I don't know if this is too much to ask, but I was wondering if anyone running dx10 would have the time to post a bit of a "comparison/review" between dx9 and dx10 with some screenshots, FPS/performance/smoothness comparisons running the same FSX settings and similar AA/AF settings.

 

I think it would be a great insight to people to have a one stop shop to just get an indication of the actual differences being seen. I for one would appreciate it.

 

Cheers!

this comparison is good one for graphics. the performance will be boosted a little in dx10 (some say otherwise)

Good question ant_1984. I see very little that makes the effort worthwhile.

 

Frank

Thanks for the comparison, I have seen videos like that and possibly that exact one before, but all it really shows is that the water looks marginally better.

 

That's why I think a good comparison with some decent comparison screenshots would be beneficial to see both the graphical difference and performance improvement.

 

From what I can tell there seems to be a pretty minimal (if any) performance improvement but still a lot of bugs.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but it would be great if someone could post a comparison review, even if it's just a brief one.

I think it depends on what base you start from. If running a pretty high end rig then DX9 is going to be pretty good anyway. On the other hand if, like me, with only a basic i7 @ 2.65 and an old nVidia GTX 285 then going to DX10 has made an big difference, mainly in frame rates. DX10 worked first time when I tried it so I wasn't put off by having to try all sorts of things unlike Frank. Shader3 fix and ACX 'almost' fixed all else and find my graphics are sharper, water detail is better ( no extras added!) I have all the UK and Ireland in Genx/ PlayHorizon photoscenery plus treescapes autogen so that hits quite heavy with all my AI stuff. Personally with how DX10 is now I much prefer it.

@ Jonahbird:

You need to get it going first, Frank, and then spend some time using it, reading and following the many other posts and recommendations here, before you can make that statement.

 

@ Anthony:

Comparing two videos with identical settings isn't going to show the difference, except where the graphics technology is improved - as with the water bump-mapping.

 

The major difference is that DX9 will not yield the concurrent, high, smooth fps with settings that DX10 makes possible; i.e. 29-30 smooth fps at heavy weather with high traffic and high detail. Even as frames reduce somewhat in heavy scenery areas - the sim remains smooth. Bloom is now possible: all shadowing and lens effects can now be selected. Mesh resolution at 2m and texture resolution at 7cm is now possible. One cannot use these loading increases using DX9 without bring the sim to it's knees.

There is a heightened "feel" of "solidity" (if there's such a word) about the DX10. Also - it appears that memory management may be somehow changed, as there are postings here which claim no OOM errors in areas that previously were guaranteed to end with an OOM error.

 

This is a different sim, and sufficient folks are having success with it, to suggest that it can replace the DX9 version of FSX. Agreed - there are one or two glitches, such as the lighting system (which is also flawed in DX9) and the night textures at some airports, generally where there has been non-compliance with the FSX SDK.

 

Check out the hundreds of pics I've posted in this forum.

 

DX10 user - and loving it! :smile:

@PaulJ

 

I feel its important to mention that with regard to FPS and DX10 the improvements appear to only be related to nVidia cards as on my ATI card (which is nothing special) I have not experienced any improvement in FPS with DX10 compared to DX9. I have carried out many tests in this regard and would love to hear of anyone's experiences to the contrary that is running DX10 with ATI.

 

Therefore, any comparison that may take place should only occur once the settings for both Card types and configs have been fixed.

Hi Darkstar:

 

So you're implying that if one increases the load, say adds 30 GA + 20 Road on top of an already-loaded 30 AI, the frame rate will drop when using an ATI GPU? I wasn't aware that ATI GPU's had any issue other than vsync.

It's worth noting that texture shimmering seemed to be worse in the DX10 window in that comparison video posted in this thread...

Hi Darkstar:

 

So you're implying that if one increases the load, say adds 30 GA + 20 Road on top of an already-loaded 30 AI, the frame rate will drop when using an ATI GPU? I wasn't aware that ATI GPU's had any issue other than vsync.

 

Paul, not implying that at all. I'm only going by my own experience. I have GA=0 Road at 7 and AI at 36

 

When I carries out my tests I Kept all the settings the same apart from the config. In DX9 I leave usepools=0 in dx10 I have settings that give me no flashing squares etc and I've not had any vsync issues. My frame rates remained totally unchanged between DX9 and 10 so no drop and no increase with one monitor Also I did the same comparison in Eyefinity (spread over 3 monitors) with the same results. So all I'm saying, is that for me in an ATI card I've not experienced any benefit in FPS. Graphically, of course theirs a difference. So I'm interested in anyone that has benefits from extra FPS using an ATI card and what settings have they used. Hope that explains it.

 

Bri

PaulJ

 

I cannot install it on my setup - I've just tried again. I know you run 3 screens in surround mode, but that produces just one wide graphic of FSX. All 3 monitors need to be the same type and resolution. My setup uses 3 different types and 3 different resolutions and I can only make DX10 work if I disconnect 2 of the screens.

 

So I cannot prove or disprove the benefits you are enjoying, which makes my comment above invalid for the 'single' monitor audience.

 

Sorry if I have offended you.

 

Frank

Unfortunately the video did not show any of the cockpits. The sun and the shadows inside the cockpit/cabin is the major difference. You cannot get that with DX9.

 

Best regards,

Jim

No offence taken Frank - a written forum has none of the facets needed for good communication, and it's all to easy to take offence through misunderstanding - and to give offence by wrong choice of words! One needs facial expression, tone, context, and all kinds of other pieces - that must be correct and appropriate in order for "the right things" to happen! :friends:

 

I would honestly be surprised that 3 monitors of differing resolutions could be made to work with any version of the sim - let alone DX10! How is yours set up?

I use 2 monitors with DX10. Main one widescreen Dell digital 1680 x 1050, second Samsung SyncMaster analogue 1280 x 1024 (both native res)

PaulJ

 

You are right - it is easy to offend - arm waving or not. You should be surprised then (or not) -

 

I get excellent performance in all respects. I have been using MSFS for 20 years and have tried most known ways of imaging. Triple screening - projection - and most recently the best to date - reverting to single screening with a 30" Dell (16:10) and Track IR.

 

Powerful high spec kit and FSX is the best simulation I know. The recent early demise of the excellent, but limited, MSFlight has been a great disappointment. X-Plane is getting there - slowly.

 

When you talk of 3 monitors and the need for matching resolutions you are tallking about surround mode, whatever method is used to achieve that. I do not use that any more.

 

Regards

Frank