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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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....

[Guest PaulL01]

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

[Guest]

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

[crvm 0]

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"

[gosta 0]

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

[kennelly 0]

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

[rhumbaflappy 113]

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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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....

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Gosta....Have you checked your vsynch settings?-John

[gosta 0]

Hi John,it's on 'application preference'. How would that affect fps or the frame rate counter?Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

If vsynch was enabled, the graphics card will synch up fps with the refresh rate, maxing out at the limit of the refresh rate--so if your refresh rate was 75hz, your max fps with vsynch enabled would be 75fps. That's probably a less technical explanation than some would offer. The purpose of vsynch is to reduce visual anomalies in 3-d apps. I've never seen any, and have had vsynch off. In 2k2, even on my '800 there's been some odd places where I've exceeded 100fps, but there's nothing but sky to look at. The best I can usually do, at altitude in a rural area with the ground taking up at least 50pct of the screen, is around 35-40fps. Most times I keep the fps locked lower, as a flight in an urban area can cause such fluctuations in fps, that it is quite noticeable. I've seen fps fall from 40 to 15 in a hearbeat, such as after takeoff from LAX. Since that takeoff is usually over the ocean (due to the westerlies), the fps tend to be quite good, until I do a 180 and turn east....then as expected, they fall off when LAX's detailed airport comes into view. By keeping my lock at 25, it isn't as big of an issue. I'd be really curious to hear from someone with a slower system, whether DX-9 has given measurable improvement in 2k2....-John

[gosta 0]

Hi John,thanks for the explanation. I guess in the case of FS, 'application preference' means that VSynch is off, as my monitor refresh rate is 75Hz, but yet I still get 100+ fps in that one plane. The weird thing is that I can't reproduce it with any other plane, not even the much less complex default Cessna - I may get around 60-70 over water with only sky to look at, but nothing near the 120 or so I get in the Airbus VC.As far as improvementswith the new DX9.a goes, I haven't noticed anything, but I still have the version istalled that came out a week ago or so. I can try the new version (if it is indeed different), and see if there's a difference in performance.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest PaulL01]

Hi Dick,>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. Seem to and really have are two very different things, DX upgrades are not subjective at all, it is a plane fact Dick, DX upgrades since DX6.0 have never ever been a FPS performance booster in any game that required a previous version. Never. Enabler Yes, Stereo and 3D sound "Performance" Yes, Visual performance Yes,..FPS performance NO. >Regarding upgrading to DirectX9. It is foolish to assume >upgrading from 8.0 to 9.0 is of no benefit. True Dick, and a very good point. If you are running DX8.0 by all means DX8.1/9.0/9.0a will help a few visual anomalies in some DX games as well as the multiplayer problem. >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: Not sure what the point here is Dick.??? True DX8 to 8.1 included a newer pixel shader language and DX9 includes an upgrade to that as well as new vertex language, however to take advantage of that new code would have to be written for FS, it wasn't and for any other DX game based on the old language there is no advantage, no performance boost. >If there is no graphical elements changed ( identical >version numbers ), then why is the new version now working >with the Catalyst 3.1's? And this affects DX7-8 games how??? This was an incompatibility issue with a popular driver to enable hardware to pass instructions nothing more, MS have forwarded that those using the earlier DX9.0a version with Cat 3.2's will not need the "newer" version.>Obviously they did change something graphical. Incorect, nothing graphical has changed.>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 Back to the subject of FPS performance, If you could get even a 5% increase in FPS (about equal to a decent CPU upgrade of say Xp1700 to a XP2100) Don

[Guest]

I have used DirectX9 since very early beta days, through several beta variants, and I can confirm that what Paul says is absolutely true - DX9.0a cannot contribute anything to increased frame rates in a game designed for DirectX7 (that's FS2002. A Dx7 game, not 8.0, not 8.1 or 9 anything. It's 7).However, the installation of a newer version of DX often corrects minor file corruptions and other small anomalies in the operating system, and this can improve things.So everyone is right. DX9.0a cannot improve performance but the installation of DX9.0a might.The point and counter point is moot, anyway. FS2004 will ship with DX9-something, so you either install it now, or you install it in July. The next generation of video cards will also have features optimised for DX9.x so you will have to upgrade at some point. So why not do it now as part of a general file cleaning and update? If you're using Win XP create a system restore point and install it - you can always go back if it causes any problems. Then visit Windows Update and make sure all your drivers and system files are up-to-date and your system will be in better shape to deal with whatever a sim package throws at it. ChasW

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"so you either install it now, or you install it in July....."I agree--that's sound advice. Better to get it over with, and get the kinks worked out. Else, envision spending several weeks listening to everyone else brag about '2004, while stuck getting a system up to snuff...