This. I still play old, old games, like Mario and such because of the gameplay, because lets face it. What graphics?
If you have time to notice the graphics suck then you're not playing the game
In racing games all I notice is the road in front of me and the backs of cars, nothing else is needed.
In shooters I'm too busy looking for people to kill then how fancy the trees look.
So on and so forth.
If you have time to notice the graphics, you're either too slow, or always dead.
Remove the fact that what you attached looks like something from the 80's, which would make it ~20 years old is besides the point. As long as you can tell what things are, that's all you need if the game plays how it should.
There's a big difference between needing some new textures and needing a whole new graphics engine. I'm one of those people that thinks LFS looks good, yet I run modded textures. The textures add a lot to the game with relatively little effort. Changing to DX9 or 10 would not add anything in my opinion, and would take considerable effort.
Like I said earlier in the thread, if there were animated crowds, slightly better textures, more detailed 3D models, etc it would go a long way towards improving the graphics of the game. None of these things would require anything as drastic as switching to a new DirectX version.
Hrrm.....but now the question, what is unclear is wheter or not, with a computer that came with Vista, you will be able to format the system hdd at all. Remember, you will be the untrusted entity there. Then the next question that comes to mind would be: if DX10 communicates with the graphics hardware in a different manner than DX9 and down, will that gfx hardware be able to run at all under DX9-, and therefore if DX10 only works with Vista, would you be able to install another OS and still have a working graphics card?
If the motherboard itself (and/or cpu) is not DRM enabled, that would mean swapping for an older gfx card and a brand new hdd, or formatting it with another machine. You can guess a good 80% of pc users will never want such "complications" and will prefer to stay safe and touch nothing, and as pc's will most definitely be sold with Vista, that also means a good 80% of pc users will stay with Vista.
Then on the matter of using slightly older gfx card, it could work for a moment -as long as all you play can still use DX9- but eventually it will get outdated and no matter what you do, you'll end up needing a new gfx card, and unless Microsoft's market share gets much much much lower by then, which doesn't seem likely, then it will be DX10 and you'll end up needing Vista.
The only workaround I see would be a complete open source OS that can actually support games without emulating anything, but for that you'd need the support of the gaming industry 1st, and if things were starting to look that way, I think the RIAA would pay game studios to stick with the Microsoft OS (so that a potential majority of customers stick with the OS that is "safe" for them).
Next workaround I can see: playing on a workstation. Why? Because I simply cannot believe MS would list professionnal developpers or content creators or musicians as "untrusted" users.
TBH you will find that XP runs for many years yet before they pull the plug. MS have only just killed off Win98 a month or so back even though they have been trying to kill it for a while.
Until the business world moves to Vista then MS are stuffed and have to support XP. I know of one huge corp in the UK, for example, that have only recently moved their 1000's of desktop machines and related infrastructure from NT4 to XP when the NT4 support finally stopped. They bypassed Win2K. They will not be in a hurry to throw out all their old machines so they can move to Vista, the cost and testing for that sort of roll out is just too much. That coupled with new hardware costs and the cost is mental. The company in question were also MS Select customers so could have made the switch to XP at any time because they had licences for XP for every machine, they just decided to downgrade their licences for NT4. There will be many many more companies like this.
MS have not even been able to phase of Win2K yet, but you can bet they would love to. Vista does not offer any real benefits to companies so there will be real feet dragging. The big issue for MS is that XP was released in 2001 and Vista was really due 2003 but they stuffed up again and again.
We dont even know if it will roll Q1 next year, only 80% chance of that as stated by Bill himself.
Sorry but you are wrong its not the DX10 hardware but its special chip on PCB thru which are going data to HDMI connector.That chip has special key which code the signal so it can meet the DRM requiremens.
There are already some cards around which have this chip and they are DX9.
This DRM is about those special chips and software implemantation.
I really dont want Vista after I have tried it.The interface is more complicated then Windows XP had and this will be an issue for most regular users.Vista just eats memory so for upcoming graphic orgy titles you will need like 2-4GB of memory because Vista can easily eat 400-500MB that was without any of program running in background.I can imagine the memory using could go easily with all these fences interfaces up to 1GB.Jesus....what si really Microsoft thinking.For me the Vista still looks liek a another fiasco.I think Microsoft is really quite aware about this thats why is delay by delay.
