Consistent higher-end FPS using DX9a

[Guest]

A short note to report that after having gone to DX9a from DX8.1, that I am getting top performance from my 16 FPS limited FS2002. I was concerned with using DX9a at first after having seen (what I thought was) a slower rotational speed of the test cube spin. But, funny as this is, that aside, my FPS pretty much now stay at 15.8.I have no 'reasons' to offer as to why my FPS performance DID increase and maintain.I maintain and groom my files all the time, so that discounts that the mere 'new' install of the DX files prompted the performance boost.There is the big hullabaloo about whether ANY new version of DX beyond what the program originally called for would show any performance improvement. I can only report what I have found after having used the new DX9a version for a number of days.In my case? There is a major improvement. Where, under DX8.1, my frame rates would dip to the 12's depending on what was happening in the sim, the FPS as stated above pretty much stay for the better part ((under DX9a) at the reported average of 15.8 FPS. Again, I have the sim capped off at 16 FPS. Use this information as you will. Cheers!Mitch R.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Hey Mitch...Good post... Just curious, what are your system specs, and what scenario is used for the 16fps? I'd like a good benchmark to measure my system and upgrade against. Only thing keeping me from the DX upgrade at this point is bandwidth...it's one heck of a DL on dial-up...-John

[Guest]

Hi John!My present system is:Green Machine 1.4 Ghz CPU (Tuluatin Core)Abit BM6 MOBOGeForce 2 (32 meg) Video CardLive (Value) set to STANDARD ACCEL. (THIS TAKES CARE OF ANY SOUND PROBLEMS) Just one notch below FULL512 Megs of PC-133 RAMNothing at all exotic, John.----------------------------------------------Like you, I remained with DX8.1 because I did not want to SCREW AROUND with a DX version that worked flawlessly.Curiosity got the better part of me...and I downloaded and installed DX9a. I went through the DX test masks to make sure all was in order. I observed the CUBE SPIN test animation under all three parameters on the VIDEO page and after putting sound accel to STANDARD---then holding my breath..lol...I fired up FS2002.Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! It was a GREAT MOVE! As said, I have the sim with everything full bore over to the right with the only exceptions of ground object and plane shadows turned off. I run at 1024X768 rez. On ATC, I run with the IFR ONLY check box ticked, but at the full 100 percent.With a you-know-what-load of of AI operating out of and into my virtual world, it pretty much no longer matters if I am at taxi, landing on final, or taking off. I pretty much stay at 15.8 FPS for any situation in or out of the cockpit.Before, with running DX8.1, I'd get the dips to the 12's. under some graphic load conditions Under both versions of DX, I get/got smooth animation.Nobody....can tell me that you don't get a boost by running under the latest official DX9a release! Well..I guess that I should modify that...if they have a system similar to mine or better in the spec department---they sure as heck will!!! The proof is in the sim on the screen before me, ---on final approach down to the numbers and not some BENCHMARK score. My view anyway. 15.8 (16 capped in Hardware) FPS give me no reason to upgrade my system in order to simulate taxi, take-off, cruise, and landing. I'm one happy camper since throwing in DX9a. All aspects of flight have smooth and life-like animation--and THAT is the Holy Grail. You can put the cup down after that...:)I suggest you go for it. Just make sure that it is the latest official release off of the M.S. DX website.One final note..as per my original post, it appears that the TEST SPIN of the cube is slower in animation than spinning under 8.1 BUT...but...perhaps there are more processes going on? No matter---the proof is in the sim, and not on the DX test and diagnose mask.Cheers!Mitch R.

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I was under the impression that Squawk Box and DX 9.x is a nogo. Have you guys, or anyone else, tried VATSIM using DX 9.x?

[Guest Jaaky]

Took the step... installing was a breeze...On first looks, I gained in general about 3 fps :-walksmile P4-1.8 Ghz - Geforce Titanium 4600 - Driver: 40.72

[Guest]

Yep...that was my experience also.Told ya...lol:)Cheers!Mitch R.

[Guest]

I haven't. Sorry.Cheers!Mitch R.

[Guest]

I'm using Nvidia's official 43.45 driver from off their site, and that I'm running Windows 98 SE with all updates in place.Mitch R.

[Guest]

No problem running DX9.0A with VATSIM.

[Guest flightpro08]

I am also report that DirectX 9.0a works just fine with VATSIM and Squawkbox. Actually, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as over the course of the past year, I've used DirectX 8.0, 8.1, 8.1a, 9.0, and 9.0a and have never had a single problem with VATSIM or SB.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Testerhttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 42.86 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

[Guest]

Also I wanted to point out that Windows XP does not use your processers L2 cache.To correct this, open regedit by clicking on the start menu and going into "Run" and typing: REGEDITBrowse to here:My Computerhkey_local_machinesystemCurrentControlSetcontrolsession managermemory managementOn the right you will see then on the right there is SecondLevelDataCache. Double click on this and on the right in that window there is "Base". Select decimal. Enter your processer cache value; IE. A Pentium 4 2.8Ghz is "512" cache.Use this at your own risk! I will not be held responsible for anything that goes wrong. This worked fine for me and even increased FS2002 performance.

[Guest PaulL01]

Mitch said:>

[brucek 38]

Is this actually true?I'm not disputing this tip, but why would XP be programmed to ignore the cache memory, I wonder? Isn't this considerably faster than accessing main memory? Is this a bug in XP? I'd be interested in any thoughts on this. And a great tip, if indeed I understand correctly what you are saying.Bruce.

[Guest]

Search the Internet like I did.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I am curious Paul...I've seen a great change in the way you communicate your ideas in the forum in recent weeks. Even yesterday, you ignored a comment I made about one of your previous threads so you could post a "you miss the point" response, even though I quite clearly stated my point.What it comes down to is you are not the only sim guru on the forum. Certainly, not an elected "defender of the faith." What you are is someone I respect highly, and someone who has made posts which I feel have contributed highly to understanding of the sim. Posts like this, even if I tend to agree with them, do not, because they shut people down cold. That's how other forums choose to play things out, but I always thought members of this site had risen above that.And sadly, MS may be fueling this whole debate, as their own blurb on DX 9.0a cites better framerates. I still haven't taken the plunge, and likely won't until after I upgrade my system later this year. But I admit I made a mistake by barging in to one of these DX threads recently, and trying to debunk someone's evaluation of the upgrade. Truth is--it is none of my business whether someone perceives DirectX as being better, or whether it truly is. I, and no one here, have been selected as judge and jury. So, with my rant over, next time just suggest the old adage: YMMV....Regards,John