Straight DX 9 Answers Please

[Guest]

There have been many threads about the newly released DirectX 9 software and it also seems that these threads still are not achieving what they set out to do and that is.........What are your experiences with this product not anything about the install process or the slow download time or Grandmas cookies.Just lets answer one question????What are your experiences using it with MSFS2002...frame rates..smoothness.....sharpness.....Thats all.Also list your Video card and drivers.Merry Christmas

[Guest Stratus_Fractus]

See profile for specs. Running the 2942s. Smoothness improved a lot, fps by a few and sharpness not at all, don't know why it would improve sharpness?Cheers

[Guest B52Drivr]

Disclaimer: your mileage may vary!I made a point to test frame rates last week, for another reason, so I had a good base line set, same ap, same aircraft, same time, same weather, same everything.With Dx9 I have noticed an improvment in frame rates, of perhaps 1 or 2 and the sim seems smoother, (smoother to an already smooth running sim). So, as said before, your mileage may vary.my set up:PIV 1.8 overclocked to 2.3Gforce ti4600 overclocked usually run 4-5 additional programs at the same timecurrently running 3 monitorsClayton T. DopkeMajor, USAF (retired)"Drac"B52Drivr@aol.com

[Guest]

As is to be expected, I see absolutely, positively, and without doubt, no change at all compared to DX8.1. None, zero, zilch, nada.TripNorthwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward 64MB GF4 Ti4200 300/57040.72's DX9.0 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 13223http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4569591

[Guest]

Ok, I tried it, found an increase of maybe 1 or 2 fps in the sim.The downside was it locked my install of Grand Prix Legends,total black screen, so I did a backup restore of the system and replaced it with DX 8.1 ....Goodbye DX 9 ,until a point in time when we actually have software that needs it! Simdawg

[Guest]

<<<>>>>Same Here I'm afraid. System:Gateway AMD Athalon 900 MHz Windows 98SE637 MB PC133 RAM64MB NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS 29.42 DriversSoundblaster Live Digital Audio Boston Acoustics BA735 Speakers & SubWooferGateway EV700 17" Monitor CH Flight Yoke USBCH Rudder Pedals USBDual SunCom Throttles(One throttles, One props)Signatronics SPO22 VOX Transcom ICS System W/Two David Clark H10-13HXL HeadsetsFor Pilot & Copilot Communications Connected to the sound card for use with Speechbuddy VOX controlKen

[Guest jason2112]

No change as well ... at least, no noticeable. It's hard to judge, but I tried the same plane on the same airport with the same settings before and after install of DX9, and although FPS are constantly changing, they seem to be in the same range as before.Bye,VOlker :]System: Duron 1000, 512 MB RAM, GeForce Ti200, WinXP Pro SP1

[Tabs 2,790]

No difference at all here - exactly the way it should be - my GeForce 3 isn't a DX9 card. If I don't see an improvemnt after buying my GeForce FX in a month though, THEN I've got a problem!

[Guest]

No change in fps from Directx version 8.2. I ran the 3DMARK2001 and got a score of 12772, compared to 12804 before, which is to say no real change. I had hoped it would clear up a problem in FS2002 I had with antialiasing ever since 8.2, but no such luck.Dale

[Guest]

1.4-512-GF3 w/ 41.09-98se-fps@15First, no loss of anything. Seems to increase smoothness some. Perhaps fps too, by 1 or 2 when system is busy. No changes in sharpness. I like the tweak utility. I'm afraid your quest of certainty is vain: there are just too many parameters and variables.

[Guest PaulL01]

