Sign in to follow this  
Guest PaulL01

Directx9 -trying to help my boy!

Recommended Posts

HiCan someone comment on dx9 and its problems if any with fs22k.The reason I ask is because my lad got unreal2 for his birthday and it wont work.Someone has suggested that installing dx9 SDK retail will make all games run- BUT as I fly online I have seen earlier posts that say dx9 will mess up that?Any help appreciatedSun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I've used Direct X 9 since it was in Beta Form with FS 2002 with no problems whatsoever. Frame rates etc are at least as good if not better than previous versions of Direct X.Bob, Rogers, ArkansasP4 2.2 gig G4 4600Windows XP Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi >Can someone comment on dx9 and its problems if any with >fs22k. >The reason I ask is because my lad got unreal2 for his >birthday and it wont work. >Someone has suggested that installing dx9 SDK retail will >make all games run- BUT as I fly online I have seen earlier >posts that say dx9 will mess up that? >Any help appreciated >Sun HiDX is not the problem with Unreal II. It's a DX8.1 game.You have some other problem, I've just got Unreal II and it's great.What Vid, sound cards do you have?Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DX9 will run Fs2k2 just fine, you may even find a slight performance increase if you have older hardware. The only "flaw" in DX9 where Fs2k2 is a concern is its mipmaping algorithm results in poor visual quality. Precisely it will result in a much more blocky appearance of terrain textures, nice in sharp around a small radius then appearing to abruptly end with a much lower resolution textures filling out the rest of the scene.This is not that apparent under medium to low image quality settings under your video card driver or especially under old video card driver versions that do not allow for the higher Anisotropic filter settings. Newer video drivers encourage the use of better image quality by making these settings available so, for those that like the higher quality settings it is recommended to stay away from DX9 until hopefully it is sorted out with DX9a.I would suggest that you install DX8.1b first and see how that goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Hi >>Can someone comment on dx9 and its problems if any with >>fs22k. >>The reason I ask is because my lad got unreal2 for his >>birthday and it wont work. >>Someone has suggested that installing dx9 SDK retail will >>make all games run- BUT as I fly online I have seen earlier >>posts that say dx9 will mess up that? >>Any help appreciated >>Sun >>Hi >>DX is not the problem with Unreal II. It's a DX8.1 game. >You have some other problem, I've just got Unreal II and >it's great. >What Vid, sound cards do you have? >>Brian Actually, I believe Unreal II was pushed back so they could optimize it for DX9. There was a story about it about a month ago in a video game magazine I was reading.Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The only "flaw" in DX9 where Fs2k2 is a concern is its mipmaping algorithm results in poor visual quality. Precisely it will result in a much more blocky appearance of terrain textures, nice in sharp around a small radius then appearing to abruptly end with a much lower resolution textures filling out the rest of the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree! I've used DX9 since its beta release with no problems whatsoever. My details are sharp from close in to all the way out to about 25 miles in high mountain country. About the only drawback is slight "shimmering" of buildings but this has been present long before DX9. I find DX9 to be somewhat smoother than previous versions, particularly when making sharp banking turns within 3000 ft AGL. IMHOnutmeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The only "flaw" in DX9 where Fs2k2 is a concern is its mipmaping algorithm results in poor visual quality. Precisely it will result in a much more blocky appearance of terrain textures, nice in sharp around a small radius then appearing to abruptly end with a much lower resolution textures filling out the rest of the scene.<>>Can you point me to some references of this? I have used DX9 >since early beta and have no knowledge of this issue, that >it exists, that it was discovered to affect FS2002, or that >its severity is driver related. The only reported issue >within the DX9 community relating to FS2002 was to do with >ATi Radeon drivers and was fixed by a driver patch. I can >find no reference to this in any of the DX9 forums or in any >of the Nvidia forums. >>ChasW Guinea pig huh? Just kidding! :)The newest revisions of anything aren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiallThx very much for all the info....I went ahead and installed DX9 Guess what? UR2 plays flawlessly so it was down to something in DX8!!Also on the upside no probs so far with FS2 either...so thats what I call a good result.Yep UR2 is very good from what weve seen with lights out and sound up it could be a heart stopper lolSun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hiall >Thx very much for all the info....I went ahead and installed >DX9 >Guess what? UR2 plays flawlessly so it was down to something >in DX8!! >Also on the upside no probs so far with FS2 either...so >thats what I call a good result. >Yep UR2 is very good from what weve seen with lights out and >sound up it could be a heart stopper lol >Sun UrII uses DX8.1 and is required, that is included in disc3, that is all you would have needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,First, can I state that I hold your views with the utmost respect. Were it not for all your excellent and time-consuming previous work on the subject of ridding the blurries from FS2002 I would not be enjoying the sim as much as I do now.However, I thought I should make one or two comments to help others decide which way to go.Your D3D settings:MMap=LOD-0.1 AAx2Q Anisotropic= x4/32tap Vsync=on FW=off SBA=on AGP set@256mbMy D3D settings:MMap=LOD-0.1 Anisotropic=Forced level 8/64tap Vsync=on SBA=on AGP=128MB (I accept the default AA settings for my card preferring instead to run FS2k2 at a higher resolution, viz. 1280x960x32 full screen)My System Spec:Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBoIntel Pentium 4 2.2A512MB Crucial PC2100 DDR Ram3D Blaster4 Ti4400 (Creative's 30.82 driver variants) Sony Multiscan G200 17" MonitorSB Audigy Player (Drivers version 5.12.01.0253 Signed)Deskstar 120GXP UDMA100 HDs x 2 (60 and 40 Gig)CH Products USB Yoke, Pedals and FighterstickPlantronics Headset and Mike comboPlexWriter 40/12/40APioneer DVD-106SWindows XP Home Edition (SP1)DirectX 9.0[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=3.470000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=2TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=7.