• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Crysis DX10 details in XP Hack

Another "Dx10 on XP" thread eh? Thought we were due one of these.

All enabling those settings does is makes it render them in DirectX 9. There is no, and never will be, Dx10 on XP. The so called "Alky" project is emulating Dx10 on XP, which will be unplayable.

The only people who could make Dx10 work properly on XP is Microsoft, and they've already stated it's never going to happen.

I don't get what the problem is anyway, Vista is a brilliant operating system.
 
Tute said:
Another "Dx10 on XP" thread eh? Thought we were due one of these.
Click to expand...

It is now pretty much a figure of speech, no one actually believes we are using DX10 :rolleyes:

Is it our fault we are using on XP (with better performance) what the developers call DX10 only graphics? :confused:;)
 
deadkomodo said:
It is now pretty much a figure of speech, no one actually believes we are using DX10 :rolleyes:

Is it our fault we are using on XP (with better performance) what the developers call DX10 only graphics? :confused:;)
Click to expand...

They aren't being rendered in Dx10 though. It's okay at the moment as Dx10 brings quite little to the table in terms of graphical improvements.
 
Tute said:
Another "Dx10 on XP" thread eh? Thought we were due one of these.
Click to expand...
You're completely missing the point, which is that Crytek told us that we NEED Vista to play crysis with full eye candy, which is obviously untrue.

The game looks way better with the bump mapping, soft shadows, sun rays, etc enabled, and ALL these features work fine in XP with little loss in performance.
 
yeah it just proves its a toal vista/dx10 marketing con.

why disable these features when they work perfectly on xp dx9 AND actually run better than dx10/vista...shocking!
 
Delvis said:
True true...Have to see how expensive they are ;)

But currently I'm amazed at how well the x1900xtx is holding out with current games. Especialy for how long ago I brought it now!
Click to expand...

Aye my HIS ICEQ3 X1900 XT-X is holding its own fairly well...just ordered a Sammy 22" Pebble so I guess this will challenge it :eek: I had the same spec rig as you (since sold my Opty 185) so it will be interesting to see what you get. (might then re purchase a cheap 939 dual core :D)
 
Sir Random said:
You're completely missing the point, which is that Crytek told us that we NEED Vista to play crysis with full eye candy, which is obviously untrue.

The game looks way better with the bump mapping, soft shadows, sun rays, etc enabled, and ALL these features work fine in XP with little loss in performance.
Click to expand...


How can they work with little loss if they are the real thing, turning either post processing or shaders down gives a 10FPS boost in each in DX10, so turning them both up you can loose 20FPS :confused:
 
i'd like to see some screens comparing vista dx10 very high against xp dx9 very high. If theres no diffirence then what a con
 
Loowi_ashley said:
How can they work with little loss if they are the real thing, turning either post processing or shaders down gives a 10FPS boost in each in DX10, so turning them both up you can loose 20FPS :confused:
Click to expand...
Apparently, the calculations for these effects are farmed out to the CPU (in DX9), so they don't add much strain on the GFX card, unlike post processing and shaders which are processed mainly by the GPU.

Just try it out for yourself, it's like a different game.
 
i love these work arounds...

i also love the statements that the major companies release saying 'but not all the effects are enabled, you really need vista to see that extra piece of dirt which you wouldnt see in the dx9 hack'
 
Surely no one believed that all the extra effects were actually impossible under DX9 did they? :D It's about marketting Vista, just like you can read quotes from Crytek about how the game absolutely needs quad core and will be CPU bound for most people, which turns out to be total BS since as it happens the game uses little CPU power and a decent dual-core is plenty enough for it.

I'm sure plenty of money came Cryteks way from Microsoft and Intel.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/26/quad-core-crysis-phwoar

Crytek have done it before too, remember the 64-bit patch for Far Cry to sell A64s and the PS3.0 patch to sell 6800 cards? Maybe people should stop listennning to them.
 
I remember reading somewhere that you can't do a fair comparison with DX10 in still shots? It's more appreciated when in full motion/gameplay.
Just what I read, and can't remember where now.
 
stunning find, I'm sticking with XP not because I'm anti Vista just laziness at the moment, everything works the way I want so no need to change. Will be picking up either a very cheap 8800 GTS 640 or an 8800GT in the next few weeks so I look forward to trying this out ( not saying I need a DX10 card but I do think my X1800XL would struggle, just buying a card with more "oomph" )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom