DX11 revealed - fully compatible with DX10 hardware!


Recommended Posts

I wonder if the DirectX 10 binaries are being kept up to date. Most games you install these days usually install a DirectX 9 (month and year) Update, which is still being updated every few months by Microsoft.

What competition? OpenGL? I think most games use DirectX these days, haven't played a game in OpenGL mode for... at least 8 years or so

There's the Doom 3 engine based games (Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey, ...?). Plus their upcoming engine.

(edit: too slow. :p)

My DXDiag show DX10 . .

If DirectX 10 is not installed then your install of Vista is corrupt or hacked (if it's even possible to remove DirectX 10 from Vista without killing Aero).

You never played any Doom3 based games? (Prey, ET: Quake Wars, Quake 4)

Sure OpenGL isn't popular on Windows, but I'm sure you played a OpenGL game in that 8 year lol...

As far as I know, id tech 4 engine was directx and opengl but on windows you better be running directx and on top of that ATI owners would suffer ( at the time , only lately ATI improved opengl much )

Sorry to be a spoil sport but is anyone else starting to think DX11 is just a rebranding of DX10 to try and make it successful?

Absolutely not, this is extremely worthy of a new major version number.

While the features might not sound like much to you, they're a huge deal for developers.

GPGPU is "the next big thing", it means more realistic phyics, much more advanced A.I. and if used right, could make many amazing games. The GPU in your machine is incredibly powerful, more powerful than even Intel's latest quad core monsters when used for certain tasks - tasks that are very relevant to games.

Tessellation is another big deal and while I don't have the exact details of what it can officially do, if I'm right, it essentially means that DX11 games made today will look even more awesome than DX9 or DX10 games made tomorrow.

Tessellation is about breaking things up into triangles. In games, EVERYTHING is made out of triangles, even things that look round or square are made of triangles. More triangles means more detail on the models (i.e. the more triangles you have in your sphere, the more "round" it will look). I wouldn't be surprised if this "tessellation" they speak of means that you can now feed it in a low-poly 3D model and it'll automagically extrapolate it into a higher-res one, simply by tessellating it further.

In other words, 2 or 3 years down the line when you get a faster graphics card, you'll be able to go back and play those older games at much higher detail than was possible at the time- this is WAY better than anything AA or AF could do.

Of course, I could be wrong about that and it could be something different, but I'd wager good money on that being what it does.

I'd say that alone is worth a major number increase.

If DirectX 10 is not installed then your install of Vista is corrupt or hacked (if it's even possible to remove DirectX 10 from Vista without killing Aero).

Thats odd... because my fresh copy of vista off of a retail cd (just installed yesterday actually... had to reformat) also reports DX9. However I only have a card that supports 9 and not 10.

Thats odd... because my fresh copy of vista off of a retail cd (just installed yesterday actually... had to reformat) also reports DX9. However I only have a card that supports 9 and not 10.

Yeah, I think that's why my laptop (w/Vista) reports DX9.

start > run > "dxdiag"

It'll tell you what version of DirectX you're using, if it's DX10, you've got a DX10 card.

Actually, no. It just says DirectX's version. When I had a PC I had DirectX 9, yet my card only did DirectX 7.

That's because DirectX 1-9 are essentially one big library that has had bits added onto it over the years, DirectX 10 is entirely separate so in THIS instance, it'll only show up DX10 if DX10 hardware is installed.

dxdiag always reports the version of DirectX you have installed.

You will always have DirectX 10 on Vista, it doesn't matter what your card runs (Vista actually includes 3 different versions of DirectX, DX9, DX9ex and DX10).

dxdiag always reports the version of DirectX you have installed.

You will always have DirectX 10 on Vista, it doesn't matter what your card runs (Vista actually includes 3 different versions of DirectX, DX9, DX9ex and DX10).

That's not what these two posts are saying.

