Lost Planet: DirectX 9 vs. 10 Comments by Alec Meer

Meh.

Pretty much identical, the differences are so minor it isn't funny. This is no Crysis that's for sure.

So the DX10 version has...smudging?

640meg graphics cards are out?

FUCK THAT. lol.

I'll stick to consoles for games and my trusty mac for proper computer stuff :)

(PS Foxconn might not lend you anymore cards if they noticed how you've duffed up the link to their website...)

A Capcom representative told us that the DirectX 10 improvements primarily enhanced performance by up to "10 to 20 percent" through the use of "geometry shaders, depth resolve, and stream output." That means that the Lost Planet demo is only using DirectX 10 to increase performance, not to produce advanced graphics effects.

I thought the demo looked bloody good in DirectX 9 when I tried it (GeForce 7900 GT graphics card) and it ran smoother than the 360 version with no visible tearing. Still a mediocre game though so I won't be buying it on the PC either... :P

However

We found that the DirectX 10 version of Lost Planet performed markedly slower when compared to the DirectX 9 version at the exact same settings. Additionally, the high-quality shadows we saw in DirectX 10 didn't seem to justify the performance hit.

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6171326/...

This is the kind of stuff you don't notice untless you are looking for it.

On a related note, played right through Lost Planet recently. Great game with a few minor (typically Capcom) annoyances. Some of the boss battles were great, which is nice as boss battles are typically an area where the wheels fall off. Plus they have of the best grappling hook in the business :)

Hopefully Just Cause 2 can give it a run for it's money in the grappling stakes. Everygame should have one!

Well, interesting, but no surprises here. In Crysis, it'll most likely be more noticeable. Anyway, I don't think people should expect too much of an improvement. PCs are about constant progression, not generation leaps.

At least Capcom have done a slightly better job than usual with their PC ports, even if stuff like the reference to pad buttons is annoying.

Either way I bet it screen tears like the 360 version...

"640meg graphics cards are out?"

Yup, in fact the 8800GTX has 768MB of on board memory.

This is the most BORING article on EG ever!

Not quite as boring as reading comments from you how boring you find everything recently, be it on the forum or here.

Either way I bet it screen tears like the 360 version...

There's a vsync option in the graphics menu, so, no, no tearing.

Disco_Stu360 - "Either way I bet it screen tears like the 360 version..."

Not if you enable or force v-sync (plus triple buffering to avoid having a lower framerate) you don't! :)

"Am I starting at these demos so intently"

Envisages shouting match at graphics, northern style:

"You mip-mapping anisotropic-filtered textures at 1600*1200, with added bump-mappin'?"

"You askin'?"

"I'm askin'."

"Then I'm mip-mapping anisotropic-filtered textures at 1600*1200, with added bump-mappin'"

Edit 1: Busy hands make hashed spelling :/ Least I wasn't the only one to spell anisotropic wrong, eh Alec? :p

How about you entertain yourself ?


Well go on then.

Sickpuppy's twattish decisions #121 of a series of inifinity

I was downloading the demo of this. Which one I thought? I'm on vista which runs DX10 so rather foolishly I downloaded the DX10 version.

What I didn't realise was that I'd need a DX10 card or it would crash instantly. I still haven't bothered downloading the DX9 version.

Vista is for Pc world n00bs

RIP OFF! RIP OFF! RIP OFF!
This article is a straight port of a GameSpot article that appeared a few hours ago!

Anyway, the effort is appreciated. The point to note is that I have played the demo and it absolutely crawls on my Core 2 Duo machine with 8800 GTS and 2 GB of RAM. If this is how DX10 games will be 'optimized', a great **** *** is in order for everyone from NVidia to MS to CApcom.

Eh,, since Alan Wake is also coming out on 360, woudln't be surprised if it didn't rock the DX10 world either.

It's super of you to insult a man you've never met with a such an unproven claim, but I can assure you that's not the case. I wrote the piece earlier this week, and have yet to read the Gamespot article. Certain conclusions about the demo, however, are inevitable unless you're carrying some mad bias, so of course some details in both pieces will naturally match.

vista is twatfull, sorry i've even upgraded my memory too twatfulltwatfulltwafull

it's windows me all over again, it'll never be rollout as a desktop standard at my place, there would be an uproar, twatfulltwaffulltwatfull

they cant even get dx10 games looking great to sway the hardcore gamer.

they need putting down with a dog needle

It's beyond boring, it's pathetic. The topic of DX10 and Vista is a worthy one that deserves a whole bucketload more respect then using a demo of a non-directXgame with four freaking screenshots.

