in the [GRAPHICS] section, there are two undocumented switches:ALLOW_SHADER_20ALLOW_SHADER_30by default, allow shader 2 is set to 1, while allow_shader_30 is set to 0I tried reverting it, so my FSX will be Shader 3 only... what would be the downside to this? (I haven't seen any) thats why i'm asking... anybody?

in the [GRAPHICS] section, there are two undocumented switches:ALLOW_SHADER_20ALLOW_SHADER_30by default, allow shader 2 is set to 1, while allow_shader_30 is set to 0I tried reverting it, so my FSX will be Shader 3 only... what would be the downside to this? (I haven't seen any) thats why i'm asking... anybody?

Take a look in the display.cfgThese where/are switches for backward compatibility for older graphic cards that could not support various shader models, from DX8 - thru DX9b if I recall those correctly.Just take a look at what card was set to swtch 10/20/30 etc and you'll see the patternEdit: I think you can use those to turn off blocks of shaders that relates to the above

These where/are switches for backward compatibility for older graphic cards that could not support various shader models, from DX8 - thru DX9b if I recall those correctly.

I guess my question was more like: why is ALLOW_SHADERS_30=0 ?? it is effectively NOT USING shaders 3.0 you can test yourself and see...

I guess my question was more like: why is ALLOW_SHADERS_30=0 ?? it is effectively NOT USING shaders 3.0 you can test yourself and see...

Will have to look it up, but DX9C was SM3.0 and DX10 SM4.0 no?Anyway, I dont know if shaders 20 means SM2.0 or if it was just coincedence

... you can test yourself and see...

*******,I'm not at home so I can't test that setting right now but what do you see ?

*******,I'm not at home so I can't test that setting right now but what do you see ?

Jean Paul,Leaving ONLY the line ALLOW_SHADER_20 and setting it to 0 will show scenery buildings with little or no textures. So I tried setting ALLOW_SHADER_30=1 (and leaving ALLOW_SHADER_20 to 0) to see what happened reloaded, flushed the shader cache and got the textures back... initially, there doesn't seem to be any performance gain whatsoever, but visually it (appears) like colors are more vibrant (but could be placebo) and (at night for example) I didn't see lights flashing when inside the clouds... don't know exactly what this is... in fact, I don't know why ALLOW_SHADER_30 is set to 0 by default! doesn't make sense... shaders 3.0 are a bit faster than 2, even though I don't perceive any performance improvement at all... it definitely needs more testing, so I'm sharing to see what others can make out of it and help with some testing.EDIT: The only noticeable 'change' I saw, was when I modified the bloom.fx file to compile with ps_30 and vs_30 (right now that file is set to compile with shader2) I just modified the EffectPerfLevel_MaxShader20 29 to the EffectPerfLevel_MaxShader30 39 value plus I updated the compile functions with vs_30 and ps_30 I noticed a 2 FPS increase when using bloom.. however, I don't use/like bloom.. was doing only for testing purposes...but even MORE weird.. is that pretty much ALL shader files in ShadersHLSL are:#define EffectPerfLevel_MaxShader20 29PixelShader = compile ps_2_0 XYZ();instead of:#define EffectPerfLevel_MaxShader30 39PixelShader = compile ps_3_0 XYZ();as if FSX was 'limited' (for backward compatibility reasons maybe) to SM2 only :( I would test during the weekend to see that the impact is chaning all compile functions and perflevel to compile with shader 3 to see... sounds interesting :) don't know what the impact might be when changing the entire ShaderHLSL folder to be Full SM3.0 compliant :)Even something like swarmcloud.fx is set to compile ps_1_1!! what would be the impact of having pretty much everthing compile ps_3_0 and vs_3_0?? and having the fsx.cfg value with ALLOW_SHADER_30=1 and ALLOW_SHADER_20=0?? big mistery :) but I'll test... eventually.In swarmcloud.fx just changed the compile functions from SM1.1 to 3.0... those clouds look like anything I've ever seen ;) its unbeliavable!!I would love if anyone can test and confirm...Here are the shots... Shader 3.0 vs Shader 1.1 clouds, the ONLY thing I did was change the compile function in swarmcloud.fx!! and recompile the shaders!!

