished with 1400 digit codes and draconian copy protection systems and unfair EULAs? If i log onto piratebay i can get a version for free with none of the hassles. And it would seem these hassles are becomming more and more aggresive, so i wonder why because it obviously have ZERO impact on the cracking scene who in the worst cases have to wait for a couple of weeks before the hassle free, free version of the game is out. HL2 with steam was said to be the end of piracy. Again this was wrong, it took 2 weeks before working copies circulated.
I personally know people who after the bioshock copyprotection affair swore to stop paying for games untill this nonsense stops, so im not convinced youre doing yourself too much good in the long run.
Im paying for your game, treat me like it.
I personally know people who after the bioshock copyprotection affair swore to stop paying for games untill this nonsense stops, so im not convinced youre doing yourself too much good in the long run.
Im paying for your game, treat me like it.
why oh why are north-korean people and extra-terrestrial aliens always the bad guys ? :/
Quote:
When I am buying one of your games, why am I being punished with 1400 digit codes and draconian copy protection systems and unfair EULAs?
Because you and your friends buy those games instead of voting with your wallet.
i guess thats true, but it does not explain why game makers are so naive as to belive it does anything but piss PAYING costumers off.
Francis P.Yockey: gamedevs have usually nothing to say about copy protection schemes and tactics, publishers do.
the bioshock protection was indeed too restrictive for legal users, but i liked the metal case particularity :)
and i just hope the exe of those games will officially be released in a few years without the protection bits (some current cracks aren't totally cleaning them out, specially the virtual machine bits) so that we can play them again in the future, even if protection makers and authorization servers would have left and abandonned any customer support.
the bioshock protection was indeed too restrictive for legal users, but i liked the metal case particularity :)
and i just hope the exe of those games will officially be released in a few years without the protection bits (some current cracks aren't totally cleaning them out, specially the virtual machine bits) so that we can play them again in the future, even if protection makers and authorization servers would have left and abandonned any customer support.