Sign in to follow this  
Guest hefy_jefy

Direct X 9.a out again and good preformance increase!

Recommended Posts

Here's the link http://www.microsoft.com/windows/directx/ I have now seen my first 100 + FPS ever in FS!! Now this happened with the default 172 on climb BUT I still never seen anything that high before. I have all sliders on high except VIS @ 60 miles and no shadows on. Interested in anyone else has seen such an increase in preformance?Best Wishes, Randy J. Smith[h5]San Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD XP 2100 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Share this post


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

Well, I don't know about 100fps. I downloaded 9.0a last week after I had experienced several FS crashes. Turned out not to be DirectX related and I had to reinstall FS2k2. Before 9.0a I was in the low to mid 30s on fps before and I'm still there. I've never seen anything over 38 yet but that's with 3rd party panels, scenery, etc. All my sliders are maxxed out and I've got every thing running AA, Multi-textures, aircraft & ground shadows, etc. But, bottom line is DirectX 9.0a is pretty stable and runs great.Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy,Thanks for the information on DirectX 9.0a. I have the previous version(9.0). I presume that to install this new version I just have to run the exe. Can you confirm please??Thanks!!Edmundo---------http://pwp.netcabo.pt/ega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note here, there was one released a week ago or so and Microsft pulled it but now have re-released it. I also used that previous one and there is a difference on my machine. Download the installer and it will download the files needed and install.Best Wishes, Randy J. Smith[h5]San Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the DirectX 9.0a Install is a web installer. The download was pretty small, 291KB, Any idea how big the download is when you run the installer and it connects to the web to pull down all the components? Thanks,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the problems with the original DX9, have you tried this latest with both MP sessions and Vatsim Randy?Rgds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, what driver are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I'll try soon but I'll wait till somewhere hosted a complete downloaded version. I hate to install via a web installer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The installer interrogates your system and downloads and installs only the appropriate files - the d/l is anywhere between about 8 meg and over 30 meg. It all depends on where your starting from.ChasW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey to allBEFORE install DirectX make a system restorepoint in XP or ME.If you don't like your install you can go back to your old system point.Jan EHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"DirectX 9.0a End-user Runtime Content Updated: March 28, 2003"This was copied straight from the MS-DX9.0a page.After playing around with DX9.0a on three (3) systems (I get to play when the boss is away): 2 identical HW/SW; the other with a different video card, but all with latest BIOS and video drivers, I saw no difference.Quake and 3D-Mark detected none either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crvm,What graphic card do you use?Nevermind, I see it now on your posting signature. Sorry.Thanks.J. BirchCFI,CFII,MEIMobile, ALwww.clearedasfiled.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you're not running any AA or anything like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No LOL not with an original GF3 card at least! At 1280x1024 you really don't need AA, well at least I don't. AA and shadows kill your frame rates and I want the smoothest FPS possible with good screen quality and this setup does that for me. Just look at shot one and tell me if you see any jaggies?Best Wishes, Randy J. Smith[h5]San Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not really, but then again IQ isn't too great either. Any aniso filtering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 100fps is great, if breaking the fps record is of interest. But that shot is almost entirely sky. Is 100fps under that scenario worth noting? What improvement did you note in more typical scenarios? I side with others who suggest upgrading DX only if you have a program and graphics card that exploits or requires the newer features... FPS reports are highly subjective, and the one shot shows....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense meant to anyone here with good intentions but just a few "facts" so as not to waist a lot of folks time ...and just so this doesn't turn into a flame war I will not respond to any fire...1.MS pulled the original DX9.0a within 24hrs of its being posted mainly due to some incompatibility issues with ATI Catalyst 03.1 drivers...MS posted a "fixed" DX9.0a within 48hrs of the first posted version.2. DX9.0a corrected some issues that caused MS messenger to malfunction when DX9.0 was installed as well as a few multiplayer problems and a few minor bugs.3.If you find a measurable increase in FPS in ANY non-DX9 game such as our beloved MSFS it is most likely due to a previously bad/corrupted DX or Video driver installation.4.As is widely known throughout the whole gaming industry DX9.xx will not in any shape or form give any measurable increases to FPS in any DX7-8 game, in fact in a number of systems that first posted results of testing DX9.0a (both versions) there was a measurable decline (3-5%)in FPS scores in the most popular DX based benchmarks regardless of hardware or proper DX9 drivers.You can find a zillion 3dmark type benchmarks comparing different video card driver versions posted on the Web but you will be hard pressed to find any comparing DX versions...the reasons should be obvious. 