Crysis DX9 vs DX10 = Quite a difference ^^

[kam03]

DX9




DX10

[Jonelo]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=15

Nothing diference , your have sunshafts,volumetric light and paralax with oclusion mapping in DX 9 /XP

[Luchou]

Not worth the performance drop (10 fps less) and the only difference I can see on that pic is the sun.

XP and DX9 for me, thanks

[Luchou]

Originally Posted by Jonelo

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=15

Nothing diference , your have sunshafts,volumetric light and paralax with oclusion mapping in DX 9 /XP

Wow, I changed my mind, lol...

testing it now

[Obie]

If the OP was being sarcastic I would agree with the sarcasm but if you put each photo into a tab (using FF or IE) you would clearly see very little difference. So, the question remains are we to formulate an opinion "in game" or are we to just use pics? Pics never give an accurate gauge of in game immersion. That's why pics shouldn't be used to point out in game immersion. In other words, it's what's obvious "in game" that stands out most, not some pic comparison.

[kam03]

Originally Posted by Luchou

Not worth the performance drop (10 fps less) and the only difference I can see on that pic is the sun.

XP and DX9 for me, thanks

Look at the right side on the other island, you will notice more trees, bushes etc.

[TyroPyro]

Some more comparison shots (no extra configs, just in game menu settings)
http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

[Gaco]

DX10 is a lot prettier no doubt, but it's just unplayable unfortunately.

In time I'm sure that that frenchmans way of working DX10 effects into DX9 will be explored fully and we'll see whether you'll get ALL the DX10 effects over when you do that trick or whether you'll still miss something. But from the look of it atm it looks pretty emberrasing for Microsoft and Crytek.

Originally Posted by TyroPyro

Some more comparison shots (no extra configs, just in game menu settings)
http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

Nice

[Mike89]

DX10 is a lot prettier no doubt, but it's just unplayable unfortunately.

I just don't agree that it's a lot prettier. There are some differences but for me it's quite a stretch to turn any differences to "A LOT PRETTIER". Most people playing these game wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless they had two computers side by side and were staring at screenshots. Sometimes when I see DX9 vs DX10 shots, I actually like the DX9 better.

[Gaco]

Originally Posted by Mike89

I just don't agree that it's a lot prettier. There are some differences but for me it's quite a stretch to turn any differences to "A LOT PRETTIER". Most people playing these game wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless they had two computers side by side and were staring at screenshots. Sometimes when I see DX9 vs DX10 shots, I actually like the DX9 better.

I have just tested DX9 vs. DX10 in a the part of the level where the sun rises and the difference is not just "a lot prettier" another, it's huge IMO in this particular space. Especially the difference between high and very high on shaders and post processing is great here. My opinion stands.

[svetli_pp]

I've played both DX9 and DX10 in Vista64 and for me the difference is pretty noticable. I prefer DX10 the lighting is very pleasant for me its important. I run it 1280x800 noaa noaf everything on high and its no short of amazing. It is quite smooth at that settings also.

[JasonPC]

I think right now (at least on current gen cards) you just have to pick and choose which "VERY HIGH" settings you want. Like for me the game is very playable with very high textures and shaders. You just can't go very high across the board. I was playing the game in DX9 and DX10 and even on the same shadow settings (high), for whatever reason the shadows looked much better in dx10 for me. Way less grainy, I guess it could have something to do with the fact I had shaders set to very high in dx10?