It is important to remember that FS was a group endeavour and therefore full of the conflicting opinions and desires of the different developers. There was, more than likely, a lot of politics in the meetings and a lot of conflict concerning features, methods, and techniques. Perhaps there had been some desire to include SM3 compatibility in the game, but that this was ultimately defeated in one of those noisy meetings. There are many other instances of things left undone or done differently in FS; the shader model is not the only one.Best regards.Luis

Thanks *******. Those screenshots look very promising indeed !

the ONLY thing I did was change the compile function in swarmcloud.fx!! and recompile the shaders!!

Could you tell us how to do this if it is not too complicated so that we can test it as well?I must say that I am very impressed by your perseverance. :( and I (as probably many others) will follow this thread with great interest.

Yes, *******, would you be so kind to post the changes necessary to obtain the look in screenshot 1? I hate the way it looks in screenshot 2 and this seems to offer an answer.Thanks!

Thanks *******. Those screenshots look very promising indeed ! Could you tell us how to do this if it is not too complicated so that we can test it as well?I must say that I am very impressed by your perseverance. :( and I (as probably many others) will follow this thread with great interest.

it is actually very simple... in the shader files, when a shader function needs to be compiled, you see lines lines this:

#compile ps_1_1 FUNCTION#compiple vs_1_1 FUNCTION

the ps (pixel shader) the vs is (Vertex shader) and next to it the version (which can be 1.1, 2.0 or 3.0) in the previous example it is 1_1So simply open the file swarmcloud.fx and go toward the end of the file, and look at it closely. You'll see the compile functions there, simply change them from 1_1 to 3_0Remember, doing the above will not be enough, you'll have to 'rebuild' the shader cache, to do that you can do this simply steps:REMOVE the two lines in fsx.cfg that say:SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=xxxxxxxand start the sim (it the above is not enough, probaly you'll need to wipe the shader cache manually, which I'm pretty sure you guys know where to find)I tried also modifying other files (such as terrain and water) they compile fine, but I get unwanted effects (such as) exaggerated reflections in water of EVERYTHING including bridges... yes, they look pretty, but there is some 'wrong' information about the reflections. this need further testing, but as I said, it is very time consuming and there is NO performance increase at all that I can see.. only visual changes.

I (as probably many others) will follow this thread with great interest.

This is all experimental... there is no perceived 'performance gain' and the visual changes will depend on your 'taste' an overcast with Shader Model 3.0 looks impressive, but cloulds look a little bit overdone (and they have like black/gray spots) I guess it is better to test more.. I'm also using REX2 with the 1024 texture clouds.

Yes, *******, would you be so kind to post the changes necessary to obtain the look in screenshot 1? I hate the way it looks in screenshot 2 and this seems to

You don't need 'any' because screenshot 1 is using SM 1.1 (default) and Screenshot 2 uses SM 3.0in SM 3.0 clouds look 'puffier' they blend nicely with the horizon.. but its a matter of TASTE.. probably the decision to keep 1_1 was because the team liked those clouds more :)

This is all experimental... there is no perceived 'performance gain' and the visual changes will depend on your 'taste' an overcast with Shader Model 3.0 looks impressive, but cloulds look a little bit overdone (and they have like black/gray spots) I guess it is better to test more.. I'm also using REX2 with the 1024 texture clouds.

Why expect to see more performance going forword to newer SM?SM progression had more available instructions for developers to use 96 in 2.0 and up into the thousands in 3.0, and ultimatly more and more programable and not necessarily more efficient either, until SM4.0 which is one of the reasons why we can run FS9 or run the old 3Dmark2001 bench pegged at high FPS with the latest hardware, simple SM instruction. If you want to improve performace wouldn't you go the other way, dumming it down?Old tweaks some use to use included disabling shader models by using the graphic card info from older cards and re-entering that info with a device pointer to their GPU resulting in higher performance - and lower image quality here and there.

You don't need 'any' because screenshot 1 is using SM 1.1 (default) and Screenshot 2 uses SM 3.0in SM 3.0 clouds look 'puffier' they blend nicely with the horizon.. but its a matter of TASTE.. probably the decision to keep 1_1 was because the team liked those clouds more :)

Fair enough, since you wrote Shader M 3 vs 1 I thought the order of the screenies was that. Could you post them anyway please? I'd like to give it a shot and see how it looks on my system.

Why expect to see more performance going forword to newer SM?

nVidia and ATI perform regular driver optimizations, in most cases they focus this optimizations on the newer SM, 3 & 4... why would nVidia be worried about optimizing 1.1 or 2? anyway.. there is NO increase at all, the only changes I see are purely visual...