Will TGEA, next release offer DirectX 10 renderer?

#1 Nod, this is a good question, Has anyone compiled in DX10 and if so is there a process that is recommended. There was a tutorial for DX9, but i would have to think that the processes have been upgraded a bit. Plus there are those that have been trying to say they have DX10 Compiled into their project. effectively making it Vista only, but just looking ahead. Is it something we can look forward to as a optional package or add on?

#2 What would you like to see a DX10 renderer do?

#3 XGamer, your start point is not dx10.
dx10 can be your last point.

#4 DX10 = $$$
Physics = $$$

You don't actually have to use it as long as it is a bullet-point on your marketing page. Net more $$$ just like the big dogs.

#5 David that didnt even begin to crack the question. We have seen one company in particular that claims to have compile DX10 into their build. We believe it to be bogus(read vapor ware). We know the eventually computers will catch up to what DX10 was suppose to do probably in 2-3 years it will be a commonplace. So to start to look at whats coming up the road is a logical question.
Besides putting that one has DX10 and some physics package as a bullet, when one doesnt really have it, it might net money. But i find that to be totally distasteful and underhanded.

So to ask the question again. Anyone actually got DX10 into TGEa?

#6 I'll re-ask my question then, too:

What will DX10 bring to the TGEA renderer? If the question is, "Can anyone get DX10 into TGEA," the answer is, "Yes easily." I think, however, that the question is, "Will making TGEA work with DX10 make my game look any better?" and the answer is, "No."

#7 "Will making TGEA work with DX10 make my game look any better?" and the answer is, "No."

and this is because tgea is not set up to take advantage of the neat stuff dx10 is capable of.It will just use it like dx9 right?

#8 @Pat

I don't understand how you can make such a broad condemning statement about DX10...

Everything I've heard has been good, especially features like geometry shaders and adjacency information for pixels/verticies/polygons.

In the hands of an experienced graphics programmer ( not me ), these can translate directly into improved performance and therefore freeing more CPU for whatever you want ( adding yet more nice visuals? ).

#9 What's so special about DX10 support? You probably buyed a little bit too much into the marketing hype.

For example:
GameSpot, Crysis DX9 vs DX10 comparasions

#10 James, geometry shaders isn't a new technology.
Have you heard about Hystogram campaction via VS?
Pat Wilson is right, there is nothing new in the "new" technology.

#11 Personally, I don't find DX10 all that necessary currently. It's pretty yeah, and there some cool things that can be done, but because the majority of PCs are still running XP it's not as relevant as it could be. Maybe after the next OS release, but definitely not right now.

#12 DX10 is very similar to DX9, which is very similar to OpenGL, Glide, and every other graphics API out there. It is a set of functionality which lets you move data from one place to another place.

DirectX10 has many new, and exciting features which facilitate moving data from one place to another place. For example, Geometry Shaders. What is cool about geometry shaders is being able to output a different number of things than you got for input. What would this mean for Torque? Well, a good application would be using the stream output to do mesh skinning on the GPU. We could do mesh skinning on the GPU, with DX9 currently, however it would re-run the vertex math for each draw of the mesh. This could be altered to draw to a buffer, and then move that buffer back into system memory, but DX9 isn't set up to do that well, DX10 is.

DX10 gives you per-instance indexes. That is very good, but if you need to do instances, use two vertex streams, and set stride of stream 2 to sizeof(vertex)*numVertsInInstance, and you've got most of what you need in DX9.

DX10 (about freakin time) gives you access to depth buffer data, and lockable depth buffers. Woohoo, but if I need depth data, I'm going to draw a z-fill pass to a color target, not obsess about data duplication or needing DX10. If DX9 doesn't offer me the format that I want, then I'll write the packing math in a shader and do a manual, two-buffer blend.

In short, having DX10 is great. It's got access to a lot of data that makes me happy. I do not, and probably will not, understand the idea that switching to DX10 is somehow any kind of projectile made of silver, let alone a bullet.