No DirectX 10 for Supreme Commander

This one flew a bit below the radar last week, but it appears that there will now be no DirectX 10 update for Gas Powered Games' PC RTS Supreme Commander. Why not? According to an official post on GPG's site, it's a timing thing: "The opportunity to integrate DX10 came along very late in the development process for Supreme Commander..."Despite the best efforts of our own team and our partners from Microsoft and Nvidia, the timing simply did not line up. The availability of DX10 hardware, final releases of Vista itself, and the solid drivers simply did not line up with the necessary time frames in our development cycle..."The bottom line: Directx 10 support will not be patched into Supreme Commander or its expansion packs.

View: Full Story
News source: Next-Gen.Biz

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Desktop Search 3.01

Next Story

BullZip PDF Printer 3.0.0.210

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If it looks great and plays great... does it matter if it's DX 9 or Dx 10.

Example GuildWars looks awesome and started out DX 8 and upgraded to DX 9.

I know when GW moves to DX10 (and it will or GW2 will while still supporting DX9) will look awesome but DX10 hardware and software "just" settled down now where a game can take 3-7 years of development and a lot of games could of used DX10 but since DX10 was not "finalized" constantly changing / lack of hardware at the time.

Example - Interview with lead developer of Oblivion and not supporting the "PhysX card" and the answer was basically would of *if* it was mature / final API / could program for it during that stage of development (the engine) but Oblivion was too far along to add it to the game engine when PhysX was readily available for developers to use.

All *new bleeding edge* tech tends to be very buggy / not so good vs the refined well developed previous gen when it first come out and it is bumpy until the new bleeding edge stabilize become the new "standard".

Look at the current level of stability and support of DX 10 hardware and drivers. It's just know getting to a usable point.

I am kinda of dissapointed I just upgraded my 7800 to an 8800 gtx and I swear on some games it actualy runs slower at times and stutters

eXtermia said,
I am kinda of dissapointed I just upgraded my 7800 to an 8800 gtx and I swear on some games it actualy runs slower at times and stutters :(

In Vista, or XP? If it's in Vista, that wouldn't be surprising. Drivers are still messed up.

Huh? Timing? Wasn't it supposed to be in a patch, and not ready for release?

In that case I don't really understand the timing problem, because no one is saying there should be a near-immediate release.

Not that I really care for DX10 support in this game though. It struck me as a bit weird because it's not the kind of game that will make that good use of it.

direct x 10 enables faster and more efficient shaders and that's about it. the more complicated shaders and the geometry shaders are about the only major things. considering microsoft already showed they want to move to direct x 10.1 quickly, I personally think that the DX10 generation will be a wash, with the majority of the titles showing up around the time 10.1 hardware comes out and the drivers on vista get decent.

I was in the SupCom beta, and the biggest problem facing GPG (and us as testers) was a lack of solid DX 10 drivers (it certainly didn't help that the *only* DX 10 hardware available from anybody was from nVidia, and it was both expensive and plagued with driver issues even in DX 9). Also, to be quite blunt, what are we really missing in SupCom that DX 10 could actually fix?

From playing the beta (and playing the released game today on the same hardware I tested the beta code on), that despite the features that SupCom has, none of it absolutely requires DX 10 (in fact, I can't think of a single feature that got cut because of the lack of DX 10 support in the shipping code). SupCom as a game is CPU-bound (or even display, as in monitor, bound) rather than GPU-bound or DX-bound, and that's even on Vista. I play SupCom today at the same settings I used when testing (1024x768, 2xAA, 4xAF, all other settings at the midrange or higher) on the same P4-C 2.6 and 1 GB of DDR400 and ATI AIW 9700 Pro I tested on. I tested on the Vista CPP code (and play on Ultimate RTM). So, except for fixes, the game is the same. The hardware is exactly the same. We're not talking even current-generation hardware; we're talking DEAD hardware! The only place you're going to find unused Northwood-C CPUs other than Intel's Replacement Parts Depot in Kentucky is on eBay (and I seriously doubt you'd find them on eBay); the same goes for the rest of my Old-School PC.

I'm not saying it isn't a great game; it is, or I wouldn't have bought it. However, let's get real here; name ONE feature that would be noticeably improved by adding support for DX 10, even on Windows Vista.

