[Phil]

Indeed. Rap's silence confirms it!!

 

[runawayprisoner]

Is it any good? Lemme guess........the drivers are psychotic penguins called prinnies??

Best racing game on PS3? And anyway, there's a thread for it in the Game Discussion forum.

 

[Phil]

I just posted lol. Wait, GT5 will be out this year won't it? S it can't be the best racing game

 

[runawayprisoner]

It was the best of 2008. GT5 has no road map, sadly... no release date even. Just expected dates.

Plus I think GT5 gotta do more than GT5P if it wants to take back the crown, or BurnOut Paradise will just lead another year.

 

[Phil]

Make no mistake....GT5 WILL win the crown. It's Sony's triumph card. Remember GT3 A-Spec sold 15 million units

 

[Cid Highwind]

Guys, there's 7 off topic posts in a row, while the OP's question hasn't been fully answered yet (at least he didn't let us know, so), please keep that in the Burnout thread

Nvidia supports 3/4 of Dx10.1, only failing on the AA+Defferred rendering support.

However, as Psxauthor will validate, there are ways to do this even on Dx9 hardware, should you know what you're doing.

But most likely in a way that costs much more rendering power, thus FPS?

Just how ATi cards can cut corners with the AA implemention of DX10.1, thus reaching higher FPS, which nVidia didn't really like in "their" Assassin's Creed? I don't think that these new features are completely worthless. It's just a case of wishing that your GPU will still be fast enough by the time these DX11 and DX10.1 features will be implemented widespread in games.

Also, the ATi cards already have the DX11 tesselation uni on board. I'm really interested in what it will bring, I've read they had it ever since the X1k series, because the X360 chip uses it as well, so it should aid the porting and all. Can't say I've seen it done though.

Ironically, it's stilll irrelevant, since I'm on Windows XP. I plan to make the switch with W7.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Guys, there's 7 off topic posts in a row, while the OP's question hasn't been fully answered yet (at least he didn't let us know, so), please keep that in the Burnout thread

Roger.

Am I glad you said that, though. Off-topic stuffs have been popping up lots lately.

But most likely in a way that costs much more rendering power, thus FPS?

Not necessarily? If what I think is right... then it might not cost that much. What MS is doing, basically, might just be implementing their own optimized versions of some codes over the old foundations. In other words... something like an extension or implementation of what had already been there the entire time. They do have the time and resources to research something like that, after all.

Just how ATi cards can cut corners with the AA implemention of DX10.1, thus reaching higher FPS, which nVidia didn't really like in "their" Assassin's Creed? I don't think that these new features are completely worthless. It's just a case of wishing that your GPU will still be fast enough by the time these DX11 and DX10.1 features will be implemented widespread in games.

Yeah... but with current developers' attitudes towards these new technologies, and considering how short-lived DX10 had been, I don't think that would happen. Ahh... if only we had more DX10 games, maybe they would have invested more time in DX10.

Ironically, it's stilll irrelevant, since I'm on Windows XP. I plan to make the switch with W7.

Mmm... W7...

I've heard that there's a netbook version coming. Here's wondering how hardware support will be like, because... likely, getting it as a gaming OS won't be too bad if it had the essentials intact.

 

[Cid Highwind]

That one will have a 3 applications limit of what can run at the same time. If I look at my taskbar, that's not going to work. Sound + mouse + wireless, and then I still need my game to start. Where the heck am I going to fit Daemon Tools in?

But with the newer DX versions, it should be at least possible to save development time that way then, and if MS did that research right (going by your reasoning) it should be faster than what game developers on tight budget with time constraints are able to do. Just how you can see with the AA in DX10.1, there's ways to do things faster. Otherwise it would indeed not make sense. DX10 is a dud, but sooner or later we have to move on anyway, and from that aspect I like the idea of having a DX10.1 compatible videocard, especially since ATi has gained some ground, and much more respect, I expect developers to keep this in mind as well. Just look at the DX10.1 titles that have been announced so far. You can try the brute force of nVidia as well, I'm sure no one will be disappointed either

 

[runawayprisoner]

That one will have a 3 applications limit of what can run at the same time. If I look at my taskbar, that's not going to work. Sound + mouse + wireless, and then I still need my game to start. Where the heck am I going to fit Daemon Tools in?

Mm... last I heard it wouldn't have that cap, so you can run as much as you want. I mean... otherwise, my XP Home install on my Eee would still pwn them? ;p I know they wouldn't let that happen.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

DX10.1 is just supposed to do DX10 slightly faster, however whereas PhysX is rare, DX10.1 is non-existant, the only major release I know of that used it was Far Cry 2...and it actually had support for it patched out lol.

Also DX10 is far from a dud, Assasins Creed and Far Cry 2 proved that. Far Cry 2 runs MUCH smoother than on DX10 than DX9.

 

[Cid Highwind]

Usually it's the DX10 version running better than the DX9 version on Vista, yet the DX9 on XP owns them both.

 

[runawayprisoner]

DX10.1 is just supposed to do DX10 slightly faster, however whereas PhysX is rare, DX10.1 is non-existant, the only major release I know of that used it was Far Cry 2...and it actually had support for it patched out lol.

Nah, Far Cry 2 DX10.1 was a rumor. And there are a few stuffs that run pretty cool in DX10.1. The latest ATi demos and Assassin's Creed for instance.

Also DX10 is far from a dud, Assasins Creed and Far Cry 2 proved that. Far Cry 2 runs MUCH smoother than on DX10 than DX9.

Depends on the hardware.

Usually it's the DX10 version running better than the DX9 version on Vista, yet the DX9 on XP owns them both.

Yep. That's true. ;D Windows 7 still couldn't deliver it, which makes me kinda think that developers are being lazy about their DX10 implementations.