What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
9 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow...there is quite a big difference in the Lighting and normal mapping. Also in the first image you can totally see an improvement in the draw distances. Great article!
- demitri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Nice touch with the mouse over effect to toggle between the DX9 and DX10 images!
- steven401, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Since when does DX9 not have the ability to render trees in the background (first comparison), is it just or me or does anyone else think this is inaccurate?
- ConceptsX, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4You have just convinced me to purchase a DX10 Card, Great article!
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it does seem rather suspicious to me that features that simply were not present in DX9 suddenly appear in DX10. The forest background in the first image is not difficult to draw for any card. Hell, it's flat and even quake had "skyboxes" of static images to be plastered around a level [edit: maybe it's not a skybox, but even then, cutting off the render distance as they did in the DX9 version is an artifical limitation]. If it's present in the DX10 version and not the DX9 version, I'd expect that someone actually coded in a test to see if DX10 was present, and added visual features (in)appropriately. Or if you're cynical, they took things that were perfectly possible with DX9 out of it, in order to promote Vista and DX10. The little piece of vegetation in the last image needs to be added in by hand. It's not as if DX10 magically provides a vegetation generator. Other than that, it seems to have more obvious bump or displacement mapping and more contrasty lighting.
I'm sure DX10 provides lots of neat features for programmers, but it's hard to compare objectively when developers actively try to make it look like more of an improvement than it actually is. - TWEAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Very good guys.
- pcrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great article!
- ocauTMM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. The article is flawed. It is comparing a basic implementation of DX10 to a poor implementation of DX9. There isn't any effects in the the "DX10" shots can't be done with DX9 (atleast, probably not exactly the same way, but extremely similar visually). It appears that the Age of Conan coders just didn't bother with the DX9 implementation of the game.
- Halbermunken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL. Those DX9 shots were really poor, seems very intentional to show DX10 as something revolutionary. Conan developers received some cash from MS? ;)
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is