Crysis DX10 features for XP

B

Browser

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
26
I remember reading about enabling this, but here's a "patch" for those to lazy to do it manually.


Download here (5Kb)

MORESMELLYTNTANUSFARTS are proud(maybe not) to present somehow and somewhen in 2007

Crysis.DIRECTX.10.ENHANCER.for.XP.users-MORESMELLYTNTANUSFARTS

CELEBRATION :D wooohoooo BEEEEEER!!

Cry baby cry cry Crytek!

****ings to Crytek for bringing us, this piece of crap game. Nice looking engine,
nice suit idea, but overall just another boring shooter with a stupid AI, probably
because EA forced Crytek to hurry with finishing the game for this year.

Anyway, DIRECT-X 10 go home, we don't need it! Especially considering Crytek/EA trying to fool us to believe that the game needs Vista to get those nice effects. HAHA. you must be kidding us, especially when all you need is a couple of additional
addings to some config files and KABOoooOOM, you got DIRECT-X 10 effects.

EA/Crytek, you can maybe fool stupid users, like TNT, but you can't cheat the ANUS!

Unpack into your Crysis install dir and overwrite the files...

WE WILL RETURN, REMEMBER THAT, NEXT TIME YA ASS ITCHES :D


Greetz: TNTANAL
Click to expand...
 
I can't remember exactly, but it enables a few features Crytek claimed where exclusive to Vista/DX10. I'm sure if you google for it you'll be able to get the details. That search found this at gamespot for example.

Like I implied though, it isn't a patch, it's just for those to lazy to make all the changes manually.
 
Last edited:
Well DX10 is a hardware/software change, you can't actually be enabling any real DX10 effects, it just wouldn't work.

It would be interesting if Crytek disabled these features just to make DX10 look better, but its likely that there's a reason for this? i.e. those features are optimised for DX10 and turning them on with DX9 will kill performance...
 
There are actually very few features in DX10 that can't be done in DX9. The main advantage for DX10 is being able to use those features with a smalled performance hit.

For example, one of the claimed DX10 only features such as HDR and simultaneous AA can be done in DX9, Microsoft just can't be bothered (doesn't want to) allow it, that's why nVidia is working on a driver that will allow it.

Lots of people seem to have misconceptions about DX10, but it's hardly surprising as most information about it that gets publicity is from Microsoft, and obviously they will say lots of things to push DX10 that in turn pushes Vista.
 
the biggest difference between DX10 and DX9 is the audio engine as anyone who is into playing with sound will know. As in there is NO direct Sound with DX10... it seems to use something else.

as for the graphics i think you blowing information out your bum hole:

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9550

and
The easiest implementation is actually the one taken under DirectX 10. As mentioned above, true lighting intensities cannot be represented by a simple 0->1 range and DX10 guarantees floating-point texture support. The implementation takes advantage of the this feature and do all our rendering directly to a floating point texture. We then use this texture and apply standard texturing operation such as a blur filter (to create a bloom/glow) and a star filter which is used to crate the stat-like patterns that generally occur when the light traverses a imperfect medium such as glass.

Under DirectX9, the back-end (bluring and filtering) is mostly the same. However the main difference is that we do not use floating point textures. I can already hear the conspiracy theories right now that we didn't use the DX9 support for floating point textures to force users to upgrade to Vista and purchase new hardware. This is far from true....

The main problem under DX9 is that support for floating point textures was introduced late and is an optional feature (although most Shader 3.0 cards have some support for it). In addition, alpha-blending and filtering on floating point textures is not required and most cards under DX9 do not support these features which are not a requirement but can make a huge performance difference when we do the actual bluring and filtering passes (under DX9 we would have to potentially filter the texture manually wihin the shader, not the most efficient approach). Since proper floating-point texture was so sparse under DX9 and that DX10 had guaranteed support for the features we needed to implement proper HDR, we decided to keep the floating point implementation for DX10 only.

So what do we do under DX9? We seperate our Bloom rendering into two distinct passes which are only applied to blooming objects. In the first pass, we capture the color of the pixel as it would occur during regular rendering. In the second pass, instead of capturing the color of a pixel, we capture its intensity (which is in essense a multiplier to the base color). We then use these two sets of information to complete the bloom filtering in a similar way as it is done with the DX10 HDR. The main advantage of using this approach is that it can be implemented on any video cards that has support for shaders and render targets. There are a few drawbacks:

*
The intensity map is sampled at a lower resolution (1/4 resolution) in order to optimize bandwith
*
There is a small overhead due to the need of having to render two passes for any Bloom emitting object.
*
Using a 8-bit value to represent the intensity does not give us as much fine grain detail as the use of a floating point texture. Consequently, the DX9 Bloom has a tendancy to get "hot" really fast and has less of the warm glow feeling that the DX10 HDR effect gives.
Click to expand...

and lastly a great article about exactly what you going on about with regard to Crysis and what Crytek did:
http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

oh the horror.
 
