<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_060220</id>
	<title>DX11 Tested Against DX9 With <em>Dirt 2</em> Demo</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259864400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MojoKid writes <i>"The PC demo for Codemasters' upcoming DirectX 11 racing title, <em>Dirt 2</em>, has just hit the web and is <a href="http://www.codemasters.com/downloads/details.php?id=39424">available for download</a>.  <em>Dirt 2</em> is a highly-anticipated racing sim that also happens to feature leading-edge graphic effects.  In addition to a DirectX 9 code path, <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Dirt-2-PC-Demo-Released-DX11-vs-DX9-Tested/"> <em>Dirt 2</em> also utilizes a number of DirectX 11 features</a>, like hardware-tessellated dynamic water, an animated crowd and dynamic cloth effects, in addition to DirectCompute 11-accelerated high-definition ambient occlusion (HADO), full floating-point high dynamic range (HDR) lighting, and full-screen resolution post processing. Performance-wise, DX11 didn't take its toll as much as you'd expect this early on in its adoption cycle."</i>
Bit-tech also took a look at the graphical differences, arriving at this conclusion: "You'd need a seriously keen eye and brown paper envelope full of cash from one of the creators of <em>Dirt 2</em> to <a href="http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2009/12/01/directx-11-performance-first-look-dirt-2/1">notice any real difference between textures</a> in the two versions of DirectX."</htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " The PC demo for Codemasters ' upcoming DirectX 11 racing title , Dirt 2 , has just hit the web and is available for download .
Dirt 2 is a highly-anticipated racing sim that also happens to feature leading-edge graphic effects .
In addition to a DirectX 9 code path , Dirt 2 also utilizes a number of DirectX 11 features , like hardware-tessellated dynamic water , an animated crowd and dynamic cloth effects , in addition to DirectCompute 11-accelerated high-definition ambient occlusion ( HADO ) , full floating-point high dynamic range ( HDR ) lighting , and full-screen resolution post processing .
Performance-wise , DX11 did n't take its toll as much as you 'd expect this early on in its adoption cycle .
" Bit-tech also took a look at the graphical differences , arriving at this conclusion : " You 'd need a seriously keen eye and brown paper envelope full of cash from one of the creators of Dirt 2 to notice any real difference between textures in the two versions of DirectX .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "The PC demo for Codemasters' upcoming DirectX 11 racing title, Dirt 2, has just hit the web and is available for download.
Dirt 2 is a highly-anticipated racing sim that also happens to feature leading-edge graphic effects.
In addition to a DirectX 9 code path,  Dirt 2 also utilizes a number of DirectX 11 features, like hardware-tessellated dynamic water, an animated crowd and dynamic cloth effects, in addition to DirectCompute 11-accelerated high-definition ambient occlusion (HADO), full floating-point high dynamic range (HDR) lighting, and full-screen resolution post processing.
Performance-wise, DX11 didn't take its toll as much as you'd expect this early on in its adoption cycle.
"
Bit-tech also took a look at the graphical differences, arriving at this conclusion: "You'd need a seriously keen eye and brown paper envelope full of cash from one of the creators of Dirt 2 to notice any real difference between textures in the two versions of DirectX.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309024</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you.</i> <br>
<br>
That's a hell of a road rally game!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you .
That 's a hell of a road rally game !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you.
That's a hell of a road rally game!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310876</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Stele</author>
	<datestamp>1259858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I "watch" movies, I just close my eyes and imagine them in my head. No expensive disks and the "screen" is *huge*!</p><p>Remember that part in Star Wars where Han made out with Ohura while Spock watched? Then Marty saved them all by going back in time and rescuing some giraffes from the 80s? That was so cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I " watch " movies , I just close my eyes and imagine them in my head .
No expensive disks and the " screen " is * huge * ! Remember that part in Star Wars where Han made out with Ohura while Spock watched ?
Then Marty saved them all by going back in time and rescuing some giraffes from the 80s ?
That was so cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I "watch" movies, I just close my eyes and imagine them in my head.
No expensive disks and the "screen" is *huge*!Remember that part in Star Wars where Han made out with Ohura while Spock watched?
Then Marty saved them all by going back in time and rescuing some giraffes from the 80s?
That was so cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312424</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259863620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No country for old men</i> had a fine script. It looks pretty spectacular on bluray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No country for old men had a fine script .
It looks pretty spectacular on bluray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No country for old men had a fine script.
It looks pretty spectacular on bluray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309640</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1259852280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright mister, no more use of the word 'craptacular' for you today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright mister , no more use of the word 'craptacular ' for you today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright mister, no more use of the word 'craptacular' for you today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, for this being a nerd site, a lot of you guys sure seem to go into the future kicking and screaming don't you?  There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you'll complain about.  It's a new version.  They're not PUSHING it on anyone...it's just there.  That's what new cards have.  It isn't detrimental to your performance and you can still play in DX9 if the higher version gives you shit fits.

<br> <br>Some things are worth complaining about.  Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats.  Maybe the benefits ARE incremental, but who the hell is buying a new card JUST for DirectX 11?  Seriously, what kind of moron is doing that?  If I buy a new card, it's for an overall performance game, not for some arbitrary new version of Direct X or whatever.  That's just an added benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , for this being a nerd site , a lot of you guys sure seem to go into the future kicking and screaming do n't you ?