Leo Natan said,
Graphics

What part of SupCom's graphics can be improved by patching-in DX 10 support, even on Vista? Also, what percentage of the owners of SupCom both have Vista install *and* have DX 10 hardware (both of which are requirements)? While *you* may have both, how many others like you are there? (I already made plain that while I am running Vista, I'm also running an AIW Radeon 9700 Pro; how many Supreme Commander players are running GeForce 7-series GPUs (or ATI X1K-saeries or older GPUs) with Vista? Scarier thought: how many folks are playing the game on *Windows XP*? (DX 10 doesn't even work there, fella.) The subset *Supreme Commander players with Windows Vista and DX 10 hardware* is just that; a SUBSET of the set *Supreme Commander players*. There are also two other subsets (*Supreme Commander players running on Windows XP* and *Supreme Commander players on Windows Vista without DX 10 hardware*), either or both of which are larger than the only player subset that would benefit from such a patch. A patch with such a small benefitted set of users doesn't get written.

So they knew (or at least should have known) DX10 was coming out for what a year or 2.. you think they would have had a chance to code it in.

hagjohn said,
So they knew (or at least should have known) DX10 was coming out for what a year or 2.. you think they would have had a chance to code it in.

The problem is that trying to code on a moving target (Vista), especially when people won't have graphics cards for a while, nor will people be all that interested in upgrading to an OS JUST for their game, I really don't blame them. Honestly, the time spent converting their game to DX10 would better be used developing another game.

dagamer34 said,

The problem is that trying to code on a moving target (Vista), especially when people won't have graphics cards for a while, nor will people be all that interested in upgrading to an OS JUST for their game, I really don't blame them. Honestly, the time spent converting their game to DX10 would better be used developing another game.

Other gaming companies do not seem to have an issue with a "moving target". It sounds like poor planning to me. I have Vista and a DX10 card... many people do. If there is a DX10 game people want to play, they will switch pretty quickly.

hagjohn said,

Other gaming companies do not seem to have an issue with a "moving target". It sounds like poor planning to me. I have Vista and a DX10 card... many people do. If there is a DX10 game people want to play, they will switch pretty quickly.

a lot of ppl arent more than 50% i can assure you

have you at least managed to get an hand on the playable dx10 games , or even better the so called dx10 patch's for a few games that are there ?

its still not perfect , sorry but i still prefer to have everything at max quality in dx9 with full fps than going to dx10 and having fps under 20-30 ( sure human eye can notice the diferences above 30 ) but what I'm saying and the above member said.

when the game started the development Vista wasnt out - there were in beta , the gfx makers didnt even had dx10 drivers :P

look to nvidia and when they finaly started lauching their drivers for vista "fully dx10" ( err they're doing it every week )

look to ati and their drivers ( each week gets out another version , that increases the fps - lots of tweaks to do )


While you say I have vista and a dx10 card - others will say i have xp and dx9 ( majority ) - gamers house will move slowly to dx10 - but will keep doing things for dx9 since the majority is dx9 ( money talks )

porting to dx10 isnt like copy paste. ( and others gaming companies while going on the wagon sometimes lack the quality , gameplay , performance, and i bet they do not like to see their base started to go into flame war because when on vista and dx10 their game doesnt offer them max quality with every single setting at max under 1600x1200 or higher and with 60-80 fps that they were used on dx9

2 years? I hope you realise that Direct3D10 has only been included in the DirectX SDK since December 2006. Just because they know that DirectX10 is coming doesn't mean they can use it.

It's like saying that just because you know that Starcraft 2 is coming out in the next few years, you should be able to go out, buy the game, and play it tonight.

Absurd.

why not ?

ofc it will cost them money ( do you work for free ? ) , and for a patch and a few ppl would just enjoy the dx10


any dx10 game/demo out there right now sucks on the fps benchmark , the drivers arent yet fully perfect so no point of having ppl starting to complain OMG no FPS when i use dx10 this game sucks etc etc etc

Sounds like corporate bull**** for "We worked out how much extra time it would take (and thus how much extra money it would cost us) and decided it wasn't worth it".

Timing my ass.