BIOSHOCK AND DIRECTX10 HACK NO WORK=[

[rambo117]

ok, so i have been reading lately about the directx10 hack for windows xp and it looked intriguing so i downloaded it. alot of my games work with it EXCEPT my favorate game, Bioshock. and that was the one i was most wanting to have the dx10 features. anyone else have this problem? or anyone know how to fix it?

all it does is just sit there and not do anything when i double click the bioshock icon. the game never launches..



guhhhh, might have to upgrade to vista

 

[djcoolmasterx]

There is no working DX10 hack for XP.

The only improvement with DX10 in bioshock is slightly better textures.

 

[spellbinder2050]

DJcoolmasterx, have you tried the Windows XP directX 10 hack? Don't see how your saying blatantly that it doesn't exist when it clearly does and people have been using it..... I just don't know which games actually work on it.

 

[razor512]

there working on improving support

dx10 for windows xp is still in alpha and will be some more time before it is ready for use by everyone

 

[purplerat]

dx10 for windows xp is still in alpha

It's been in Alpha for about 18 months, which is roughly the same time that the group trying to do it folded. The most I've ever seen anybody claim is that they've gotten the Direct X info to say DX10. I'm curious as to which games the OP says he has gotten to work with this. Chances are they are games that do not actually use any real DX10 functionality. Not that Bioshock really uses much of DX10 either but obviously enough to make it not work in XP. But you guys can keep on hoping for this. Maybe it will be ready in time for DX12.

 

[djcoolmasterx]

DJcoolmasterx, have you tried the Windows XP directX 10 hack? Don't see how your saying blatantly that it doesn't exist when it clearly does and people have been using it..... I just don't know which games actually work on it.

Yes I am aware of this and I have indeed looked into it, however I'm yet to find any evidence of it working in games. The group the was working on it folded as purplerat said, it can hardly be said to be working as all it effectively does is trick dxdiag to say dx10... And if it doesnt actually work in games then a DX10 hack for XP does not exist.

Either way I can't see why anyone would be so desperate for DX10, not nearly as much difference to DX9 as hyped, not yet anyway.

Just look at how far behind WINE is on DX and thats been going ages even with really dedicated developers.

 

[speedbird]

The fact that DX10 has been proven to work on XP by a hack, leads me to believe it was Vista margetting all along, rather than DX10 being technically impossible on XP like MS lead us to believe. oK the hack is bugged, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

As for DX10 improvements, there not outstanding. Even Crysis doesn't see much improvement over DX9. That's not to say DX10 games can't get better, but in no way essential right now.

 

[purplerat]

The fact that DX10 has been proven to work on XP by a hack

What "fact" are you referring to? Making dxdiag say DirectX10 is hardly a fact proving that DX10 works in XP.
Even beyond that making very specific DX10 features available in XP is not the same as hacking DX10 for XP. What people seem to miss about this whole attempt is that it was never about just flipping some magic switch in XP or DirectX to make them compatible. What was being done was to completely re-write portions of DX10 function calls to use either OpenGL or DX9 functions in a similar way that could work in XP.
It's not that the effects that DX10 is capable of are not possible with other APIs in XP, just that the way DX10 achieves them was not possible in XP. There are others who can explain it a lot better than me but it has to do with the difference in how XP communicates with hardware (specifically the GPU) versus how Vista does.
The problem with having to rewrite or work around each individual difference between the two is that it completely defeats the purpose of an API. What you end up with is emulation, which as djcoolmasterx pointed out usually lags why beyond in both development time and performance. So what's the point of DX10 on XP if you have to wait until it's outdated to use it and at a heavy performance cost.

 

[VoidNull]

The fact that DX10 has been proven to work on XP by a hack, leads me to believe it was Vista margetting all along, rather than DX10 being technically impossible on XP like MS lead us to believe. oK the hack is bugged, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

As for DX10 improvements, there not outstanding. Even Crysis doesn't see much improvement over DX9. That's not to say DX10 games can't get better, but in no way essential right now.

DX10 is... meh.

I made the move to Vista for DX10, I was highly disappointed by DX10... and very surprised by how great an OS Vista is.

DX10 has softer lighting and shadows, and marginal better water, its really not worth pinning your hopes on 18 month old vaporware.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

I would have to somewhat disagree with some of you. I think DX10 is better than DX9 visually. The blur effect, the moving objects, the texture stream, smoke and water algorithms and the memory allocation are great in DX10. I find it makes a difference (IMO) in Crysis. Another, rather lame game, which shows a lot of DX10 improvements, is Hellgate: London. The game is, imo, very disappointing in gameplay and storyline and yadi yadi yada…but when you switch settings from DX9 to DX10, then you see a huge improvement in smoke particles (Nvidia DX10 Smoke), and the blurring effect (Distant view).

Regardless, Bioshock’s DX10 features are barely unnoticeable. The water effects (which was suppose to be “the” noticeable improvement) looks the same. A crack is a waste of time.

 

[razor512]

I would have to somewhat disagree with some of you. I think DX10 is better than DX9 visually. The blur effect, the moving objects, the texture stream, smoke and water algorithms and the memory allocation are great in DX10. I find it makes a difference (IMO) in Crysis. Another, rather lame game, which shows a lot of DX10 improvements, is Hellgate: London. The game is, imo, very disappointing in gameplay and storyline and yadi yadi yada…but when you switch settings from DX9 to DX10, then you see a huge improvement in smoke particles (Nvidia DX10 Smoke), and the blurring effect (Distant view).