5.Does this mean there is no benefit to DX9.0a upgrade for FS users? At the present time there seems to be no benefit to be gained other than the aforementioned multiplayer issue.Be that as it may I have not herd of any real harm by installing DX9.0a (personal nit picky graphic issues aside) but would recommend you wait to upgrade until you have to (FS2k4 :)) as that will allow more time for any remaining issues to be dealt with.Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, skeptic at first, have a significant improvement following these instructions and I am running Airport 2002 Vol. 1 from Wilco. Although, after installing Wilco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been running FS for many years now and do know when something effects it's preformance. Now there are a lot of posts here stating that this really is not the case etc but be that as it may I have changed only directx and do see an increase. I just posted the default cessna to show this is so because I use it often and had never seen such high frame rates while climbing, granted it's all sky but even the spot view shows 50+ FPS. So all I can say is that it has worked for me.Best Wishes, Randy J. Smith[h5]San Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Randy,I don't doubt that you see an improvement in performance, but I also noticed some oddities in FS behaviour. You want to see fps in the 100+ region? No problem on my 1GHz computer - but only available on one plane, and in VC mode (and obviously in cruise with not much scenery to speak of). FPS in VC mode are usually slightly better than in 2D cockpit (although the gauge refresh rate is something completely different), but this phenomenon is puzzling. I can't get fps like that in the default Cessna in any view (the maximum is somewhere between 50 and 60, looking straight at the sky). Oh yes, the plane to do it in? The PSS Airbus! I'd be happy to post screenshots of this phenomenon, but remember - it works only in VC mode, otherwise I get more conservative average fps of 20 or so.I don't think PSS have suddenly stumbled upon the ultimate frame rate optimizer and not let anyone know about it, and I also don't think my system REALLY gives me 120fps or so - my conclusion is that there is some bug in the frame rate counter itself.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello RandyJust an aside from your theme.The frame rate question continues but have you not noticed the distortion on your C172 panel - to me this is very upsetting to the eye and due to your using an incorrect screen aspect ratio! Note how in your later SM260 panel there is no distortion.1280/1024 = 1.25 to 1 incorrect1600/1200 = 1.33 to 1 correctI do feel this should be made clear to all and elliptical gauges killed off for ever.ken ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all.Although it is very subjective, I seem to have also gotten an increase in framerates. I have a Radeon 9500 Pro card, that already gave me very good framerates, but there does seem to be 10-15% increase.Regarding upgrading to DirectX9. It is foolish to assume upgrading from 8.0 to 9.0 is of no benefit. 9.0 contains every fix to the problems of all previous versions of DX. In fact, DX9 contains DX7 and DX8. DX8 is not written in stone, and may be upgraded with releases of DX9 and DX10....You also can't assume identical version numbers indicates the dlls are unchanged.MS sometimes does change programs and dlls without changing version numbers. They have done this with the BGLC compiler, with TMFViewer, and BGLPlacer, as some scenery designers have found. Another question arises here:If there is no graphical elements changed ( identical version numbers ), then why is the new version now working with the Catalyst 3.1's? Obviously they did change something graphical. And obviously they did not change the version numbers.The Directx 9.0a is stable and I haven't heard of a single instance of it interfering with FS. Testimonials, subjective as they may be, are that it is an improvement. By using a restore point ( you are using XP aren't you? ), you can return to the ancient glory of 8.1 if desired.Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post Dick...Your vote goes a long way towards making me feel that this upgrade may be worthwhile for many. I do dispute some of the screenshots like those shown, since posting a shot of sky @ 100fps, or a shot of ground at 50fps, doesn't provide any frame of reference. There were no "before" shots. I'm actually somewhat curious (and this isn't related to the theme of the thread), that on a system more than twice as fast as mine, the fps isn't. This really makes me curious as to whether there is a law of diminishing returns w/cpu speed.Anyway, I seriously doubt that on my ancient system, DX 9 will give it much of a boost. I'm shopping around for a P4 MB and CPU, and plan on upgrading my system close to the release of FS2004.... By then, I hope to reap the benefits FS2004 may offer.... I doubt, based on MS's past history, that a P3/800 will be able to do anything with FS2004....

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