There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you 'll complain about .
It 's a new version .
They 're not PUSHING it on anyone...it 's just there .
That 's what new cards have .
It is n't detrimental to your performance and you can still play in DX9 if the higher version gives you shit fits .
Some things are worth complaining about .
Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats .
Maybe the benefits ARE incremental , but who the hell is buying a new card JUST for DirectX 11 ?
Seriously , what kind of moron is doing that ?
If I buy a new card , it 's for an overall performance game , not for some arbitrary new version of Direct X or whatever .
That 's just an added benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, for this being a nerd site, a lot of you guys sure seem to go into the future kicking and screaming don't you?
There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you'll complain about.
It's a new version.
They're not PUSHING it on anyone...it's just there.
That's what new cards have.
It isn't detrimental to your performance and you can still play in DX9 if the higher version gives you shit fits.
Some things are worth complaining about.
Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats.
Maybe the benefits ARE incremental, but who the hell is buying a new card JUST for DirectX 11?
Seriously, what kind of moron is doing that?
If I buy a new card, it's for an overall performance game, not for some arbitrary new version of Direct X or whatever.
That's just an added benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309860</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259854140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bioshock, FEAR, L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty.</p></div><p>The fact that you don't remember the graphics being ugly means that they were, in fact, pretty. Or at least, the artists and developers successfully collaborated to provide a game world [predominantly] without offensive glitches. When it comes right down to it, that is a massively difficult task, and consists of a truly massive and complex work of absolute art. Not that I've actually played any of those games. I'm getting ready to try out Lost Planet on the 360.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And doesn't the X360 use DX9? Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted.</p></div><p>DirectX would be dead now if not for Xbox. Bastards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Of course, I have one, and have even bought games (well, addons for GTA IV) online. Shame on me. DX11 will come on slow just as you suggest, mostly for the reason you suggest.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh well, that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.</p></div><p>Well, we all know that games often fail before hitting the shelf, but <a href="http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1002275p1.html" title="ign.com">there is some hope there</a> [ign.com]. I enjoyed MechAssault, but not so much that I'm not <em>far</em> more excited about the impending <a href="http://www.mektek.net/index.php?ind=news&amp;op=news\_show\_single&amp;ide=1108" title="mektek.net">Mechwarrior IV rerelease</a> [mektek.net]. I have a Logitech Extreme 3D pro for my right hand, and a Cyborg 3D USB Gold for my left, and joystick mixing solutions for both Windows and Linux... And a history of riding the number one spot in the Attrition and Team Attrition rankings. Oh yeah, my spanking new GT 240 has HDMI out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bioshock , FEAR , L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty.The fact that you do n't remember the graphics being ugly means that they were , in fact , pretty .
Or at least , the artists and developers successfully collaborated to provide a game world [ predominantly ] without offensive glitches .
When it comes right down to it , that is a massively difficult task , and consists of a truly massive and complex work of absolute art .
Not that I 've actually played any of those games .
I 'm getting ready to try out Lost Planet on the 360.And does n't the X360 use DX9 ?
Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted.DirectX would be dead now if not for Xbox .
Bastards : ( Of course , I have one , and have even bought games ( well , addons for GTA IV ) online .
Shame on me .
DX11 will come on slow just as you suggest , mostly for the reason you suggest.Oh well , that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.Well , we all know that games often fail before hitting the shelf , but there is some hope there [ ign.com ] .
I enjoyed MechAssault , but not so much that I 'm not far more excited about the impending Mechwarrior IV rerelease [ mektek.net ] .
I have a Logitech Extreme 3D pro for my right hand , and a Cyborg 3D USB Gold for my left , and joystick mixing solutions for both Windows and Linux... And a history of riding the number one spot in the Attrition and Team Attrition rankings .
Oh yeah , my spanking new GT 240 has HDMI out : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bioshock, FEAR, L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty.The fact that you don't remember the graphics being ugly means that they were, in fact, pretty.
Or at least, the artists and developers successfully collaborated to provide a game world [predominantly] without offensive glitches.
When it comes right down to it, that is a massively difficult task, and consists of a truly massive and complex work of absolute art.
Not that I've actually played any of those games.
I'm getting ready to try out Lost Planet on the 360.And doesn't the X360 use DX9?
Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted.DirectX would be dead now if not for Xbox.
Bastards :( Of course, I have one, and have even bought games (well, addons for GTA IV) online.
Shame on me.
DX11 will come on slow just as you suggest, mostly for the reason you suggest.Oh well, that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.Well, we all know that games often fail before hitting the shelf, but there is some hope there [ign.com].
I enjoyed MechAssault, but not so much that I'm not far more excited about the impending Mechwarrior IV rerelease [mektek.net].
I have a Logitech Extreme 3D pro for my right hand, and a Cyborg 3D USB Gold for my left, and joystick mixing solutions for both Windows and Linux... And a history of riding the number one spot in the Attrition and Team Attrition rankings.
