|
SoCoder -> Blogs Home -> Blogs |
|
|
|
|
HoboBen
|
Direct X 10 Hacked? |
| Claims that Direct X 10 has been reversed engineered, so DX 10 games will work fine on DX9 based hardware on Windows XP, and even other Operating Systems. | |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
| Monday, 23 April 2007, 14:26 | |
JL235
|
I'd doubt it has, or ever will, be able to fully emulate DirectX 10.
|
| Monday, 23 April 2007, 14:31 | |
HoboBen
|
If you actually own any Direct X10 games, you could grab their ZIP towards the bottom of their blog and test it out. I don't particularly plan to buy any games anyway, so DX10 isn't such a biggie for me 
|
| Monday, 23 April 2007, 14:48 | |
Jayenkai
|
The last PC game I bought was Half Life 2. Since Halo 2 will run better on my Xbox (that is, Vista refuses to use DirectX1, never mind 10!) I don't think I'll be buying any DX10 games any time soon. Unless Half Life 3 needs it, or something 
|
| Monday, 23 April 2007, 16:05 | |
erbbysam
|
DX10 isn't going to become big untill an amazing new game comes out for the PC... Halo 2 is a "day late and a dollar short"... wait untill Half Life supports it or something to that effect, then you'll start to see serious gamers jumping the bandwagon.
|
| Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 02:08 | |
|
9572AD |
DX10 isn't going to become big until it's available on something other than Vista.
|
| Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 02:46 | |
power mousey
|
that is true. Billy Boy with his Vista Blues....dude!! and pet pit bull Steve Ballmer too: please by all means conceived-->rework DX10 and test it to work on XP. And maybe, just maybe some of us will forgive you and your company. For such arrogance and trying to force a lot of us to use the Viperous Vista. |
| Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 03:57 | |
|
JL235
|
9572AD  DX10 isn't going to become big until it's available on something other than Vista. The Windows 'family' holds a 94% share of the desktop OS market, and I don't see any indication that there will be any major shift. DX10 (and all it's successors) will continue to be used. Probably more so as the idea of Windows as a gaming platform continues to grow. PC gaming in general is starting to show itself as something more then offering keyboard and mouse based genres, with bugs. You should all be happy that DirectX 10, or more Direct 3D 10, is here. It offers greater capabilities with more efficient handling of resources. I also don't reackon a port of a 3 year old game (Halo 2) will be defining it's full capabilities. Take a look at Crysis, it looks incredible and that's an early DirectX 10 game. To be fair they are trying to make a game which is too demanding to run on any current console (or willy-waving as I preffer to call it). Ok it won't run on any of our PC's, but it shows that the PC is now capable of being graphically superior to the next generation of console, at the beginning of that generations life. This is partly down to DirectX 10, giving it a slight edge over it's DX9 running cousin (XBox 360). I don't see why this is a problem, or why people complain. DirectX was started as an API for game developers to create games on Windows 95. OpenGL in contrast is built more for 'professional' (3D rendering, etc) programmes. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't use it for games. But this fact does make a difference. When I've used OpenGL (although I am not claiming to be an expert), what annoys me most is all the effort it takes to get it running with whatever API's you choose to use it with. It's not so much the language you use, but lots of other little things. For example all the trouble I had with loading textures. Once it's all worked out it's all straight forward and easy to copy, but getting there can sometimes be a nightmare with you having to write your own code to achieving things that DirectX comes with. Like a texture loader. With Managed DirectX (which ok isn't proper DirectX), none of these problems at all. Plus DirectX has everything you need to make a game (3D, 3D sound, input, networking, etc). OpenGL in contrast has only one component. I'd also preffer to be using several unified libraries (the DirectX API's) rather then several independant ones (OpenGL, SDL, OpenAL (which admittedly I haven't tried), etc). If it weren't for any possible compatibility problems I might encounter, I'd be using Vista now, but I need to ensure the software I use works perfectly. Even then Vista's backwards compatibility is far better then XP's early days. Finally, doesn't Wine offer DirectX emulation? I've heard it can work, but takes a lot of tinkering. Poed once said she'd seen Half Life 2 running on Linux but it wasn't very good. Emulation is never as good as the genuine product, and I'd find this very belivable with DirectX. Why not just use the real thing? A copy of Vista Home Premium is cheaper then an XBox 360, Wii, and of course a PS3. |
| Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 14:21 | |
|
hyruleknight |
i highly doubt it works or is at least painfully slow. also DD is right, windows will never be taken over at this point unless apple decides to release OS X for any and all hardware. if they did they probably would take a huge market share from microsoft in a relatively short time. but then they would have to make something to compete with DirectX and they are unwilling to invest all that time and money into gaming at this point |
| Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 17:12 | |
|
power mousey
|
but remember the Gates have and own shares in Apple too. and hyrule, you got that right! I agree! about Apple having to compete with DirectX and are unwilling to invest all that time and money into gaming at this point. Rather a lot of it is spent on commercials and advertising for life style and "oh my this" and "oh my that" for their products. Especially among the teen and teenager set. cheers, power mousey |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||