DX 10 stuff in Bioshock

ChrisD. · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:39

Anyone tried it? Worth putting Vista on for? For those who have tried it could you post some screenshots showing the difference please?

twistedheat · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:40

I'd like to see this too. Feed my intrigue.

tomanders91 · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:40

there really is hardly any difference at all, the water looks a *tiny* bit nicer but thats it i think.

Margaret · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:42

You should put Vista on because the OS is better in general, the BioShock Dx10 features are very small.

SS-89 · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:48

Yh only dynamic water ripples (which i love

) and slightly better shadows and lighting

LoadsaMoney · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:52

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bioshock_directx10_performance/

Not worth it for that.

SS-89 · 14 Oct 2007 at 15:55

Dont go by the firingsquad one as its completely wrong, they didnt disable dx10 properly all they did was turn off dx10 detailed surfaces which still renders some parts (eg dynamic water) in dx10.

m_cozzy · 14 Oct 2007 at 16:00

Only noticible if you look really really hard. Certainly not worth if for me as the fps drops very slightly + vista is useless at everything else.

iBot · 14 Oct 2007 at 16:02

I dont know, I didnt have a dx10 card when i played bs and since it has no replay value i havent played it since.

modo77 · 14 Oct 2007 at 16:03

It does look a bit better, also screen shots are not much use. you really need to see it running. However Vista is much better than xp these days, and with more things coming out on dx10 you might as well install it.

Supercow · 14 Oct 2007 at 16:04

Vista is awesome, but unfortunately not worth the upgrade, since the 360, XP, Vista versions of the game look pretty much identical.

That in my opinion is not a bad thing at all - it's a stunning game

Margaret · 14 Oct 2007 at 16:05

m_cozzy said:
vista is useless at everything else.

Had XP x64 fresh install on yesterday for a few hours, got rid of it the same day, my 4 month old Vista install is far snappier than the XP install was, it also has more features and looks better.

Had indentical UT3 performance on it as well.

Vista is far from useless at this point in time, it's great. Anyway most people will install it purely because UT3, Crysis and Gears Of War are all gonna use Dx10. (I guess Gears because it needs Dx10 to use AA like UT3 I'm guessing, deferred shading)

ChrisD. · 14 Oct 2007 at 19:56

I would put it on but I've lost the bloody disc!

Beerbaron · 14 Oct 2007 at 20:10

ive only played and seen it with vista business with a 8800 gtx which looked very nice

square_imp · 15 Oct 2007 at 12:05

would love to be able to see the difference with dx10, however the demo of bioshock I have bugs when it loads and just leaves me a black screen and then a nice vista recovery. Any one else had similar problems? Would like to think it is windows defender that is the problem mostly out of spite really but I am not too sure.

Square

steve258 · 15 Oct 2007 at 13:56

I didn't notice any difference from DX9 -> DX10 but the FPS halved :eek:

Amnesia · 15 Oct 2007 at 15:31

if you played bioshock in XP then played it in Vista and you didnt know prior to playing that there were graphical differences you wouldnt really notice any....you have to look for them and if you have to look for them then are they really worth it ?

havent seen no difference in lighting^^

shadows are a touch smoother but only seen it 1 point in the game...(woman near pram with gun in it)

water ripples rather than splashes .....erm ok

Margaret · 15 Oct 2007 at 15:40

steve258 said:
I didn't notice any difference from DX9 -> DX10 but the FPS halved

Blame ATi's crappy Dx10 drivers.

ChrisD. · 16 Oct 2007 at 11:49

Doesn't sound worth it then....

bluntslide · 16 Oct 2007 at 12:56

the only thing i really noticed was the mist and smoke, dx9 has striping through it and dx10 is smooth. might as well get vista anyway, it is better than xp (for me anyway!) and there are going to be more dx10 games eventually?