Oh yeah, my spanking new GT 240 has HDMI out :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308442</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a new direct3d api isn't really comparable to the transition from DVD to blu ray though, your DVD player doesn't get too slow for the latest movies in a couple years and you don't upgrade to a newer model that costs about the same as what you payed for the old one</p><p>when your current GPU gets too old for your tastes, you buy a new one. a new version of directx doesn't really throw off that cycle, despite how much AMD would love to convince you otherwise</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a new direct3d api is n't really comparable to the transition from DVD to blu ray though , your DVD player does n't get too slow for the latest movies in a couple years and you do n't upgrade to a newer model that costs about the same as what you payed for the old onewhen your current GPU gets too old for your tastes , you buy a new one .
a new version of directx does n't really throw off that cycle , despite how much AMD would love to convince you otherwise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a new direct3d api isn't really comparable to the transition from DVD to blu ray though, your DVD player doesn't get too slow for the latest movies in a couple years and you don't upgrade to a newer model that costs about the same as what you payed for the old onewhen your current GPU gets too old for your tastes, you buy a new one.
a new version of directx doesn't really throw off that cycle, despite how much AMD would love to convince you otherwise</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1259610420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you blind?  It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.</p><p>It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)</p><p>The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras.  Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you blind ?
It 's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games , where either API lets you create highly detailed , high performance graphics.It 's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p ( at most ) The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras .
Film , not so much , because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details , and of course is a craptacular 24fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you blind?
It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras.
Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309290</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Lord Pillage</author>
	<datestamp>1259848020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure, but it sure does stink in here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure , but it sure does stink in here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure, but it sure does stink in here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309548</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259851680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you know, back in the time even coming down the trees to start fires was not a so clever idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , back in the time even coming down the trees to start fires was not a so clever idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, back in the time even coming down the trees to start fires was not a so clever idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312564</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>DiLLeMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1259864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(who cares about vista and DX10 anyway?).</p></div><p>People with nVidia cards, if I'm to believe the comments on TFA. Someone there said that those don't do DX10.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( who cares about vista and DX10 anyway ?
) .People with nVidia cards , if I 'm to believe the comments on TFA .
Someone there said that those do n't do DX10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(who cares about vista and DX10 anyway?
).People with nVidia cards, if I'm to believe the comments on TFA.
Someone there said that those don't do DX10.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310806</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.</i></p><p>It is?  The difference in the two images of the car driving through water was immediately clear to me.  The DX11 one had water coming up along side, and over the lower part of the car below the grill.  Which is what it would look like in real life.  The DX9 version lacks this realism.. so we're not even at a point yet where games can render realistic scenes, but you think most gamers dont' care about realism?  I'd be suprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten " good enough " for most folks , at least IMHO.It is ?
The difference in the two images of the car driving through water was immediately clear to me .
The DX11 one had water coming up along side , and over the lower part of the car below the grill .
Which is what it would look like in real life .
The DX9 version lacks this realism.. so we 're not even at a point yet where games can render realistic scenes , but you think most gamers dont ' care about realism ?
I 'd be suprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.It is?
The difference in the two images of the car driving through water was immediately clear to me.
The DX11 one had water coming up along side, and over the lower part of the car below the grill.
Which is what it would look like in real life.
The DX9 version lacks this realism.. so we're not even at a point yet where games can render realistic scenes, but you think most gamers dont' care about realism?
I'd be suprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310472</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand retailers trying to charge $35 for a BluRay movie and then complaining that BluRay sales aren't that great. I get all my BluRay movies on Amazon and usually pay in the $15-$20 range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand retailers trying to charge $ 35 for a BluRay movie and then complaining that BluRay sales are n't that great .
I get all my BluRay movies on Amazon and usually pay in the $ 15- $ 20 range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand retailers trying to charge $35 for a BluRay movie and then complaining that BluRay sales aren't that great.
I get all my BluRay movies on Amazon and usually pay in the $15-$20 range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308460</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a DVD, if something's out of focus, it could be because of the cinematography, or it could be because the DVD doesn't have enough bits. On a bluray, if something's out of focus, it's probably because the director of photography intended it to be out of focus.<br>Water looks a bit more realistic. Animation looks a bit sharper.</p><p>On a smaller screen, these are all subtleties, and don't jump out at the viewer unless edge enhancement is added-- which tends to bother viewers with larger screens. Too much processing can also make skin look like plastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a DVD , if something 's out of focus , it could be because of the cinematography , or it could be because the DVD does n't have enough bits .
On a bluray , if something 's out of focus , it 's probably because the director of photography intended it to be out of focus.Water looks a bit more realistic .
Animation looks a bit sharper.On a smaller screen , these are all subtleties , and do n't jump out at the viewer unless edge enhancement is added-- which tends to bother viewers with larger screens .
Too much processing can also make skin look like plastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a DVD, if something's out of focus, it could be because of the cinematography, or it could be because the DVD doesn't have enough bits.
On a bluray, if something's out of focus, it's probably because the director of photography intended it to be out of focus.Water looks a bit more realistic.
Animation looks a bit sharper.On a smaller screen, these are all subtleties, and don't jump out at the viewer unless edge enhancement is added-- which tends to bother viewers with larger screens.
Too much processing can also make skin look like plastic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</id>
	<title>ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray. Sure blueray has some nice features but I'm still enjoying my DVDs, and I don't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks. Same thing with DX11, I've not even properly gotten set with many DX10 games and now they are pushing DX11 (well pushing as in mostly tech demos) and I've not even got much dust on my latest graphics card. I'll upgrade in a few years, perhaps when I see DX9 vanish, or at least become increasingly uncommon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray .
