[q][i]Originally posted by: [b][b]Newsgroup User[/b][/b][/i]
There are differences between DirectX7 and DirectX9 that have nothing to
do with the additional DirectX9-specific shaders and programming model.
For example, in Director MX 2004, you can set up a 3d scene and set the
renderer to DirectX5 or DirectX7. There are differences in how they
render the scene. Even though you are not using any of the fancy new
Added to that, one of the biggest Vista compatibility issues that I have
experienced with MX '04 is that Vista does not have DirectX5 at all and
has problems with DirectX7. If Director 11 can use DirectX9, then that
will fix that problem immediately.
So while I would love to be able to write DirectX9 shaders and apply
them to w3d models, I will be quite happy simply having access to the
This is disappointing since there really isn't any upgrade at all, just an
update to be more compatible with Vista. Which you would think would just be a
free update?? And I really don't see an advantage in the new physics engine
since the Havok engine works faster and everybody just needs to rewrite there
code to work with it.
This basically means I would have to tear down my games and make AEGIA PhysX
work with it and have it be more compatible with Vista and Mac OS, but in the
end I would actually just have a slower game because of the new physics engine
and no graphical upgrade at all??
I'm sorry but I really don't see a reason to update to Version 11 if it only
makes it run faster. I am better off looking for an alternative that allows you
to use at least some of the DX9 shaders and runs fine on xp, vista, and mac os.
Unfortunely that only leaves Unity which only runs on a mac...????
BTW what happened to linux support did they scrap that?