Looks at this for example. Microsoft made it clear that OpenGL support would only work as a layer sitting on top of Direct3D. There was going to be translation involved and thus a performance hit.They have changed their mind and OpenGL will now be natively supported in Vista without layering over Direct3D.
I think there will be more and more changes to Vista because Microsoft had too much visions but there was lack of looking back into the reality.
I am inclined to agree that OpenGL would make for a far better future for LFS than DX. Although changing LFS to OpenGL would probably involve a lot of work, it also does not guarantee a conversion to Linux or OSX either, it just makes doing a port more feasable and given that LFS is developed by a small team I doubt we would see this happen, unless Scawen tries out Xcode and decides he likes it.
For a quicky-translation to OpenGL I'd suggest using WineLib.
Most things will run nicely, then fix a hand full of bugs and after about one month you have running DX-code under OpenGL. Later, when a rewrite is due (say, for added GFX-candeh in S3) you can do the transition to OpenGL
My god vista sounds terrible maybe i'll switch to linux too... as i only really play lfs and use xp for that... I think MS are going to lose a big portion of there customers with all this drm rubbish
Another thing to remember is that when you start getting into the more advanced shaders, the workload when it comes to the art assets just piles on- you're not only creating a texture, but the bump map of that texture, the normal map, the specular map, etc. I can imagine that this is a lot of work (heck, even just doing the textures themselves is a lot of work). With a group of three devs, and 1 guy doing all of the graphics, any kind of content creation is going to take a lot of effort and time. If you want DX10, (let alone alone DX9), then you're going to want to be patient. Because it probably won't be coming any time soon...
Hmmm
Every update of this microsoft crap, forces me to buy another gfx hardware. When I think back on, what was possible on the commodore 64, the gfx bussiness is going backwards. (Relatively spoken)
Damn - I hate to upgrade my gfx every 18 month.
Vista ?
Now George Orwell is rigth. But I double it, because "Big brother is REALLY watching you"
The DRM is part of the spec of DX10 so while you are right that you can fit the required DRM components to DX9 and below ALL DX10 hardware MUST include it to be DX10 compatible. Vista even has encryption standards for transmission of data over the PCI bus, this shows how worried they are about digital copies.
<RANT DRM>
Sorry this is off topic from the start of the thread BUT is something close to my heart.
In Vista the entire Audio path is protected so dont expect to be able to rip MP3s from CDs any more, WMA + DRM will be the order of the day for Audio ripping. All audio requests feed through the Music API which again sits inside ring 0, which you the untrusted user and all untrusted software will not have access to.
Thats OK you think, just run Nero up and get low level access to the drive. Nope, MS will NOT allow that sort of software raw access to the drive as that would bypass their security. Many of those none-tech Vista users with their new machines will only realise far too late that their "fair use" rights are gone and that they will never own content again, just rent it. Vista is just the start.
The vista DRM is just picking up from where Sony with its Root Kit and Apple with its un-fairplay DRM system left off. Lets just hope that the Scando countries do gang up on Apple, as they are currently talking about, and crack open their DRM for good. The French caved in at the last moment and took all the teeth out of their law changes.
Copyright law for many years in most countries has allowed you to make backup copies of WHAT YOU OWN. The trouble is that the Music/Film/Game industry HATE this. They want you to re-buy content for each format you want it in. They also do not want you to own content.
SONY for instance have Patents on Blue-ray that adds protection to disks so they will only play on the first machine they are put in. When asked about this and the PS3 they have not said it will be used in the PS3 but they have NOT denied it will not and do not deny. Even on the normal HDMI protection for HD content all they will say is that they will not add the content protection at the moment.
Make of this what you will and remember they are the people that added root kits to CDs and added licences on those CDs that had clauses that meant your licence for the music expired if you moved country.
No look at e-bay and other online sales sites. They are awash with 2nd hand Games, CDs and DVDs. SONY and others HATE this because they see this as lost sales. Now imagine NEVER being able to sell these items because that have been "played" on your player.
</RANT DRM>
We ARE at a turning point for content ownership and we get the choice but that choice is running out. If people keep buying into DRM products like iPods, Vista, Blue-ray and the PS3 etc then we WILL lose ownership of content. If people start to boycot these companies now they will listen because it will effect the bottom line. This knocks on to the share holders and then the companies WILL be forced to act.