Last edited:
Meh, DX10 for XP will be out soon enough. ;)
 
Thanks halicon, I've been previously labeled a balmer boy for trying to get people's heads out the sand about DX10... Everybody seems to know better thab Crytek and other developers when it comes to DirectX :P

Anyway...

For example, one of the claimed DX10 only features such as HDR and simultaneous AA can be done in DX9, Microsoft just can't be bothered (doesn't want to) allow it, that's why nVidia is working on a driver that will allow it.[/Qute]
Browser you should actually py attention to what you write...
Radeon R5XX could do HDR+AA in 2005 already.... That's a DX9 GPU under a DX9 OS and DX9 software... ;) Think ATI's campaign about AA+HDR.
Click to expand...
 
halicon said:
perhaps you saw them but not read them... but anyway run along now and upgrade your xp to direct x 10 now...

may i suggest some vasaline for your monitor to get the anti-aliased directX 10 feel :)
Click to expand...

Go blow yourself you rude condescending juvenile. If you haven't got anything either polite or constructive to say why bother pissing people off, are you that insecure.

Yeah ShockG, now that you mention that I do remember ATi doing it, it was something else I can't remeber and can't find the page now :( oh well.
 
Last edited:
DirectX 10 has a different architecture to 9. Probably a superior one. The actual features that are available in 10 and not 9 are not that many. But the big difference is the architecture, which has been implemented in Vista, but not into XP. Microsoft could implement this into XP if they wanted to, but it's quite a wack of work and involves messing with core bits of th OS. It's a lot more complicated than simply rewriting a couple of drivers. Now for obvious reasons, I'm 99.9999% sure that MS isn't going to do this. Besides them comming out and saying they wouldn't.

You can already get DirectX 10 emulation for XP. Basically uses a translation layer that turns DirectX 10 calls into something that DirectX9 can handle. You can get 100% of the 10 features working this way. thing is, it's dog slow.

Also, someone could, in theory, write their own version of directX10 which precisely replicates MS version. But I cannot stress enough to you just how big a job this is. And it also involves a lot of reverse engineering of both windows and DirectX, which makes it basically illegal (unless you can convince MS to hand over the source code, which would be as easy as sending a man to pluto next month). Basically, this isn't going to happen. It's just too big a job, for very, very little payback. In a year or so it will be utterly irrelevant as Vista will be the standard anyhow.

Now in Crysis, they have through some unholy deal, deliberately disabled features / options that 9 can do in order to give added incentive to getting Vista. the hacks we are seeing now are simply enabling these. They are not actually enabling directX10 features, but rather enabling directx9 supported features that Cryo arbitrarily decided to block unless they detected you were running Vista.
 
I am aware that this guy is comparing DX9 High vs DX10 very high, but the article points out other effects that really are DX10-only effects which cannot be enabled via the config. Those effects are the refraction of light for water and much better blurring effect:

http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

They are pretty small, but obviously CryTek/EA/MS wanted to have a bigger impact for DX10, which is why they disabled other features too.
 
Browser said:
Go blow yourself you rude condescending juvenile. If you haven't got anything either polite or constructive to say why bother pissing people off, are you that insecure.
Click to expand...

uh huh. are you finished yet? im just sick of idiots coming on here making a fuss over stuff they know nothing about and preaching what i can only call disinformation without the complete picture. do you dislike the fact that i painted the complete picture instead of your 1337 h4ckor note ?!?

so um... yeah woteva kid.
 
GougedEye said:
DirectX 10 has a different architecture to 9. Probably a superior one. The actual features that are available in 10 and not 9 are not that many. But the big difference is the architecture, which has been implemented in Vista, but not into XP. Microsoft could implement this into XP if they wanted to, but it's quite a wack of work and involves messing with core bits of th OS. It's a lot more complicated than simply rewriting a couple of drivers. Now for obvious reasons, I'm 99.9999% sure that MS isn't going to do this. Besides them comming out and saying they wouldn't.

You can already get DirectX 10 emulation for XP. Basically uses a translation layer that turns DirectX 10 calls into something that DirectX9 can handle. You can get 100% of the 10 features working this way. thing is, it's dog slow.

Also, someone could, in theory, write their own version of directX10 which precisely replicates MS version. But I cannot stress enough to you just how big a job this is. And it also involves a lot of reverse engineering of both windows and DirectX, which makes it basically illegal (unless you can convince MS to hand over the source code, which would be as easy as sending a man to pluto next month). Basically, this isn't going to happen. It's just too big a job, for very, very little payback. In a year or so it will be utterly irrelevant as Vista will be the standard anyhow.

Now in Crysis, they have through some unholy deal, deliberately disabled features / options that 9 can do in order to give added incentive to getting Vista. the hacks we are seeing now are simply enabling these. They are not actually enabling directX10 features, but rather enabling directx9 supported features that Cryo arbitrarily decided to block unless they detected you were running Vista.
Click to expand...

in order for direct x 10 to work in windows xp you would need a new set of video and sound drivers as anyone who has used vista knows has been a bit of a problem on vista take up.

hence directx 10 will never really happen for xp.

but nice post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X