PDA

View Full Version : Games Utilizing DX9 Features


Pages : [1] 2

StealthHawk
07-26-03, 03:45 PM
Please list any games you know are coming out in 2003 which use DX9 effects.

Games already released: Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness

Upcoming games: Half-Life2
Halo

saturnotaku
07-26-03, 04:21 PM
Word to the wise...Halo ain't comin' out this year. :(

The Baron
07-26-03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Word to the wise...Halo ain't comin' out this year. :(
/me EXPLODES

saturnotaku
07-26-03, 04:27 PM
Well, looks like I'm wrong. Both EB and Gamestop have Halo PC coming out mid-late September. I thought it was delayed until April 2004....but come to think of it that might have been Halo 2.

druga runda
07-26-03, 05:49 PM
what effect is on DX9 level in Tomb Raider?

Matthyahuw
07-26-03, 06:47 PM
Didn't Midnight Club II make you install DX9?
I dunno, already uninstalled that thing...

druga runda
07-26-03, 06:57 PM
Well Freelancer asked me to install DX9 but I haven't recognised any new fancy effects...

-=DVS=-
07-26-03, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by druga runda
Well Freelancer asked me to install DX9 but I haven't recognised any new fancy effects...

Freelancer uses so little of everything its DX7 game realy :p

jAkUp
07-26-03, 07:36 PM
star wars galaxies uses pixel shader 2.0 for water, i believe that tiger woods 2003 does also.

upcoming games... i dunno about d3, but i think it has some dx9 features.. even though it is an opengl game.. am i wrong??:confused:

marqmajere
07-26-03, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Well, looks like I'm wrong. Both EB and Gamestop have Halo PC coming out mid-late September. I thought it was delayed until April 2004....but come to think of it that might have been Halo 2.

I stopped listening to those guys at the stores a long time ago. This was back when games were comming out in October. Oh wait. They pushed it back. Now it's april. Oh sorry once again. Pushed back to August...... You get the idea.

StealthHawk
07-26-03, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by jAkUp
star wars galaxies uses pixel shader 2.0 for water, i believe that tiger woods 2003 does also.

upcoming games... i dunno about d3, but i think it has some dx9 features.. even though it is an opengl game.. am i wrong??:confused:

I would be surprised if Tiger Woods2003 used PS2.0. Doom3 is unfortunately not coming out this year, and AFAIK there are no extra PS2.0 effects either.

Just because a game makes you install DX9 does not mean it uses any DX9 features, specifically PS or VS. It could use any of the many components of DirectX, and not Direct3d.

The Baron
07-26-03, 09:10 PM
I say we get BBEA to tell us if TW2003 (or 4) uses PS2.0...

saturnotaku
07-26-03, 09:34 PM
There's no way TW2003 can use PS 2.0. That game was out long before DirectX 9 cards started making their way into the mainstream. That's not to say '04 won't though.

Just because a game makes you install DX9 does not mean it uses any DX9 features, specifically PS or VS. It could use any of the many components of DirectX, and not Direct3d.

Just like how Max Payne and GTA3 required DirectX 8 (and 8.1 respectively) to be installed, but neither of those games used any of the API's advanced features.

Edge
07-26-03, 10:48 PM
Well, here's a list of games that are currently out or coming this year that use DX9 effects:


That's it. hehe, seriously though, I think the only games that will actually use DX9 for new effects is possibly Half-life 2, and maybe Halo. But even then I'm not sure if they're doing any new effects with it or if DX9 just makes the DX8 features go faster (like that 3dmark2001SE test with pixel shaders 1.1 and 1.3). I haven't seen any real *new* effects done with DX9, just a bunch of stuff that looks like DX8 stuff only slightly improved.

All games come with the newest version of DirectX on them, but very very few actually use any of the features of the new version of it. Hell, it took DirectX8 games like a year to come out after the GF3 was released. In fact I think Xbox had the first DX8 enabled game on it...

jAkUp
07-26-03, 11:12 PM
actually star wars galaxy does use dx9 features.. run the game on a geforce4, and you lose some special effects.

StealthHawk
07-26-03, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Edge
All games come with the newest version of DirectX on them, but very very few actually use any of the features of the new version of it. Hell, it took DirectX8 games like a year to come out after the GF3 was released. In fact I think Xbox had the first DX8 enabled game on it...

I always thought that Aquanox used DX8 shaders. I know a few games(like 3) came out a few months after the gf3, and were showcased as taking advantage of the hardware. Then for a period of 12-18 months there were zero DX8 games :p

Edge
07-27-03, 12:42 AM
Oh yeah, Aquanox, I forgot about that. And now that I think about it, Commanche 4 also used them. But after that almost no games used the effects (C&C Renegade might have...but it sure didn't use it very much). I think Morrowind was the next (and I have a feeling the only reason they bothered putting in the effects in that game was because they were also making it for Xbox). Now it's becoming a bit more prevelent, though.

Oh, and do you actually lose effects in SWG if you have a DX8 card? I've seen a few pictures of the water effects and such, but it looked exactly like DX8 stuff. But it wouldn't suprise me if they added in a few extras at the last minute.

EciDemon
07-28-03, 03:07 AM
Its sad isnt it...

