Directx9 -trying to help my boy!

[Guest JonP01]

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.

[Guest PaulL01]

>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

[Cruachan 705]

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?!

[Guest PaulL01]

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

[Arklight1 140]

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

[Guest PaulL01]

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.

[FlyinMisfit 0]

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

[Arklight1 140]

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

[Guest]

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

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Paul,Promise, not nagging you....LOL;)

[Cruachan 705]

.

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hi Paul, >>Promise, not nagging you....LOL Hi Mike, Quit freaking Nagging me!!! :-lol:)>...... could you clarify what you mean by "the high quality >settings" and, if necessary, I'll go and have another look. Sure: screen res of at least 1280x960, Minimum of 4xAF, use a working negative>-im my somewhat neuronally challenged brain.. LOLWhat usually helps me is a one hour session with Spock, U know..Mind meld...:-roll, that guy is good! >This included the application of the script >file within RivaTuner to ensure the proper function of the >negative LOD tweak.Sounds like you are hooked up fine.>Incidentally, if I decided to update my >driver from the 30.82s (foolish person that I am as they >have proved to be absolutely rock solid in every respect) >would I have to reapply this script file? Yes, you must do it for each new driver.You are aware that it should be applied to a copy in a separate folder then copied to the system or system32 (depending on what OS) in safe mode? -That is the required way, some times it takes application right in the system folder but it is no sure bet.>>Like you, I don't wish to harp on longer than is really >necessary and I certainly wouldn't wish any of us to fall >out over any silly disagreements. Still it's good to rant a >little from time to time, isn't it? I don't do it nearly >enough..LOL Mike, having passed this by a few that are much more knowledgeable than myself on the topic, the feed back that I received today is that there really is no reason to hope in this being improved as a matter of fact for anyone who doubts that DX mipmaping has continued to degrade, I was reminded today of something I stumbled onto last spring when we went through all of this with DX8.1...... Fire up good old FS98 with DX8.1-9.0 and you wont believe how badly it suffers from this problem (it never did before), it is an exaggeration of what we have been seeing in FS2k2. I posted a pic of this here last spring and some others including Elrond were going to look into it. It is somewhat revealing to see how unfortunately the industry has sacrificed a little clarity to get that much more FPS out of our hardware, apparently we are all a bunch of dummies who only want FPS and can't understand the trade-off for our selves... that is what seems to be the case with DX and its future, they keep moving the line back (mips) as though trying to make up for a lack of hardware advances (64 bit anyone?) as compared to software.Perhaps the folks in MSFS design team will make up for this as FS is one of the very few that would suffer as a result of this as we have seen with FS2k2 and CFS3 and it has produced many complaints.Perhaps if they gave us another slider to play with. :-rollOk, I'm geeked out now. :)

[Guest LarryJ_KMSO]

Mike,In your post above, you stated:"(I accept the default AA settings for my card preferring instead to run FS2k2 at a higher resolution, viz. 1280x960x32 full screen)"Does that imply that in your FS2002, Options, Settings, Display, Hardware, you have checked the box beside Anti-Aliasing? Do you have any other ...,Display,Hardware check box or radio button selected?Thanks,Larry

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Larry,Boxes checked under Hardware:Enable Hardware AccelerationTransform and LightingMip MappingMulti-TexturingTrilinear-FilteringMike :-wave