Sure blueray has some nice features but I 'm still enjoying my DVDs , and I do n't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks .
Same thing with DX11 , I 've not even properly gotten set with many DX10 games and now they are pushing DX11 ( well pushing as in mostly tech demos ) and I 've not even got much dust on my latest graphics card .
I 'll upgrade in a few years , perhaps when I see DX9 vanish , or at least become increasingly uncommon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray.
Sure blueray has some nice features but I'm still enjoying my DVDs, and I don't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks.
Same thing with DX11, I've not even properly gotten set with many DX10 games and now they are pushing DX11 (well pushing as in mostly tech demos) and I've not even got much dust on my latest graphics card.
I'll upgrade in a few years, perhaps when I see DX9 vanish, or at least become increasingly uncommon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309046</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, the 360 does not use DX9, although it's fairly similar. <br>DX10 is just a cleaner version (API wise) of DX9, with a couple of extra features, most notably geometry shaders <br>DX11 adds compute shaders, and allows you to share resources across multiple contexts without having to mess around with swap chains. <br>
&nbsp; <br>So yeah, you can wait until the xbox 720 if you want, but it should be obvious to most people that DX11 is going to be adopted a hell of a lot quicker than DX10. Let's be honest, the only reason people are still targetting DX9 right now is because a large number of people are still running XP (having shunned vista as a piece of crap). Windows 7 is looking like a far more popular OS than vista, so I think it's a matter of time before you'll see games that target DX9 &amp; DX11 (who cares about vista and DX10 anyway?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , the 360 does not use DX9 , although it 's fairly similar .
DX10 is just a cleaner version ( API wise ) of DX9 , with a couple of extra features , most notably geometry shaders DX11 adds compute shaders , and allows you to share resources across multiple contexts without having to mess around with swap chains .
  So yeah , you can wait until the xbox 720 if you want , but it should be obvious to most people that DX11 is going to be adopted a hell of a lot quicker than DX10 .
Let 's be honest , the only reason people are still targetting DX9 right now is because a large number of people are still running XP ( having shunned vista as a piece of crap ) .
Windows 7 is looking like a far more popular OS than vista , so I think it 's a matter of time before you 'll see games that target DX9 &amp; DX11 ( who cares about vista and DX10 anyway ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, the 360 does not use DX9, although it's fairly similar.
DX10 is just a cleaner version (API wise) of DX9, with a couple of extra features, most notably geometry shaders DX11 adds compute shaders, and allows you to share resources across multiple contexts without having to mess around with swap chains.
  So yeah, you can wait until the xbox 720 if you want, but it should be obvious to most people that DX11 is going to be adopted a hell of a lot quicker than DX10.
Let's be honest, the only reason people are still targetting DX9 right now is because a large number of people are still running XP (having shunned vista as a piece of crap).
Windows 7 is looking like a far more popular OS than vista, so I think it's a matter of time before you'll see games that target DX9 &amp; DX11 (who cares about vista and DX10 anyway?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312212</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>JCSoRocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Good enough" is the enemy of great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Good enough " is the enemy of great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Good enough" is the enemy of great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310738</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1259858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well by that arguement the model-t was "good enough," right?  The fact that there are always dumbasses that don't care about an increase in standards doesn't mean the rest of society doesn't.  Standard def. is usually good enough for people that don't actually have an HD tv.  I didn't think it would make that much of a difference (except for my ps3), but watching standard tv downstairs isn't nearly as nice as watching the hd tv I have upstairs.  The jump in quality is far greater than I imagined it would be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well by that arguement the model-t was " good enough , " right ?
The fact that there are always dumbasses that do n't care about an increase in standards does n't mean the rest of society does n't .
Standard def .
is usually good enough for people that do n't actually have an HD tv .
I did n't think it would make that much of a difference ( except for my ps3 ) , but watching standard tv downstairs is n't nearly as nice as watching the hd tv I have upstairs .
The jump in quality is far greater than I imagined it would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well by that arguement the model-t was "good enough," right?
The fact that there are always dumbasses that don't care about an increase in standards doesn't mean the rest of society doesn't.
Standard def.
is usually good enough for people that don't actually have an HD tv.
I didn't think it would make that much of a difference (except for my ps3), but watching standard tv downstairs isn't nearly as nice as watching the hd tv I have upstairs.
The jump in quality is far greater than I imagined it would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310178</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno. I've been watching HDTV at home (1080p), and NTSC at school. And while it looks better, my impression is "Not worth the money".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
I 've been watching HDTV at home ( 1080p ) , and NTSC at school .
And while it looks better , my impression is " Not worth the money " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
I've been watching HDTV at home (1080p), and NTSC at school.
And while it looks better, my impression is "Not worth the money".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308838</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blur hard edges with film lenses? It does depend on which lenses are used, this is the choice of the DP, however most are incredibly sharp.  Are you thinking of depth of field? Most HD cameras are 2/3 or 1/2 inch sensors, compared to films 16 or 35 mm, as they have greater magnification, focal length, aperture, circle of confusion etc.</p><p>Film cameras (35mm for example) can resolve resolution far beyond 1080p, more like 6 to 12 thousand pixels horizontal can be scanned from the negatives with no worry about resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blur hard edges with film lenses ?