Soo good gfx cars ... so few games that uses them ...

nrdstrm
08-04-03, 08:12 PM
SWG does indeed use DX9 to some extent. For sure on the water as the Dev's said that they were recoding all of the water and some other effects (wich ones I don't know, but god that game is beautiful on my 5900!). They claim the engine is scalable to take advantage of 5900, and the next 3 generations at least of graphics cards...we shall see...but for now it's one of the best looking games around and DEFINETLY the best looking MMORPG...I'd have to say until HL2, Doom 3, EQ 2, and Stalker come out it is probably the best looking game period...
Nrdstrm
PS. I know first hand that the water looks fastly different on a DX8 Card. My friend has a ti4200 and I use a 5900U and there is a huge difference...

DivotMaker
08-04-03, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
There's no way TW2003 can use PS 2.0. That game was out long before DirectX 9 cards started making their way into the mainstream. That's not to say '04 won't though.


TW2003 does not use PS 2.0. I "believe" it uses PS 1.3, but don't quote me on that.

Nor can I confirm at this point if it will use PS 2.0 in 2004, but whatever PS they are using looks a helluva lot better than 2003 and there is a helluva lot more environment that is being rendered....

Stay tuned and I will see if I can get an answer from my development contact on the PS issue for 2004....

Sazar
08-04-03, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by BigBerthaEA
TW2003 does not use PS 2.0. I "believe" it uses PS 1.3

:D

I quoted you :D

the water rendering does look like dx8 level effects... nothing of the level of hl2...

how bout the sky ? I heard talk that the sky was ps 2.0... ?

any confirmation ?

Greg
08-04-03, 10:06 PM
Just a note on DirectX9 games...

Developers will always ship with the latest DirectX version that has been released to the public, and has had the time to pass through QA.

Because developers are usually beta testers, they typically have been working with the latest version for some time, so it is usually QAed.

I have noticed recentely that publishers are demanding that the developers ship with 'DirectX9' on the box, even if no DirectX9 exclusive features are used. (DirectX9 only requires a DirectX7 level card, but obviously many features are not available, or are emulated for those cards). I presume the publisher does this to make the game appear to be more technically advanced, and desireable to people who have purchased new video cards. This is a little deceptive to often nieve customers who don't know much about what DirectX is. It may have a positive side effect though: Maybe nieve customers will upgrade their computers to provide a larger future market of high spec PCs? Or maybe they'll all end up with FX5200s?

Edge
08-05-03, 12:21 AM
Uh, how would people upgrading their computers to FX5200 cards be a bad thing? It has all the features of the ATI 9800 and FX5900, and the only thing it's missing is speed and extra AA modes. Since it supports DX9, more developers would be willing to support DX9 features since most people would own cards that support it. As for speed, 90% of "casual" PC gamers probably wouldn't see ANY difference between an FX5200 and an FX5900. Most people don't even know what Antialiasing is, and I doubt they even raise the resolution to above 800x600. I think the FX5200 is the perfect card for most people, the only people that don't like it are the "hardcore" PC gamers like us that are so used to playing at 1600x1200 with 8xAA and lvl16 aniso :rolleyes:
Also, just 2 years ago a card that was slower and didn't have as many features as the FX5200 was considered the best availible. By that reasoning, the ATI 9700 will have about a year left before it's called "garbage". It's a hell of a lot better then the GF4MX and ATI 7500 cards that it's replacing.

But I hope we see a lot more FX5200 cards being sold. Then developers would actually have a reason to add DX9 features. The big problem DX8 had was that there were no budget cards that supported it until recently. Developers weren't willing to put in the extra time and effort into adding features that only Geforce 3 owners had. Hell, most games don't even use bump-mapping.

StealthHawk
08-05-03, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Edge
Uh, how would people upgrading their computers to FX5200 cards be a bad thing? It has all the features of the ATI 9800 and FX5900, and the only thing it's missing is speed and extra AA modes. Since it supports DX9, more developers would be willing to support DX9 features since most people would own cards that support it. As for speed, 90% of "casual" PC gamers probably wouldn't see ANY difference between an FX5200 and an FX5900. Most people don't even know what Antialiasing is, and I doubt they even raise the resolution to above 800x600. I think the FX5200 is the perfect card for most people, the only people that don't like it are the "hardcore" PC gamers like us that are so used to playing at 1600x1200 with 8xAA and lvl16 aniso :rolleyes:
Also, just 2 years ago a card that was slower and didn't have as many features as the FX5200 was considered the best availible. By that reasoning, the ATI 9700 will have about a year left before it's called "garbage". It's a hell of a lot better then the GF4MX and ATI 7500 cards that it's replacing.

But I hope we see a lot more FX5200 cards being sold. Then developers would actually have a reason to add DX9 features. The big problem DX8 had was that there were no budget cards that supported it until recently. Developers weren't willing to put in the extra time and effort into adding features that only Geforce 3 owners had. Hell, most games don't even use bump-mapping.

The point that has been brought up before is that of installed base versus realistic installed base. For example, do developers really care if there are a lot of gfFX5200s out there if the cards are too slow to run with all the features?

Is the gfFX5200 better than nothing? Certainly. Would a more capable lowend card, say from ATI, be better for the industry? Most likely. But we're stuck with the gfFX5200, for better or worse.

Greg
08-05-03, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Edge
Uh, how would people upgrading their computers to FX5200 cards be a bad thing?

Yes, I probably shouldn't have said that, cause I implied it was a bad card. It's performance with DX9 features may be questionable, but we really havn't seen it perform other than 3dMark2k3 which is a different topic. In fact, I'd consider a FX5200 to replace the 4MX-440.