So DX10 was a must?

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

guys, you missed my point...I didnt say DX9 is better than DX10...we all know its quite the opposite. The thing is, landscape in CLOD is so poorly done (although that doesnt mean it wouldnt improve in the future) that ROF landscape with DX9 looks much better. Grass, trees, land, colors....everything.

Aha!

Now I understood the code....

Well, I would say, Win7-64bit is a must!

You can also run it in WinXP-32bit (and DX9) but, it is obvious that this is not where the future of this Flight Sim is....

I am happy personally, thisis the first time I felt the need of a 64bit system, this is the first time I installed in my PCs something other than WinXP and I do not regret it.

Yeaah, graphics is something, I personally like the ground graphics very much except for the fact that there are too many trees (lol, yes flame me!).
But anyway, when you dogfight you see nothing but the narrow field of view in front of your gunsight so I will never get to see nice landscape....

~S~

[skouras]

they still optimised the game
its not ready yet
we'll wait and see

[Conte Zero]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

take the pill....ROF is looking great on dx9 so we could have the same in CLOD...currently landscape in CLOD is not even near that....btw that wasnt an attack on CLOD but a suggestion, just a thought....

remember how OPEN they love to build a game, I mean open to the future. dx10, dx11, many tags in the INI files that do not have any use NOW (megatextures?) , but will unchain the engine power tomorrow
Just think about effects, water and textures from the original Sturmovik until Ultrapack...
If there is a game (and a philosophy) you cant ask to stick to the past, this is COD.

[MadTommy]

Tvrdi what is your point? If you agree that dx10 is better than dx9 why do you want dx9? Do you think the game will run better on dx9?

I'd like it to be dx11, not bloody dx9!

It must be a matter of taste, as i think CLoD landscape is better than RoF, with both on max settings. Are you running CLoD on max? There is not much between the two, but the landscape shadows in CLoD are better than those in RoF.

[Vorondil]

I believe that in truth there is no definite line or link between what renderer the studio chooses, and the final look of the game.

The choise of Maddox Games to only have active support for DX10+ level hardware and software is a logical one, as they intend for IL2:CoD to endure far into the future, and this is also the trend within the entire gaming industry. If you look at Steam's hardware survey, which is a quite decent representation of the average gamers PC, one can see that DX10+ software/hardware combination are now in domination, and growing rapidly. with the recent release of DX11, studios would have to make certain that things work on DX9, 10 and 11, and as such it makes sense to start dropping WinXP and DX9 entirely to conserve effort. The only thing still keeping DX9 (of which the latest release is now just short of 7 years old) in circulation is that multplatform games require DX9-level coding for the X360 and PS3. Some PC games, such as Just Cause 2, requires Vista/Win7 + DX10 to start at all.

In regards to what DX9, 10, 10.1 and 11 are capable of, it mostly revolves around improved minimum hardware requirements to be regarded as "DX10-compatible", streamlined pipelines, improved performance and a few added functions such as hardware per-object motion blur on DX10 and Tesselation on DX11. Read here for some more info.
The final look of the game is very much in the hands of the studios in charge. Take a look at Far Cry 2 and Crysis as an example. Crysis is actually primarily a DX9 game, even on maximum graphical settings, as DX10 support was added into the game core rather late in the production. Several mods have been released which enable most of the supposed DX10-level functions even on DX9 hardware, with the exeption of some motion-blur and some high quality atmospherical shaders, and with reduced performance due to the optimized pipelines of DX10 hardware. As such when you look at images like these keep in mind that they are (arbitrarily estimated) 90% DX9 and 10% DX10. Image 1. Image 2. Image 3. One could summarize it as such, that a mediocre studio can use the best resources and achieve nothing, while a good studio uses less and achieves leagues. (I am in no way implying that Maddox's creations are mediocre, though a bit inoptimized, which I have no doubt will be remedied promptly. I am using the saying in a industry-spanning perspective)

[Rangi]

A bit off topic but just thought i would let you know that updating my system from XP DX9 to WIN7 DX10 has made a huge difference for me. In XP DX9 i had to have most video settings at low and the game crashed at least once every 2 missions. In Win7 DX10 i haven't had a crash yet and can get 40+ fps with most settings at medium and some at high. The game also just looks and feels that much better. As you can see below my system is quite old now so i am amazed at how well the game plays.

Specs:
core 2 duo (6400) @ 2.13GHz (o'clocked to 3.3GHz)
GTX 275 (o'clocked to 830Mhz)
4mb Ram

[phxace]

Originally Posted by Rangi

A bit off topic but just thought i would let you know that updating my system from XP DX9 to WIN7 DX10 has made a huge difference for me. In XP DX9 i had to have most video settings at low and the game crashed at least once every 2 missions. In Win7 DX10 i haven't had a crash yet and can get 40+ fps with most settings at medium and some at high. The game also just looks and feels that much better. As you can see below my system is quite old now so i am amazed at how well the game plays.

Specs:
core 2 duo (6400) @ 2.13GHz (o'clocked to 3.3GHz)
GTX 275 (o'clocked to 830Mhz)
4mb Ram

Thanks for the feedback, Rangi. It gives me hope! I can't wait until the sim is released in the U.S.A.