It does depend on which lenses are used , this is the choice of the DP , however most are incredibly sharp .
Are you thinking of depth of field ?
Most HD cameras are 2/3 or 1/2 inch sensors , compared to films 16 or 35 mm , as they have greater magnification , focal length , aperture , circle of confusion etc.Film cameras ( 35mm for example ) can resolve resolution far beyond 1080p , more like 6 to 12 thousand pixels horizontal can be scanned from the negatives with no worry about resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blur hard edges with film lenses?
It does depend on which lenses are used, this is the choice of the DP, however most are incredibly sharp.
Are you thinking of depth of field?
Most HD cameras are 2/3 or 1/2 inch sensors, compared to films 16 or 35 mm, as they have greater magnification, focal length, aperture, circle of confusion etc.Film cameras (35mm for example) can resolve resolution far beyond 1080p, more like 6 to 12 thousand pixels horizontal can be scanned from the negatives with no worry about resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308604</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I see DX11 just like BluRay as well: What good is better graphics if all you get is to see better how much the content sucks?</p><p>Movies without scripts don't get better just with more eye candy. Likewise, games with no replay value don't get more interesting with more particle effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I see DX11 just like BluRay as well : What good is better graphics if all you get is to see better how much the content sucks ? Movies without scripts do n't get better just with more eye candy .
Likewise , games with no replay value do n't get more interesting with more particle effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I see DX11 just like BluRay as well: What good is better graphics if all you get is to see better how much the content sucks?Movies without scripts don't get better just with more eye candy.
Likewise, games with no replay value don't get more interesting with more particle effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309204</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>n3tcat</author>
	<datestamp>1259846760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you blind?  It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.</p><p>It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)</p><p>The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras.  Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.</p></div><p>You must work for sony, have stock in sony, or have spent thousands of dollars on the equipment you're talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you blind ?
It 's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games , where either API lets you create highly detailed , high performance graphics.It 's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p ( at most ) The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras .
Film , not so much , because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details , and of course is a craptacular 24fps.You must work for sony , have stock in sony , or have spent thousands of dollars on the equipment you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you blind?
It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras.
Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.You must work for sony, have stock in sony, or have spent thousands of dollars on the equipment you're talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1259873760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO. There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you. I haven't played a game in the last 4-5 years where I thought "they really need to add more pretty" because I've been too busy going "Holy Crap! dodge dodge duck blast Shit! The bad guys are packing hefty and I'm packing wimpy! shit!". See for example the first time I whipped around the corner and shot at a splicer and hit Big Daddy in the ass by mistake. When those big red eyes spun on me all I needed was a sound bite of <a href="http://www.stuporduck.com/sounds/DS030.wav" title="stuporduck.com">Daffy Duck</a> [stuporduck.com] to make the moment perfect.</p><p>For me pretty much everything after Far cry 1 has been past the "good enough" level as far as graphics and bling goes. Now if they would do better on stories and AI I would be a happy camper, but sadly we haven't gotten much better on that front since Far Cry 1. IMHO it isn't so much the graphics that separate the okay from the good from the great, but decent story and AI. Bioshock, FEAR, L4D I was too busy <em>playing the game</em> to actually spend much time looking at the pretty. But the atmosphere, the AI (or lack of it in too many games), the story, these things I notice.</p><p> So I have to agree that while I am running Windows 7 HP I just don't see the need to toss my ATI 4650 1Gb. The games I play already look prettier than I can actually pay attention to while not getting the living shit blasted outta me, I haven't seen anything in DX11 that will make bad game companies come out with better AI (I'm looking at you, EA!) or better stories. So I will stick with DX9 until there are enough compelling games out that use DX11 to make it worth using.</p><p>

 And doesn't the X360 use DX9? Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted. Oh well, that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten " good enough " for most folks , at least IMHO .
There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you .
I have n't played a game in the last 4-5 years where I thought " they really need to add more pretty " because I 've been too busy going " Holy Crap !
dodge dodge duck blast Shit !
The bad guys are packing hefty and I 'm packing wimpy !
shit ! " . See for example the first time I whipped around the corner and shot at a splicer and hit Big Daddy in the ass by mistake .
When those big red eyes spun on me all I needed was a sound bite of Daffy Duck [ stuporduck.com ] to make the moment perfect.For me pretty much everything after Far cry 1 has been past the " good enough " level as far as graphics and bling goes .
Now if they would do better on stories and AI I would be a happy camper , but sadly we have n't gotten much better on that front since Far Cry 1 .
IMHO it is n't so much the graphics that separate the okay from the good from the great , but decent story and AI .
Bioshock , FEAR , L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty .
But the atmosphere , the AI ( or lack of it in too many games ) , the story , these things I notice .
So I have to agree that while I am running Windows 7 HP I just do n't see the need to toss my ATI 4650 1Gb .
The games I play already look prettier than I can actually pay attention to while not getting the living shit blasted outta me , I have n't seen anything in DX11 that will make bad game companies come out with better AI ( I 'm looking at you , EA !
) or better stories .