I am 100% with Woz on this, which is why I dont own an iPod despite working in the Apple industry, I wont be buying Vista despite doing a lot of work in the field Mac<-->PC networking and programming, and I wont be buying a PS3 despite owning the predecessors (although admittedly never really playing them).
DRM is evil. DX10 serves no purpose other than to try and take me from behind, Sony & Microsoft are taking capitalism too far.
To those who also have "issues" with DRM, I point you at DefectiveByDesign, of which I am a member and has been affectionately called the "militant wing of the FSF". Even if you dislike the FSF for the American-isms they tend to hold, DbD is certainly doing some interesting work.
If you think Vista is evil, it is only softening us up for the next step where all of your desired content resides online and you run some generic program locally to access the network. Not even the OS will reside on your PC if Microsoft have their way. Ok, so there is a valid anti-piracy argument and I think most people can accept that, but in the future you will have to trust some invisible software that you have no control over and the potential to monopolise online services and content is obvious.
I'm all for a whole new OS and even an alternative Internet, if it comes to that.
Thin clients and remote computing isn't a new concept.
I'm of split opinions on this. I have no problem with thin clients, as long as I can do what I need. I spend 50% of my working time remotely connected to servers in one form or the other. I also deploy terminal servers and thin clients on a semi-regular basis. As long as you have privacy and you can encrypt your data with your own "strong" keys, I don't see the problem with this form of interface, etc.
With regards to "invisible" software, whats so different from any proprietory bit of software regardless of where it's installed? We have few clues about what XP does as it is. We don't have access to the source. Granted you can firewall it off to prevent snooping, but you maybe shooting yourself in the foot.
What worries me about certain future microsoft firewall products is that they could allow other products to pass through without my knowledge. In theory I could decompile and attempt to reverse engineer the source, or packet sniff (but whos to say Microsoft hasnt written something into the kernel to hide certain things?), but the problem is that its too time consuming to attempt in a reasonable timeframe. This is especially a concern when you only have Microsoft equipment deployed or don't have the time to go through the reams of logs generated by a layer 3 switch.
Now I'm not saying Open Source is the way to go all the time, and I certainly don't adovacate that Open Source should be free (theres nothing to stop you charging and then providing the source with the compiled binary, it's just frowned upon). But how else can you be safe? You may not understand the code, but someone else will.
I've ranted a bit, and I've gone completely off topic; for that I apologise.
I know you are a programmer too Angrey Angel, but I personally do not like open source. For as long as people make money out of software (and many people do, always will, and this is a good thing) then me giving my software source code out will be an offensive insult - because I know damned well that everything I write is pirated anyway, even my free software can be bought in Japanese newsagents and Spanish PD libraries.
I've already seen some of my games appearing with credits to other people, and i've seen some of my media appearing inside games (which is quite something if it's a good game, and infuriating if it isnt!) - if I give source out too then i'm going to loose even more of my work.
EDIT: And the worst insult of all is somebody taking something from my games, or a technique I post on a programming board, then crediting me in the credits of a rubbish game! lol...
Personal preference, like I said I'm not trying to push it and I don't want to get into a debate on that (again ) I must admit the examples you've given can be infuriating, but fact of life is it happens.
About a year back Alan Cox (linux kernel) said that the current hardware DRM implementations aren't being as harsh as they could be, and were being used in UN computers to stop Windows being pirated and sold on the black market. An example of the atom bomb (sorry, I mean DRM) being used for a good thing. I certainly don't agree that it should be placed in every computer in the world, but getting rid of it completely is equally a bad move in certain circumstances.
Regardless, most coders and techies dislike DRM, so theres clearly something wrong with it.
I have got 2 windows 3.0 - 1 Win 95 - 3 Win 98 and 2 Xp licenses. Bougth fair and square. Bill Gates wants to control the computers of the world, that`s the simple answer to that. Every two years, one have to buy a new OS, from this greedy company. I`m feed up with this way of capitalism, and if that is what americans have to show the world, they can step down as "ruler of the world" because you have failed 100%
What you americans call capitalism, I call GREED ! As simple as that
thx...
and cubemaps