I wonder if the DirectX 10 binaries are being kept up to date. Most games you install these days usually install a DirectX 9 (month and year) Update, which is still being updated every few months by Microsoft.

i played a 2008 game in opengl ... and it looks great man ... mind you it yould be better but meh ... is still good ... besides the game is small and stupid, (racing at its worst) but great time waster ....

I do have Vista Home Premium 32 bit SP1 installed and

my system reports DirectX 9 only, thats why I asked.

post-66351-1216817161_thumb.png

It says that because for some reason your still using the out of date directx cpl that was designed for dx9c. Only dxdiag will give you the correct version in vista, that old cpl will not since it was not designed for dx10.

Comparing OpenGL to DirectX is like comparing a Car to a Car Engine. OpenGL stands for "Open Graphics Library", the X in DirectX isn't just to sound good, it's because DirectX has a LOT of parts to it - DirectAudio, DirectInput, Direct3D, etc.

Absolutely not, this is extremely worthy of a new major version number.

While the features might not sound like much to you, they're a huge deal for developers.

GPGPU is "the next big thing", it means more realistic phyics, much more advanced A.I. and if used right, could make many amazing games. The GPU in your machine is incredibly powerful, more powerful than even Intel's latest quad core monsters when used for certain tasks - tasks that are very relevant to games.

For developer, physx runs fine right now and for free (even without specific hardware).

Tessellation is another big deal and while I don't have the exact details of what it can officially do, if I'm right, it essentially means that DX11 games made today will look even more awesome than DX9 or DX10 games made tomorrow.

Tessellation is about breaking things up into triangles. In games, EVERYTHING is made out of triangles, even things that look round or square are made of triangles. More triangles means more detail on the models (i.e. the more triangles you have in your sphere, the more "round" it will look). I wouldn't be surprised if this "tessellation" they speak of means that you can now feed it in a low-poly 3D model and it'll automagically extrapolate it into a higher-res one, simply by tessellating it further.

In other words, 2 or 3 years down the line when you get a faster graphics card, you'll be able to go back and play those older games at much higher detail than was possible at the time- this is WAY better than anything AA or AF could do.

Of course, I could be wrong about that and it could be something different, but I'd wager good money on that being what it does.

I'd say that alone is worth a major number increase.

tessellation has been present since Quake 3 Team Arena, is good but yet limited in some aspect, for example can increase the curvy of some model but its unable to increase/decrease another kind of detail (such LOD).

Dx11 for developer is a pain in the a*s, to re-start learning directx again is quite painful.

How do I know if my graphics card is a DX-10 card or a DX-9 card?

I have Vista 64-bit

The following cards are DirectX 10 :

NVIDIA: GeForce 8 series, GeForce 9 series, GTX 200 series

ATI: HD 2xxx series, HD 3xxx series, HD 4xxx series

For developer, physx runs fine right now and for free (even without specific hardware).

That's entirely different - PhysX runs in SOFTWARE unless you have a special addin card or a recent NVIDIA card - the purpose of DX11 is to allow developers to run code on the GPU to help speed up the calculations, regardless to the manufacturer or whatever.

tessellation has been present since Quake 3 Team Arena, is good but yet limited in some aspect, for example can increase the curvy of some model but its unable to increase/decrease another kind of detail (such LOD).

Dx11 for developer is a pain in the a*s, to re-start learning directx again is quite painful.

You don't have to relearn DirectX again, if you know DX9, you can easily migrate to DX10...

DX10 failed because Vista "failed".

I would say neither is true.

Vista failed because so many people were trashing it. So much so, that to this day people are scared about getting a new computer with vista.

Its sad really.

Vista failed because so many people were trashing it. So much so, that to this day people are scared about getting a new computer with vista.

Its sad really.

I have to completely agree, far too many people pointed out far too many "negative" aspects of Vista. Some were worth identifying, some were minor, and some were/are not really Vista's fault. I hate ignorant people (I'm not calling anyone ignorant), but just in general.

Yea Vista failed because of people. And people now won't even give it a chance, I have been running Vista for 6 or more months now without any issues. I am actually really enjoying it and love the game that I can play in DX10, wooT!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!