I have an ATI Radeon X800Pro. 256 Megs, DX9 capable. Could be my imagination (doubtful) but texture loads are much snappier. Gone is the majority of texture lag, i.e. Aircraft appears white, and then textures appear.It appears the DX9c is written for the bigger cards. I perceive that MS has told DX9c about larger frame buffers, and like my old drill sergeant used to say, "...use em if ya got em!"Other that that, I see no difference. As always, these observations are just "my 2 cents" worth.Cheers,bt

Thanks, did not know it was out ;DBest Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4][h3]P M D G's 747-400[/h3][h4]coming to a runway near you[/h4][/font color]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

>I have an ATI Radeon X800Pro. 256 Megs, DX9 capable. >>Could be my imagination (doubtful) but texture loads are much>snappier. Gone is the majority of texture lag, i.e. Aircraft>appears white, and then textures appear.>>It appears the DX9c is written for the bigger cards. I>perceive that MS has told DX9c about larger frame buffers, and>like my old drill sergeant used to say, "...use em if ya got>em!">>Other that that, I see no difference. As always, these>observations are just "my 2 cents" worth.>>Cheers,>>bt>Hey BT,Nice to hear from you.DX9.0c is for enabling Shader3.0 which is no help to even the newest ATI card nor for Nvidia GFX5950 or lower cards, only the newest GF6 has instructions programed for Shader model 3.0 and then that will only help on the newest of the new games that will use it such as FarCry with patch1.2For ATI cards there is also help with shader2.0b (Thanks to ATI, that also helps NV cards) but still won't help us with FS. :-(DX doesn't care how much Memory you have, BTW 512mb cards will be comming this fall. :-)

not sure where you get the idea that it's for larger cards only.I have an old GF4Ti4200 card with 128MB RAM (quite decent at the time, pathetically outdated now, a year or so later).Indeed textures seem snappier, using a higher resolution MIP than previously.At the same time performance (especially when switching or panning views) is improved which leads me to think the bitblitting algorithms have been optimised.These improvements will of course have more pronounced effects on cards with more memory, but smaller cards will also benefit.

>not sure where you get the idea that it's for larger cards>only.>I have an old GF4Ti4200 card with 128MB RAM (quite decent at>the time, pathetically outdated now, a year or so later).>>Indeed textures seem snappier, using a higher resolution MIP>than previously.There are no changes to LOD, they were not requested, not worked on and not changed.DX9.0c is a shadder and security updated plainly.>At the same time performance (especially when switching or>panning views) is improved which leads me to think the>bitblitting algorithms have been optimised.You think there are new "optimized" algorithms as used since DX7 beta and used in DX9.0a for alpha blitting? Were did you read that there was a need? or that DX9.0c has anything to do with that and I guess that it was so poor that "now" it is finaly optimized to the point were "that" is going to effect performance ...now?Are u sure that its not just that the cleaning lady finaly cleaned yer monitor and you didn't know? :-)>These improvements will of course have more pronounced effects>on cards with more memory, but smaller cards will also>benefit.Mmm, I think that if what you think took place it would be the other way around...less noticed on bigger buffers.Here is a list of the changes for D3D as ripped from SDK:"D3DX The D3DX library has been extended to support the following new features.Performance - the Precomputed Radiance Transfer(PRT), Effects Framework, and X File components have been optimized to perform much better than previous releases. Shader model 3.0 support - The HLSL compiler now supports the 3.0 shading target in order to support future graphics hardware. PRT componentization - the PRT API is now more modular and allows for a more flexible usage of the PRT functionality."To add; I do not believe FS9 takes any advantage of PRT as written in D3D.

Regardless of Paul's " put - down " style of reply above - I'll go along with JWenting . Also using the Ti4200/128MB card here and there is a definate improvement in the texture loading- snappier view changes etc.I know it's always very difficult to be objective about the perceived differences in performance- I realise that to an extent , we see what we want to see. Also even the identical flight in FS9 can and often does , produce differing results.Nonetheless, I think that ,so far, DX9C combined here with the NVidia 62.20 drivers ( also very recently installed) has produced a good difference for me.I believe that the most important thing is the last 6 words of the preceding sentence"has produced a difference for me." - if works for you - well and good- never mind what it does for other people/systems/OS etc etc As said so many times before , no two systems are exactly identical ,and no two systems will produce exactly the same results.DaveMSI KT6V-LSR(MS-7021)AMD Athlon XP3000.768 MB 333mhz DDRAMTi4200/128MB GPU.62.20 driversMaxtor 80GB HDD(7200rpm)Maxtor 40GB HDD(7200rpm)LG CDRWLG CDR 52Xo/b AC97 soundThermaltake 480W PSUWinXP- SP1.Direct X 9CSaitek Cyborg 3D JoystickNothing overclocked