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=8.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=3Maximum Visibility = 60 milesFSUIPC = Version 2.95 (I accept the default settings for controlling visibility at various altitudes)Now, I have to say I approached the updating of DirectX from 8.1 to 9.0 with some trepidation having read the above thread but, what the hell, I have XP's trusty Restore option so I can always revert back if need be. In any event I purchased the latest Official Windows XP mag today principally as DX 9.0 was on the CD and this would save me having to d/l it.The installation was flawless and the DX diagnostics passed across the board. So now, it was the turn of FS2002...In view of what has been said and, in particular, your comments Paul I have spent the past couple of hours checking out several scenery areas which I've used as yardsticks in the past and honestly I see no obvious difference. Textures appear clear and sharp as t'was with the 8.1s. I tried looking from various altitudes (having cleared the weather) and same story. There has always been slight loss of sharpness of ground textures looking towards the distance but this is quite normal and, to my eyes and experience, perfectly in keeping with reality, or at least a very good approximation.I felt I should post as many may be put off updating DX for fear of losing texture clarity but, again, I have to say that this has not been my experience this evening. I agree, DX 9.0 may offer some improvement in the fluidity of the sim during turns but this is only marginal.Whether or not it is relevant right now to update DX to version 9.0 is debatable but on my system there does not appear to be any degradation in performance either visually or impacting frame rates. Clearly updating will become more of an issue further down the line as DX9 specific titles are released but for now, I agree, it is probably not necessary if your system and installations are running well under DX8.0/8.1.So, why did I do it? Why do any of us do what we do when strictly speaking it isn't yet necessary? Curiosity, I suppose, that ever present irrepressible human trait - stronger in some than others and the root cause of many a disaster - but not this time! ;)Mike :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiPaul I also have no problems that would make me say FS2002 is any different than before; I also cannot explain why the installation of DX9 "fixed" UR2 but it did. As I said someone on another forum had said it was the only way to fix UR2 so thats why I went for it.I was also wondering wth the tated requirement on UR2 box ie DX8 didnt work and I did indeed reinstall using that version from the disc to no avail.I can only think something that was broken was fixed; having said that ALL DX8 tests passed and NO other game was giving troubles. Its clear from the relevant notice boards dealing with UR2 that some people had the same issue. I guess its no wonder given all the different kit people use!Inteseresting coments thoughSun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>The only "flaw" in DX9 where Fs2k2 is a concern is its mipmaping algorithm results in poor visual quality. Precisely it will result in a much more blocky appearance of terrain textures, nice in sharp around a small radius then appearing to abruptly end with a much lower resolution textures filling out the rest of the scene.<>>>>Can you point me to some references of this? I have used DX9 >Guinea pig huh? Just kidding! :) >>The newest revisions of anything aren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just add this. I have done very extensive testing of both Dx9 and Dx8.1 on my machine with FS2002. I honestly cannot see any differences whatsoever (performance, visual or otherwise) between either version of the API. Were it possible for someone to repeatedly install either version on my machine without me knowing, there is absolutely no way I could tell (from running FS2002) which version was actually being used at any given time. That said, I do lack a very high end, professional quality monitor. Perhaps if I had one of these (and I was twenty years younger) I might be able to see some difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Paul, usually you can be relied upon to quote researched and >verified fact as such, and personal opinion as such. Ok, now you got me, I'm lying. :-lol> The reason why I asked was that I >have also spoken to Nvidia and MS and they have never heard >of the effect you describe, and it has not been reported by >ANY Nvidia video card manufacturer (I didn't bother with >ATi) and hasn't come up in any of the technical user groups.Pardon, you apparently don't have contacts pass the front desk! Just kidding, :) If you also ask MS or Nvidia about the GF4MX cards inability to produce reflective textures in FS2k2 you wont get the answer though the real deal is known by both (it is an MSFS problem, the card is fine), these folks don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I respectfully suggest that perhaps the time has now arrived to consider locking this particular thread before it degenerates into an "I'm right and I don't give tuppence for your opinions or, indeed, observations because I know better" diatribe.From my own recent experience, having just moved up (rightly or wrongly) from DX8.1 to DX9.0 I can confirm that other posters in this thread currently share my findings and that these observations are indeed sincere and genuine.It may well be that this is all, yet again, system specific but I can assure the doubters that on my setup FS2k2 still performs and looks as well as it did under DX8.1. That suggests that the DX API backward compatibility is fine while running software optimized for earlier versions of DX which, of course, is as it should be.