So I will stick with DX9 until there are enough compelling games out that use DX11 to make it worth using .
And does n't the X360 use DX9 ?
Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted .
Oh well , that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.
There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you.
I haven't played a game in the last 4-5 years where I thought "they really need to add more pretty" because I've been too busy going "Holy Crap!
dodge dodge duck blast Shit!
The bad guys are packing hefty and I'm packing wimpy!
shit!". See for example the first time I whipped around the corner and shot at a splicer and hit Big Daddy in the ass by mistake.
When those big red eyes spun on me all I needed was a sound bite of Daffy Duck [stuporduck.com] to make the moment perfect.For me pretty much everything after Far cry 1 has been past the "good enough" level as far as graphics and bling goes.
Now if they would do better on stories and AI I would be a happy camper, but sadly we haven't gotten much better on that front since Far Cry 1.
IMHO it isn't so much the graphics that separate the okay from the good from the great, but decent story and AI.
Bioshock, FEAR, L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty.
But the atmosphere, the AI (or lack of it in too many games), the story, these things I notice.
So I have to agree that while I am running Windows 7 HP I just don't see the need to toss my ATI 4650 1Gb.
The games I play already look prettier than I can actually pay attention to while not getting the living shit blasted outta me, I haven't seen anything in DX11 that will make bad game companies come out with better AI (I'm looking at you, EA!
) or better stories.
So I will stick with DX9 until there are enough compelling games out that use DX11 to make it worth using.
And doesn't the X360 use DX9?
Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted.
Oh well, that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>White Flame</author>
	<datestamp>1259610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But these go to 11!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But these go to 11 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But these go to 11!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308096</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL RAGE MORE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL RAGE MORE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL RAGE MORE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309316</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahaha!<br>Genius!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahaha ! Genius !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahaha!Genius!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30317250</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259838240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you consider 480p "craptacular", you're so far out of the mainstream even the word "nerd" falls painfully short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider 480p " craptacular " , you 're so far out of the mainstream even the word " nerd " falls painfully short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider 480p "craptacular", you're so far out of the mainstream even the word "nerd" falls painfully short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312150</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.</p></div><p>I can definitely second this.</p><p>Historically, I've followed an approximately 1.5 to 2 year upgrade cycle on my video card. I'm currently running a Radeon 4800 1GB, which is a card that's almost 1.5 years old (June 19, 2008 release). At this point in the past, I've felt that my videocard was getting a bit sluggish, and started researching a good replacement card, but at present I have no desire to. I can run modern games with decent settings at 1920&#215;1200 with fluid framrates, so what's the incentive to upgrade?</p><p>I expect to keep running this rig pretty much as is for a while now. The only upgrade I'm currently considering is a processor upgrade since I'm only clocking a 2.14GHz dual core. With modern games it feels like I'm hitting a processor bottleneck sooner than a graphics bottleneck. <i>(WoW for example lags in some 25 man raids totally independent of my graphical settings. It's clearly a processor bottleneck, not graphics.)</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten " good enough " for most folks , at least IMHO.I can definitely second this.Historically , I 've followed an approximately 1.5 to 2 year upgrade cycle on my video card .
I 'm currently running a Radeon 4800 1GB , which is a card that 's almost 1.5 years old ( June 19 , 2008 release ) .
At this point in the past , I 've felt that my videocard was getting a bit sluggish , and started researching a good replacement card , but at present I have no desire to .
I can run modern games with decent settings at 1920   1200 with fluid framrates , so what 's the incentive to upgrade ? I expect to keep running this rig pretty much as is for a while now .
The only upgrade I 'm currently considering is a processor upgrade since I 'm only clocking a 2.14GHz dual core .
With modern games it feels like I 'm hitting a processor bottleneck sooner than a graphics bottleneck .
( WoW for example lags in some 25 man raids totally independent of my graphical settings .
It 's clearly a processor bottleneck , not graphics .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.I can definitely second this.Historically, I've followed an approximately 1.5 to 2 year upgrade cycle on my video card.
I'm currently running a Radeon 4800 1GB, which is a card that's almost 1.5 years old (June 19, 2008 release).
At this point in the past, I've felt that my videocard was getting a bit sluggish, and started researching a good replacement card, but at present I have no desire to.
I can run modern games with decent settings at 1920×1200 with fluid framrates, so what's the incentive to upgrade?I expect to keep running this rig pretty much as is for a while now.
The only upgrade I'm currently considering is a processor upgrade since I'm only clocking a 2.14GHz dual core.
With modern games it feels like I'm hitting a processor bottleneck sooner than a graphics bottleneck.
(WoW for example lags in some 25 man raids totally independent of my graphical settings.
It's clearly a processor bottleneck, not graphics.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310320</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259856540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where did he claim that there is no difference? His point was that DVD was still enjoyable for him, just as DX 9 is.</p><p>And <i>your</i> point that things have improved does apply to DX 11 too. When you say:</p><p><i>It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.</i></p><p>Are you seriously suggesting there is no difference? There are technical improvements that makes things look nicer, just as there are for Blu-Ray over DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did he claim that there is no difference ?
His point was that DVD was still enjoyable for him , just as DX 9 is.And your point that things have improved does apply to DX 11 too .
