This relates to my original post entitled:"DirectX 9.0, 30.82s....before and after tweaks (pics)"Paul (PaulL01) suggested that it might be more appropriate if I tried looking down and examining the various terrain extended texture levels (levels 1-3 in my case) from a higher altitude.I thought it might be useful to post my results, but this involves 5 images each >100K in size. Therefore, to comply with Avsim rules, these images, along with further explanation, have been posted to the Screenshots Forum under:"Re: DirectX 9.0...before and after tweaks - Prt 2(pics)"I hope some find it helpful towards making the decision as whether or not to update DirectX to version 9.Mike :-wave

Hi,Things like DirectX must be updated, soon some application will request DX9 and that's a fact, probably the new FS version will request DX9.So....it's answered,Ulisses

My experiences with DX 9.0 mirror yours, Mike. It made absolutely no difference on my system (upgraded from 8.2, and 8.1 before that). But, hey, maybe I'll be ready when the new sim hits the streets in a few months.For now this sim works just as well with the DX 8.0 series as with DX 9.0.Regards,

Hi Ulisses,I hope I have not given anyone the impression that updating to DirectX 9.0 is something you should not do. Quite the contrary. In fact, all I am saying is that folk should not feel any anxiety that by updating they will risk ruining or at least degrading the visuals in FS2002. My findings suggest that it is unlikely you will notice any difference. However, if FS2002 is all that matters to you then stick with DX8 until software starts to appear that demands the installation of DX9.I suspect this will all become academic, and quite soon, with the release of the latest version of 3DMark. This will require DX9.Cheers,Mike :-wave

Saw your thread, and Paul's response. I've looked at Paul's analysis at length. It is well done, and so was yours (yours is a great demo of the levels of aniso. filtering).Perhaps it's due to scaling and cropping the pics, but I can't see any profound difference between Paul's DX-8 shots and your DX-9 shots. If anything, they prove the point you're trying to make. I suppose one can argue all day about what and where the differences are. Paul talks about where the 256x256 textures end, but I don't see a big difference, just like I've never been able to perceive significant improvements going from one graphics driver to the next. I think to understand Paul's point, I'd have to see identical shots from his system and yours, from the same altitude, angle, and given the same FS settings.As with everything else, MMV. I haven't upgraded to DX 9, but I do run DX 8.1. I'll install DX 9 once I move forward to FS-9. Don't plan on buying any other entertainment titles between now and then, so nothing should require the upgrade. But having seen your pics, I see no reason why I should worry about DX-9 when the time comes. Your pics (at the lower aniso settings my GeF/2 supports) pretty much mirror my results. Noticed only one difference between DX 8.1 and DX 8.0x. DX 8.1 seemed more fluid. Then again, perhaps it's just an illusion, like that of my car seeming newer when I wash it :) -John

I had some time ago complaints from a CFS3 thread the FS2k2 no longer worked in Multiplayer after installing DX9. Has that issue been tested and resolved for FS2k2?

>Then again, perhaps it's just an illusion, like that of my car seeming newer when I wash it.......nice one, John :-hahCheers!Mike