God, will the summer be full of puff-pieces like this?

/scuttles back to forum

Well considering the original 360 version this has been ported from is more DX9 than DX10, I'd say this isn't a true reflection of DX10.
I believe that the utilisation of DX10 in this demo was supposed to help performance (despite the fact it runs about 20% than the DX9 version).
They just wanted to make a name for themselves by being the first to give us 'something' that was DX10.
I'll wait for a non-port DX10 title before I make any sort of judgement about it, either way, I still love the way my 8800GTS chomps through DX9 games, so I'm a winner whatever happens.

Were the DX9 performance figures taken running the DX9 version under XP or Vista?

I was pretty dissapointed with the DX10 demo. But I don't belive Lost Planet is an ccurate representation of waht we can expect.

It's a poor port with DX10 stuck on as an after thought IMO, and very poorly optimized as well.

I'm fairly sure things will improve with newer drivers and games developed for the PC and DX10 from the start. It's also very different to DX9 so devs need to get some experience with it.

I'll wait for service patch 1 before i even consider getting Vista.

This isn't even a proper PC game in the first place (you know, Capcom port and all that).

Can those whining about the article please put an enormous sock in it? EG write articles like this because some of their readership want to reas them (not me, but I'm adult enough to realise I'm not at the centre of the universe).

Of course there will be those not intererested, as there will be with any article. Might I respectfully suggest you bugger off and read an article that does interest you. I mean what kind of loony reads something that bores them, and THEN proceeds to write about how bored they are on the associated comments page. Is there nothing else you can be doing?

The NVidia DX10 drivers are a fucking shambles anyway. The last version totally screwed STALKER, and the performance is lower than running under XP.

If/when they sort the drivers out, we might have more luck.

Crytek will show them all how it's done. And then some!

@Bonzrat: If you look at the opening line of my comment, you can clearly see it was intended as a JOKE. I am NOT accusing EG of plagiarism.

So... what does it look like on OpenGL?

pcgaminglol

Thanks for the article. I am not planning to upgrade to Vista any time soon and reading this comparison was certainly interesting (even though I read the Gamespot article earlier this morning). I just have to wonder how come Microsoft are not thinking a little deeper about this. To pimp Vista/DX10 you clearly shouldn't use port of a shooter game developed by Capcom. I mean, I like Capcom, but come on, they are not exactly known for doing top drawer shooter titles on PC, are they? I'd expect MS to have their own ace in the sleve, not let third party developers/ publishers do all the work.

But perhaps Microsoft are losing it anyway, apparently the Halo 2 on Vista is not a very good port (as reviewed out of the box on Gamespy) so who knows where their head is at.

Talha: I'd dispute the clearly (purely because actual vitriol from others in this thread makes it trickier to gauge jest), but fair enough ;) Apologies for the misinterpret.

This game runs, looks and plays mighty fine on my PC running Vista.
I guess some of you noobs having problems just haven't got the intelligence to configure their PCs correctly.

Or some of us aren't total geeks and just expect a game to be decently coded so it doesn't demand stupid amounts of tweaking?

I haven't tweaked anything, just made sure I was running the latest drivers for my system. I'm also careful about what I download and install etc...

@Pablo2k5: your comment succinctly describes what is wrong with PC gaming and how the attitude of some PC users is making it worse - reveling in the tweaking and not demanding/expecting software makers to make it easier for 'noobs' to play games on a PC.

@ Talha
Listen, apart from one or two badly coded and bug ridden games I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with PC gaming at the moment, I just avoid said games.
What I object to is people who blame Microsoft and hardware drivers for every single problem they get when they haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
PC's are great because they are so flexible, and as such I except that not all games and harware are plug and play.
The PC is NOT a games console (thank god) but with the right hardware it can run games excellently.

I am skeptical about this article's faith in Alan Wake as a DX10 showcase. Since it's being co-developed on Xbox360, which I'm guessing is probably the lead format since it'll sell more (or at least make more money from the fact that they'll charge more for it), then surely it'll make no more use of DX10 than Lost planet, which has followed the same route?

Or some of us aren't total geeks and just expect a game to be decently coded so it doesn't demand stupid amounts of tweaking?

What, like a console game?


PC gaming is becoming more an more an exclusive enthusiast pursuit (Blizzard 's games notwithstanding, perhaps). Actually that's wrong, it always has been, it's just that unlike console gaming it's not getting any more mainstream.