When you say : It 's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games , where either API lets you create highly detailed , high performance graphics.Are you seriously suggesting there is no difference ?
There are technical improvements that makes things look nicer , just as there are for Blu-Ray over DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did he claim that there is no difference?
His point was that DVD was still enjoyable for him, just as DX 9 is.And your point that things have improved does apply to DX 11 too.
When you say:It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.Are you seriously suggesting there is no difference?
There are technical improvements that makes things look nicer, just as there are for Blu-Ray over DVDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30314924</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>wondershit</author>
	<datestamp>1259873100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come again when it's OVER 9000!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come again when it 's OVER 9000 ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come again when it's OVER 9000!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309372</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats.</p><p>Here, fixed up for you. t'was easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats.Here , fixed up for you .
t'was easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;EVERYTHING is a conspiracy by some rich bastard forcing some product down our throats.Here, fixed up for you.
t'was easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30311630</id>
	<title>API changes more Hype than substance.</title>
	<author>guidryp</author>
	<datestamp>1259861340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The days of big changes from DX api change are gone. We had ridiculous hype for DX10 which turned out to be negligible improvement and even Faked "improvement" as in Crysis.</p><p>DX11 here is more of the same. Screen shots from both flipped back and forth to point out that this flag has more flap in it.</p><p>DX11 is the last reason to buy new graphics hardware (just as DX10 was). Buy new graphics hardware when you need the performance boost a new generation card will bring, or some new feature like Eyefinity if you want to use that, but DX11, that is 99\% hype, 1\% substance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The days of big changes from DX api change are gone .
We had ridiculous hype for DX10 which turned out to be negligible improvement and even Faked " improvement " as in Crysis.DX11 here is more of the same .
Screen shots from both flipped back and forth to point out that this flag has more flap in it.DX11 is the last reason to buy new graphics hardware ( just as DX10 was ) .
Buy new graphics hardware when you need the performance boost a new generation card will bring , or some new feature like Eyefinity if you want to use that , but DX11 , that is 99 \ % hype , 1 \ % substance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The days of big changes from DX api change are gone.
We had ridiculous hype for DX10 which turned out to be negligible improvement and even Faked "improvement" as in Crysis.DX11 here is more of the same.
Screen shots from both flipped back and forth to point out that this flag has more flap in it.DX11 is the last reason to buy new graphics hardware (just as DX10 was).
Buy new graphics hardware when you need the performance boost a new generation card will bring, or some new feature like Eyefinity if you want to use that, but DX11, that is 99\% hype, 1\% substance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308600</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1259836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reckon that being specialists in one technical area or other, many of us are actually knowledgeable enough about technology and technology companies to know that newer is not the same as better.</p><p>As such, the old-hands amongst us we feel bound by duty and ethics to inform the bright-eyed, young and inexperienced amongst us of that.</p><p>Not that it makes any difference most of the time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reckon that being specialists in one technical area or other , many of us are actually knowledgeable enough about technology and technology companies to know that newer is not the same as better.As such , the old-hands amongst us we feel bound by duty and ethics to inform the bright-eyed , young and inexperienced amongst us of that.Not that it makes any difference most of the time .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reckon that being specialists in one technical area or other, many of us are actually knowledgeable enough about technology and technology companies to know that newer is not the same as better.As such, the old-hands amongst us we feel bound by duty and ethics to inform the bright-eyed, young and inexperienced amongst us of that.Not that it makes any difference most of the time ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308042</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1259610360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray. Sure blueray has some nice features but I'm still enjoying my DVDs, and I don't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks.</p></div><p>I still watch VHS tapes you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray .
Sure blueray has some nice features but I 'm still enjoying my DVDs , and I do n't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks.I still watch VHS tapes you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray.
Sure blueray has some nice features but I'm still enjoying my DVDs, and I don't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks.I still watch VHS tapes you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308810</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me $2,000 and I'll build you one that goes to 12!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me $ 2,000 and I 'll build you one that goes to 12 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me $2,000 and I'll build you one that goes to 12!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1259841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has it not occurred to you that sometimes good enough is Good Enough? Standard definition is a high enough resolution that you can enjoy the content. Sure, high definition is better, but it costs sometimes twice as much for the HD version a the moment. The GP didn't say he couldn't tell the difference, just that he didn't see the need for an increase in quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it not occurred to you that sometimes good enough is Good Enough ?
Standard definition is a high enough resolution that you can enjoy the content .
Sure , high definition is better , but it costs sometimes twice as much for the HD version a the moment .
The GP did n't say he could n't tell the difference , just that he did n't see the need for an increase in quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it not occurred to you that sometimes good enough is Good Enough?
Standard definition is a high enough resolution that you can enjoy the content.
Sure, high definition is better, but it costs sometimes twice as much for the HD version a the moment.