>Regardless of Paul's " put - down " style of reply above ->I'll go along with JWenting . Also using the Ti4200/128MB card>here and there is a definate improvement in the texture>loading- snappier view changes etc.>>I know it's always very difficult to be objective about the>perceived differences in performance- I realise that to an>extent , we see what we want to see. Also even the identical>flight in FS9 can and often does , produce differing results.>Nonetheless, I think that ,so far, DX9C combined here with the>NVidia 62.20 drivers ( also very recently installed) has>produced a good difference for me.>>I believe that the most important thing is the last 6 words>of the preceding sentence"has produced a difference for me." ->if works for you - well and good- never mind what it does for>other people/systems/OS etc etc >>As said so many times before , no two systems are exactly>identical ,and no two systems will produce exactly the same>results.>>Dave>Right, So now all of the GF4 users get 30 FPS @ 4xsAA and super great great super textures with super real brite colors, that load so fast now!...as there have been half dozen DX versions and 68 det driver versions later... and Nvidia is still optimizing GF4 cards! :-lol Get real Folks...hey shoot the measenger!Just gave you a direct quote from MS DX9.0c SDK, but hey let the BS fly! :-lolIt realy is one thing to find a driver that has fixed or optimizes your harware/software but quite another to not know the difference.Notice "ALL" the hardware review sites stating all the great increases in performance for non NV40 cards? not one, hmmm, G, I wonder Y that might be...could it...B ...uh.....

OK Paul- you may well have the tech knowledge at your fingertips more so than some of us - but , as I said above, each person, each system is different and if you read the posts here , in the MS FS hardware Forum above and also in Forums on other websites it is fairly obvious that some people using "older" cards(such as the Ti4200- several of those reporting improvements) have found differences between 9B and 9C performance. Granted,not all have had improvements- indeed some have found the opposite and reverted to 9B.(If your theory is correct it shouldn't make any difference)I don't think any of us expect this sort of thing....." So now all of the GF4 users get 30 FPS @ 4xsAA and super great great super textures with super real brite colors, that load so fast now!.."In fact - any differences are going to be very minor - but- if the user thinks it's working better - then IMHO that's really all that matters. Dave

hehe, I've noticed some slight improvements too in regards to textures loading a bit more quickly and view changes cuasing slightly less stuttering so THERE! (interestingly enough, I noticed this imediately after installing dx9c and having read no other posts about it and I think I posted my feelings in another thread here somewhere). I've also noticed that the recent 60 series of forceware drivers seem to work exceptionally well with my GF4Ti4200 even though Nvidia is no longer working on optimizations for the older cards. hmmmm, ain't life strange? :D

>hehe, I've noticed some slight improvements too in regards to>textures loading a bit more quickly and view changes cuasing>slightly less stuttering so THERE! (interestingly enough, I>noticed this imediately after installing dx9c and having read>no other posts about it and I think I posted my feelings in>another thread here somewhere). I've also noticed that the>recent 60 series of forceware drivers seem to work>exceptionally well with my GF4Ti4200 even though Nvidia is no>longer working on optimizations for the older cards. hmmmm,>ain't life strange? :D>>No, it

>OK Paul- you may well have the tech knowledge at your>fingertips more so than some of us - but , as I said above,>each person, each system is different and if you read the>posts here , in the MS FS hardware Forum above and also in>Forums on other websites it is fairly obvious that some people> using "older" cards(such as the Ti4200- several of those>reporting improvements) have found differences between 9B and>9C performance. Granted,not all have had improvements- indeed>some have found the opposite and reverted to 9B.(If your>theory is correct it shouldn't make any difference)Not a theory my Boy, but do you have any idea how many times just simply reinstalling your current driver or version of DX can improve things? why is that do you think? Have an Idea and I bet you can find the reason for some having found "differences", but whatever...>I don't think any of us expect this sort of thing.....>"> So now all of the GF4 users get 30 FPS @ 4xsAA and super>great great super textures with super real brite colors, that>load so fast now!..">>In fact - any differences are going to be very minor - but- if>the user thinks it's working better - then IMHO that's really>all that matters. >>Dave

lol, no need for me to go researching. I don't care if I'm right or wrong. Perception rules in the world of PC gaming and if I think I'm getting (slightly) better performance, that's all the evidence I need. :) Btw, nobody is stating "great performance gains" here so relax a bit man. I'm talking tiny performance gains. Also btw, you're not talking to a noob here mate. I've been working with PCs for more than 20 years and am completely familiar with what drivers do and don't do so you can ix-nay the tech 101 stuff. But thx anyway. Cheers. :)

>Not a theory my Boy, but do you have any idea how many times>just simply reinstalling your current driver or version of DX>can improve things? >>Daveyes, that's why I do it regularly - which is also why I don't think thats the reason for what I'm seeing.

>lol, no need for me to go researching. I don't care if I'm>right or wrong. Perception rules in the world of PC gaming>and if I think I'm getting (slightly) better performance,>that's all the evidence I need. :) Well there you go! Enjoy!Btw, nobody is stating>"great performance gains" here so relax a bit man. I'm>talking tiny performance gains. Also btw, you're not>talking to a noob here mate. Right, so how exactly are you measuring or perceiving these small gains? Using Fraps to record a canned flight? DO you have random weather turned off? ATC off?>I've been working with PCs for>more than 20 years and am completely familiar with what>drivers do and don't do so you can ix-nay the tech 101 stuff. >But thx anyway. Cheers. :)If that was truly the case I don't think we would be having this little conversation.

Tried it - identical performance and image quality. Radeon 9700 Pro. -End report-( :) )