Directx9 -trying to help my boy!

[Guest sunstriker]

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

[Guest sunstriker]

Anyone???Sun

[Guest Rob]

Hi Sun,FS2002 has absolutely no problem with DX9. Download and enjoy from http://www.microsoft.com/directx. I hear Unreal II is quite a shoot 'em up!

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest PaulL01]

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.

[Arklight1 140]

>>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

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest nutmeat]

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

[Guest PaulL01]

>>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

[Guest sunstriker]

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

[Guest PaulL01]

>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.

[Cruachan 705]

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

[Guest sunstriker]

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

[Guest]

>>>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