The GP didn't say he couldn't tell the difference, just that he didn't see the need for an increase in quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308080</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoth Dyinobal:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure blueray has some nice features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I don't really need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'll upgrade in a few years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Quoth webheaded:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>... kicking and screaming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you'll complain about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the higher version gives you shit fits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what kind of moron<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Compare and contrast: which of these two is complaining and having shit fits?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoth Dyinobal : Sure blueray has some nice features ... I do n't really need ... I 'll upgrade in a few years ...Quoth webheaded : ... kicking and screaming ... There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you 'll complain about ... the higher version gives you shit fits ... what kind of moron ...Compare and contrast : which of these two is complaining and having shit fits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoth Dyinobal:Sure blueray has some nice features ... I don't really need ... I'll upgrade in a few years ...Quoth webheaded:... kicking and screaming ... There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you'll complain about ... the higher version gives you shit fits ... what kind of moron ...Compare and contrast: which of these two is complaining and having shit fits?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312950</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>CaseM</author>
	<datestamp>1259865480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+4 Insightful? The GP post is correct - on the proper equipment (not sure what Sony has anything to do with it) there is a significant difference between the image quality from a DVD and the image quality from a Blu-ray disc.</p><p>But you're right, in the past you had to spend thousands of dollars on equipment (mostly owing to the cost of the TV) to reap the benefits of Blu-ray. These days? Prices has fallen and the barrier of entry is significantly cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 4 Insightful ?
The GP post is correct - on the proper equipment ( not sure what Sony has anything to do with it ) there is a significant difference between the image quality from a DVD and the image quality from a Blu-ray disc.But you 're right , in the past you had to spend thousands of dollars on equipment ( mostly owing to the cost of the TV ) to reap the benefits of Blu-ray .
These days ?
Prices has fallen and the barrier of entry is significantly cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+4 Insightful?
The GP post is correct - on the proper equipment (not sure what Sony has anything to do with it) there is a significant difference between the image quality from a DVD and the image quality from a Blu-ray disc.But you're right, in the past you had to spend thousands of dollars on equipment (mostly owing to the cost of the TV) to reap the benefits of Blu-ray.
These days?
Prices has fallen and the barrier of entry is significantly cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308560</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>smcn</author>
	<datestamp>1259835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget 11, BD's go to 1080!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget 11 , BD 's go to 1080 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget 11, BD's go to 1080!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309540</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>yoyhed</author>
	<datestamp>1259851560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Film<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is a craptacular 24fps.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Have you ever watched a movie on a new 120hz or 240hz TV, with the frame-interpolation feature on? Try watching a whole movie like that and really getting into it.
<br> <br>
Film is 24fps because it is easy to get absorbed into the movie, rather than being jerked back to reality by home-video-amateur-too-real 30 or 60fps.
<br> <br>
Alright, so I don't know if that's WHY it's 24fps, but I'm very happy with 24. Unless you've been sitting there playing a 60fps game for hours immediately before, 24fps looks smooth.
<br> <br>
Plus, framerate has nothing to do with clarity of picture. But you are right that resolution doesn't matter so much with film, because in my experience a DVD player over component outputting 480p to a nice 720p plasma will look awesome from any reasonable distance (indeed, because of the softness of the picture).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Film ... is a craptacular 24fps .
Have you ever watched a movie on a new 120hz or 240hz TV , with the frame-interpolation feature on ?
Try watching a whole movie like that and really getting into it .
Film is 24fps because it is easy to get absorbed into the movie , rather than being jerked back to reality by home-video-amateur-too-real 30 or 60fps .
Alright , so I do n't know if that 's WHY it 's 24fps , but I 'm very happy with 24 .
Unless you 've been sitting there playing a 60fps game for hours immediately before , 24fps looks smooth .
Plus , framerate has nothing to do with clarity of picture .
But you are right that resolution does n't matter so much with film , because in my experience a DVD player over component outputting 480p to a nice 720p plasma will look awesome from any reasonable distance ( indeed , because of the softness of the picture ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film ... is a craptacular 24fps.
Have you ever watched a movie on a new 120hz or 240hz TV, with the frame-interpolation feature on?
Try watching a whole movie like that and really getting into it.
Film is 24fps because it is easy to get absorbed into the movie, rather than being jerked back to reality by home-video-amateur-too-real 30 or 60fps.
Alright, so I don't know if that's WHY it's 24fps, but I'm very happy with 24.
Unless you've been sitting there playing a 60fps game for hours immediately before, 24fps looks smooth.
Plus, framerate has nothing to do with clarity of picture.
But you are right that resolution doesn't matter so much with film, because in my experience a DVD player over component outputting 480p to a nice 720p plasma will look awesome from any reasonable distance (indeed, because of the softness of the picture).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309736</id>
	<title>Re:ehh</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1259853060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras. Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you unaware that many TV shows are recorded and produced at ~24 fps?<br>Here are a few: Lost, Heroes, House, 30 Rock, The Office, Burn Notice, Star Trek TOS.<br>My HTPC is set to output 24 Hz almost all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras .
Film , not so much , because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details , and of course is a craptacular 24fps.Are you unaware that many TV shows are recorded and produced at ~ 24 fps ? Here are a few : Lost , Heroes , House , 30 Rock , The Office , Burn Notice , Star Trek TOS.My HTPC is set to output 24 Hz almost all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras.
Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.Are you unaware that many TV shows are recorded and produced at ~24 fps?Here are a few: Lost, Heroes, House, 30 Rock, The Office, Burn Notice, Star Trek TOS.My HTPC is set to output 24 Hz almost all the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30314924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30317250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_060220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_060220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30307990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30314924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30317250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30309204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30312950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30310178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_060220.30308838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