Regardless, Bioshock’s DX10 features are barely unnoticeable. The water effects (which was suppose to be “the” noticeable improvement) looks the same. A crack is a waste of time.

yep the only difference in bioshock is some of the smoke. it is slightly smoother (at least the ones that come from when the gun is fired and it hits a object


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bioshock_directx10_performance/page4.asp
check it out, almost 100% no difference

smoke is a little better because when the it offers better transparency and the smoke texture doesn't make it's way to the edge of the texture file before fading out this makes it smoother

thinks like that can easily be done in dx 9

just use a better texture

in maya3d, you can render realistic smoke by layering smoke textures (flat) and using png or tiff or psd files instead of jpeg so you get transparency and make sure the smoke doesn't reach the edge of the texture (this is a performance saving effect, but the same effect can be using particles also but when you use particles instead of psd files of smoke made in photoshop, it ads about 20-30 minutes to the render time when using mental ray )

 

[bydesign]

The hack does NOT work. Really that simple.

 

[rennervision]

Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft admitted they screwed up, released a Windows XP Second Edition with DX10 that was compatible with all my old software/hardware, and we all just pretended that Vista never existed? Nah, that would be too easy of a fix.

 

[purplerat]

Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft admitted they screwed up, released a Windows XP Second Edition with DX10 that was compatible with all my old software/hardware, and we all just pretended that Vista never existed? Nah, that would be too easy of a fix.

Not really sure what you think that would accomplish. The bigger flop (not that I would really call either a flop or mistake) was DX10, not Vista. For all the crap that MS got about Vista at release combined with all the hype of DX10 and the continuing desire to get it on XP the really ironic thing is that most gamers who "bit the bullet" and went to Vista for DX10 found that Vista is a really good OS for gamers while DX10 offers almost nothing. I'd take Vista w/o DX10 any day over XP w/DX10.

 

[Flakes]

i have to disagree on that point, vista was and still is slower for gaming, still has compatibility issues with programs, although i will admit that service pack 1 was a massive improvement to its speed, that was soon screwed up by SP3 for XP which meant that XP is still faster and more stable.

 

[purplerat]

i have to disagree on that point

You can disagree all you want. I'm not going to get into a debate about which OS is better, but there is a strong opinion from gamers who went to Vista for DX10 that while DX10 itself was not worth the switch Vista is still a very good OS for gamers. I prefer it over XP and know that given the same hardware that I have I'm not giving up any performance (maybe even gaining a little).

 

[rennervision]

purplerat - many gamers have said the exact opposite about Vista's performance.

 

[purplerat]

The results on Vista's gaming performance have been in for a while now. If you're using adequate hardware there's almost no difference between the two. Conversely DX10 does take a big bite out of performance. Crysis is a perfect example along with being the most demanding game out there. XP DX9 vs Vista DX9 = no difference. Add DX10 and there is a noticeable difference. So what I don't get is all these people who's systems are not capable of handling Vista but want to try DX10. If you are experiencing difficulty playing games in Vista, DX10 is only going to be worse regardless of the OS you are running it on. Actually it reasonable to expect that making DX10 work in XP would require even greater overhead so XP DX10 would probably be even worse than Vista DX10.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

Actually it reasonable to expect that making DX10 work in XP would require even greater overhead so XP DX10 would probably be even worse than Vista DX10.

This is why I don't understand why people are so obsessed with XP DX10. IT MAKES NO SENSE PEOPLE!!! Give up already.

Some will argue that there is a Crysis DX10 crack...but it's no crack. The crack unlocks some of the settings but they are NOT DX10 settings.

Enough said.

 

[emp]

Not really sure what you think that would accomplish. The bigger flop (not that I would really call either a flop or mistake) was DX10, not Vista. For all the crap that MS got about Vista at release combined with all the hype of DX10 and the continuing desire to get it on XP the really ironic thing is that most gamers who "bit the bullet" and went to Vista for DX10 found that Vista is a really good OS for gamers while DX10 offers almost nothing. I'd take Vista w/o DX10 any day over XP w/DX10.

+1

i have to disagree on that point, vista was and still is slower for gaming, still has compatibility issues with programs, although i will admit that service pack 1 was a massive improvement to its speed, that was soon screwed up by SP3 for XP which meant that XP is still faster and more stable.

Incorrect, Vista is actually faster for gaming if the DX9 render path is used along with AA (which is something most of us use), if AA is not used then the difference is within the margin of error. All the vista slowdowns on gaming were actually caused by incomplete graphics drivers, not the OS itself, so you should really draw your own conclusions and not just repeat what a sea of neophytes keep babbling over and over.

For general use, Vista is great IF you have a capable system, it offers a lot of functionality as long as it's not hindered by weak hardware. I've come to the conclusion that the OS uses about 30% of your available memory, reasoning behind this is because when I had 2GB of ram Vista 64 would take about 700mb, but when I upgraded to 4 gigs, it'd take about 1.3GB (Both fresh installations). However, the thing that almost nobody tells you is that when you start a game the memory usage drops (From 1.2-1.3GB it drops to about 700mb while in a game). Pretty handy if you ask me.

The only two mistakes I've found in Vista are that it doesn't have a proper defrag tool (However, I got my third party tool, so I'm covered) and that Microsoft decided to make a 32-bit version of it. The latter will repeat itself in Windows 7 32-bit version.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=10&artpage=3693&articID=869

 

[VoidNull]

I just wish MS had come out with SP1 a lot sooner. I know that they took the time they needed to in order to get SP1 right, but had Vista been released in that condition it was in after SP1 then we would be hearing a much different story about Vista's success.