This article seems to be saying to me that Vista and DX10 haven't changed anything about that.

@Pablo2k5: I accept your argument. Surely not EVERY problem is MS's fault or that of the devs. But the tone of your initial comment was quite patronizing and it was a very sweeping statement, implying (IMPLYING) that anybody who had problems with this demo was not qualified to play on PC.

Also, surely you agree that while playing games on PC will never be as easy as doing the same on consoles, it should at least GET EASIER with time, don't you think? I purchased SPlinter Cell Double Agent and tried to run it on Vista. Despite having the latest drivers for every hardware component imaginable and the game being patched to the latest patches, Sam Fisher still appears to be sprouting about 5 legs and no arms on my PC. Guess what - NVidia's drivers' readme files do list this problem but it hasn't been resolved yet. And surely you know how many months ago the game was released, right?

These days, Vista does not talk to a large section of the available PC hardware (especially printers and soundcards). NVidia's drivers are perpetually broken, their Vista drivers still smack of 'beta' and I am having the horrific feeling that the problem isn't just restricted to the drivers but the architechture itself. Meanwhile, most recent PC games happily occupy as much gigabytes as they can, but still do not perform as well as their XBox 360 cousins with almost the same graphics. Also, many AAA titles require a whole lot of patches to run on the latest hardware. And except in case of TrackMania and Half Life 2, I have never - repeat, NEVER - gotten a consistent framerate out of my system, which you'd think would be possible given that I have had 1 GB of Ram since 4 years and the have upgraded to a second-fastest NVidia GPU (6800 GT, 7900GT, 8800 GTS) every year.

Correct me if I wrong, but I don't recall ever having such huge problems in getting PC games to run in my lifetime of PC ownership, i.e. about 10 years. Even the transition to XP was a cakewalk by comparison to this mess.

And you might as well burn your salary and spend a month in a coma if you plan to get things like vibration/force feedback from your PC games. Meanwhile, Vista boots slower than XP and any Adobe CS3 program takes an age to bootup, meanwhile slwoing down every other process in the bargain (even with 2GB of RAM that my DUAL-CORE system has).

So my question remains: why is it a chore, and fast becoming a torment, to play games on the PC?

Sorry for the long, long rant - I feel better now!

Exaggerating as always. I think you're just really, really unlucky, Talha. I haven't had as many problems with PC gaming in the last 10 years like you seem to have on a daily basis.

@UncleLou: Given that what I have written is based on FACT and I am not consciously making any of it up, how can you term it as exaggeration? And how can you imply I always exaggerate?

Yes, your experience would be different because (1) the experience inherently differs from user to user and (2) as we have discussed before, you tend to just let the game run at its own chosen pace while I try to meddle and tweak constantly to get an extra leaf on the screen or an improvement of 2 FPS (remember the Far Cry discussion?).

But I won't accuse you of downplaying your problems since I am witness to my friend running GRAW PC on his four-year-old rig with 128 MB of RAM. Still, i think many readers would relate to the scenario mentioned instead of terming them as exaggeration.

Wow, DX10 really is the future!

I just found it a bit tiring to read another anti-PC rant from you in a PC related thread, with sentences like why is it a chore, and fast becoming a torment, to play games on the PC. Well, probably it's true for you, but it still sounds like an exaggeration to me.

Then of course I didn't make the mistake of buying Vista just yet. ;)

Anyway, no hard feelings, sorry if I sounded rude. :)

Don't really remember the Far Cry discussion, I have to admit - I tinker quite a bit, too, actually, till I find the best compromise between visuals and framerate.

@Pablo2k5

I think there is an irony in suggesting that people with problem PCs are intelligent enough to configure them properly (though it is an excuse that seems to get used pretty often).

Perhaps these apparently dullard people just assumed that they would work in the first place?

I know there tends to be this l33t attitude held by some that PCs somehow seperate the boys from the men because they require a degree of technical savvy to be effectively used, but frankly there are plenty of very technical people on here who simply can't be ARSED configuring a PC for best performance.

I've been there, overclocking away to squeeze more points out of 3DMark, meddling with BIOS memory settings, cocking about with Powerstrip and similar utils. Then one day I thought "why am I spending money and time titting about instead of just playing games", at which point a bought an XBox (I probably already owned a PS1 at the time) and never looked back.

I know there are plenty of people that love PC gaming, and I'm not saying they are wrong, I made my choice and they made theirs. But please don't patronise or insult people just because they have different priorities to you. It doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they aren't you.