Quote:
Originally Posted by gabest
Can't see any difference. You can try it yourself, there is a command line front-end to the shader compiler in the sdk, fxc.exe /Tps_2_b /Eps_main tfx9.fx.
|
I don't have the DirectX SDK (or even a compiler for Windows). If you say the shaders compile the same on 2.0b as on 2.0 I'll believe you--the only thing that 2.0b does is increase the number of instruction slots and temporary registers available; the instruction set is identical to plain 2.0. I was just curious.
I have a game that's completely 2D with hardly any animation (SLPS-25547
Ichigo Mashimaro--it's one of those Japanese "adventure games" with girls) that seems to eat a ton of CPU in GSDX--50% to 70% on a 2.4GHz Athlon X2, depending on exactly what's on the screen. Is it normal for GSDX to use that much CPU on a game that looks like it can't be rendering more than a dozen or so primitives per frame? The game runs in interlaced mode so it is using fairly enormous textures (the girl "sprites" are 300-odd pixels tall and the CPU usage seems to increase in direct proportion to how many pixels worth of girls are onscreen)
Also, "weave" interlace mode doesn't appear to do what it's supposed to. "weave" should preserve the full vertical resolution of the interlaced video, and should produce a "sawtooth" effect on moving objects. However, it doesn't do either of those things for me--the vertical detail of the graphics is halved unless I set the internal Y resolution to double native (i.e. 896 pixels), and there's no visible sawtooth effect either. In fact, "weave" looks identical to "blend" as far as I can see.
Last edited by AWJ; August 27th, 2008 at 09:59..