---------------------------------------------------------------Paul,I really don't know why your sources are so adamant which is why I implied something odd was going on here. Clearly the explanation is not as black and white as one first thought.If you can accept that I and others have indeed noticed no change in the visuals following the DX 'upgrade', then the answers as to why we appear to have been 'lucky' must lie elsewhere. Believe you me I have obsessed over this issue ever since you and others started to provide those long sought after answers to the blurry issue in FS2k2. Prior to this DX upgrade I was content in the knowledge that I had done all that was needed to vanquish this irritant which hitherto had been seriously and adversely affecting my flight simming experience. To discover that this aspect remained unchanged following the installation of DX9 was a pleasant surprise, to say the least. Based on this I see no valid reason right now to revert back to DX8.1 - easy to do, as you know, under XP. Please believe me when I assure you that my intention is not to upset you. Your work in this area is held in very high regard by me and many others. However, the current tenor of your responses is suggesting that facts are facts and any known problems rooted in the code will manifest themselves as assuredly as night follows day, irrespective of our protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, some of us are seeing no obvious change whatsoever other than perhaps a modest improvement in the fluidity of the sim in certain situations. If this situation should alter over the coming days/weeks I promise I will report my findings in this forum and admit the error of my ways ;)Cheers!Mike :-waveP.S. It would be interesting to see your 3DMark 2001 SE Score with your usual GPU tweaks in place. Your score, as is, is undeniably impressive and presumably you use the score as an ongoing guide to the maintenance of performance of your system. However, I would like to know how much of a performance hit occurs when you apply FSAA, Vsync, and Anisotropic filtering. On my system the score drops some 3000 (!) points and that's without FSAA. The interesting thing, though, is FS2k2 seems unaffected and purrs along as usual. Maybe 3DMark scores aren't everything after all?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, Sorry not to have responded to you earlier,I see no reason to lock this thread, no one is insulting anyone and no one here is attacking anyone else as far as I know. I certainly don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this thread and some of the posts so I decided to post what I think. I was interested in the DX8.1 vs DX9.0 "argument" so I went and asked my buddy who works for Nvidia. I told him that I didn't see any difference between DX8.1 and DX9.0 on FS2002 specifically and that some people were stating that DX8.1 was clearer and in some respects more stable. All he told me was, "that is total b********". I was intertested in finding out what the difference was since, quite frankly, I don't see any difference at all. I had my brother, who is a software engineer for a company that will remain nameless, come take a look at it. He brought his machine over to my house and we set up them up side by side. He and I have the EXACT same system setup. Same hardware, same games, infact, even just about all the same software. Our video cards are the same and we are both using the same drivers (although we did tests with 5 different variations of different drivers). The ONLY difference between our two computers that is system related is he has DX8.1 and I have DX9.0. We didn't pay attention to FPS since our systems were so similar. We just wanted to check picture quality. We ran all tests at 1280x960x32 and 1600x1200x32 and ALL the tests showed the same thing....DX8.1 and DX9.0 were EXTREMEMLY similar in picture quality. Once in a while mine had better quality, then his, depending on which drivers we were using. We tested with the following drivers:21.8322.8023.1123.1228.3229.4230.8240.7241.09The differences in FPS were almost non-existent (.1-2FPS). And the picture quality went either way depending on driver selection. When he set up his with the driver that looked best (29.42) and I set mine up with what looked the best (41.09) the game looked the EXACT same! And in fact, mine was 1 FPS faster with DX9.0.The proof is in the game. And yes, I do know somebody wayyyyyy past the help desk ;)Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats realy great to here Shane. Now maybe you should go back and re-read all the post to see what you missed as that could have saved you a lot of trouble as nothing you just did has anything in common with the >only< negative statement that was made concerning DX9.I should have just kept my big mouth shut and let it go...let it go, just let it go...Yup there is a lesson in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Paul,can you shed some light on this for me and maybe others as well? this has puzzled me for quite some time. if fs2k2 is a dx7 game, then why does the MS FS2002 "box" under "system requirements" say that dx8.0a or later(not even the original 8.0 version)is required? thanks in advance for the info. happy flyin, fm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't rying to be rude Paul. Sorry you took it that way. Sometimes it is hard to convey what you are trying to say when you are writing on the internet. :)Just posting my findings, as I have always wondered myself.No hard feelings :)Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gestation period of games is long enough that certain factors have to be set in `tablets of stone` early in development - the API choice is obviously one of them. Games typically use current technology, as in `current` when the initial design is cemented. Some anticipate short-term developments (MSFS has always been one of those, anticipating the CPU's and GPU's of tomorrow so that even a year and a half after release a hardware upgrade will reveal new depth or feature in the sim, increasing longevity).That doesn't stop MS shipping the game with the next-one-up version of the API, or even more - how else would many people ever realise they `needed` to update their DirectX version otherwise?It's another example of the MS built-in obsolescence factor (if you are a pessimist), or their ongoing recognition that everything, even MS software is capable of improvement (if you're an optimist)!ChasW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this