I do remember back to the days where you really had to read game box to
see if your soundcard was supported or if you had to depend on system
speaker. Dealing directly with the hardware means that someone comes
out the winner, like Creative in the old days. I still have one game
(Carnivores 2) which only has 2 selections for 3D display: Software and
3dfx.
More likely they will replace DirectX with something else. Remember
when Maximum PC called DirectX 'horribly broken'?
Steve
On 3/27/2011 11:32 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
Yeah, I read it. However, the first notion that PC hardware is 10x
more powerful but not 10x as good looking. That's highly subjective.
Then, the notion of writing directly to the hardware .... crashy,
crashy .... that was the whole point of an API in the first
place....so you develop a game on the console, and then do
device-level programming for different PC hardware? Not gonna happen.
Developers should get MS to improve on DirectX so that those numbers
come up!
On 3/27/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Tomporowski wrote:
You need to read the article. The guy from AMD contends that PCs
need much more hardware power to get the same/better results than
consoles and blames directX. Apparently consoles can run 10k to 20k
'draw calls' per frame compared to 2k to 3k for the PC because
directX does not allow mutliple objects per call.
That is , if I've got the gist of the article correct.....;-)
Steve
On 3/27/2011 9:39 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
I'm not a gamer, but I guess these guys must not be usign DirectX
games when they generate these high-res shots on their PCs:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1530070
On 3/27/2011 9:19 AM, Steve Tomporowski wrote:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1
This article talks about how, with 10x the power of consoles, PC
games only look 1/10 as good due to DirectX.
Steve