>>There have been many threads about the newly released >DirectX 9 software and it also seems that these threads >still are not achieving what they set out to do and that >is.........What are your experiences with this product not >anything about the install process or the slow download time >or Grandmas cookies. >>Just lets answer one question???? >>What are your experiences using it with MSFS2002...frame >rates..smoothness.....sharpness.....That's all. >>Also list your Video card and drivers. >>Merry Christmas As I said before there is no change in the DX code to wit FS2k2 is written, well... I was wrong! :-eekThe Good and the bad....DX9 as tested on more than a few machines using my "canned" demo of FS2k2 (with no ATC as that skews the results) and fraps1.9c(for DX9)...AMD 500/TnT, PIII-800/GF2 among others as well as my box (see below)The Good:It seems as the lower powered machine >do< get a small but measurable increase in smoothness and FPS (the highest gain was about 8% on the PIII800 from an average of 11.2FPS to almost 12FPS!!! >still 8% is about what you would see with an upgrade to a GF3 on that machine(AA and AF aside).As you approach 1.3ghz and up machines with decent ram and at min a GF3 card there is no appreciable FPS gain (OK, there was a gain , but about the same as when there is good sun spot activity!) :-lol, but the smoothness did seem to come across as better when in high ATC traffic around detailed airports etc.(it takes me between 5 and 20 minutes for each machine to toggle between DX8.1 and DX9 and to try to nail this down was a pain!!!)The Bad...The bad to me very much outweighs the "good" as it seems to set FS2k2 back about a whole year! What am I talking about? Anyone that has been around knows about the struggle and hard work that many undertook to greatly improve the image quality/clarity in the terrain textures as displayed from near to the horizon. And vast improvements where made and now all many had hoped for was really to be able to have more CPU power (approaching the 3.5Ghz zone as well as stronger Video cards to maintain frame rate at decent AA and AF levels. Well now that we are the door step it looks like that wont matter, if you have to have DX9 that is.How this resultantly got into the DX9 final is beyond logical thinking and a step backward!Investments in the best Video cards even the Rad9700 and I fear the GFFX will not help here folks as the Mipmap scheme has been horrendously messed with (yes DX7 code has been effected to the same poor visual degree as when DX7 was released over DX6) and all the LOD changes in the world won't help, ask anyone with DX9 to post a screen shot from altitude and you will never see anything like the shot bellow on a DX9 equipped machine as now the mipmaping begins very early, as in "why do the sharp looking textures suddenly end?".taken from my old GF3 system:http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/46_fps.jpg No matter your Driver and its settings as well as settings in the Fs2k2.cfg, the reults of DX9 display in FS2k2 will disapoint compared to the tweakable display of DX8.OK. All those who want to take a shot at me for my "DX7/8 code will not be effected" statements, go ahead! :)It "wasn't supposed to end up this way as far as all indications where if anything there where to be some improvements that really would have resulted in slightly worse FPS performance but all indications pointed to abandonment of this for some versions to come while the new DX9 feature set was honed, so much for that! Come On MSDX team!!! This plainly sucks!!!What to do?If you have a lower end machine, anything slower than 1Ghz machine, go ahead and use DX9 it may help as its not like you can push for the great graphic settings anyhow.If on the other hand you have a more powerful machine and enjoy a decent display of the ground scenery, then avoid DX9 until it is "fixed" as the poor rate of display of the mipmaps is very noticeable and seems to be non adjustable.there are some new DX9 removing tools that will make there way onto the web this very day as a matter of fact, as soon as I get a link I will pass it on. :)For now I would steer clear of DX9 until this is addressed or until FS2k4 where the FS graphics engine may handle this better.

[Guest PaulL01]

>I'm afraid >your quest of certainty is vain: there are just too many >parameters and variables. Not true at all,It is very simple:Do a flight video in a decent area with variable terrain and texturing (like LasVagas) turn off ATC and use Fraps to record your results. :) works like a charm, you now have a FS2k2 benchmarking program. :)

[Guest]

DX9 SHOULDN'T Improve anything because FS2002 isn't capable of taking advantage of DX9's features. Only if you see a game that says "DirectX 9.0 required", then you'll see a noticeable difference.****************************************PIII 850MHz384MB DDR SDRAM40GB 7200RPM HDCD-RW driveVisiontek Xtasy GeForce 2 MX400 64MB PCIWindows MECable modemhttp://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...d9845252b07.jpgAirliners.net Photos]CYYJ[/b

[Vulcan 14]

Mainly to PaulL01 and Ken.I see you both have 512MB (or more) RAM on Win98SE.I have just changed mo/bos and am unable to get Win98SE to run with 512 RAM, OK with 256MB though.Can you advise if you have ACPI disabled and if you had to make entries in the vcache section of system.ini.Mo/bo is Abit KD7-RAID with the VIA KT400 chipset.Athlon XP18002x 256MB Generic DDR333 RAMLatest VIA 4in1 (4.45)Both sticks of RAM tested seperately OK.TIA

[Guest]

Flying the Talon at Mach1+ for a while; dropped from 25K full throttle passing through the mountains; leveled out at full throttle Mach1+; dropped the pit and took the shot. This is San Bernadino; Calif LandClass; Autogenius; early evening or morning (can't remember) 16x12x32 at 4xAA & 16xAF running DX8.1. As stated in another thread, DX9 probably won't make any difference unless there was something wrong with your previous install of DX8. It's all about pure processor, ram and video card power and a good combination of hardware that works well together with no bottlenecks. http://www.xplanefreeware.net/freehost/mgd.../Talon_SanB.jpg