I experimented with DX10 mode, but ultimately I have returned to DX9. The extra memory available "at the top end" was very useful when flying in a super detailed environment (reduced risk of OOM errors), but there were several problems that annoyed me.....

 

Some of the base image textures of payware airports looked rather "washed out" in DX10 mode.

Some payware airports had "double runway markings", which annoyed the hell out of me.

Addon Converter X solved the problem of mssing AI plane textures, but there were one or two conflicts with important BGL files that I had installed.

 

I may take another look at DX10 mode in the future, but for now I am making certain compromises when flying in super detailed environments.

DX9 plain works. DX10 still has compromises.

 

I use DX9 95% of the time.

DX9 and enjoying a very stable sim.

DX9 only and I can fly both in daylight and in nighttime, to all my favourite addon airports

I've tried all the DX10 fixes and tweaks, but then, in the end, the performance in DX9 is no worse, and, if anything, more consistent. So I'm staying with DX9.

 

The graphics looks better in DX9 to be honest, but I think that may because the tweaks, whilst managing to fix most default graphics issues with DX10, don't really cover all add-on sceneries, and also (not that it matters a great deal to me as I hardly ever look at it), in DX10 mode my own aircraft is all white, completely textureless!

 

Regards

Pete

I echo your post.  In cruising around the Caribbean and such, I found like you, that DX9 gave the best visuals in general. I cut back my LOD to 5.5, and for the most part haven't seen a CTD or OOM in any flight over an hour or so. Keeping LOD back to 5.5 or stock 4.5 seems to be the hinge point and ticket-to-go.

I hope the add-on manufacturers have a peak at this thread. A few are adamant in their position that DX10 preview is crap and refuse to support it (even though their models work, for the most part, in DX10 - not naming any names (Milviz) )

 

 

I agree, it gets real old when a developer gives a copout answer of "it's not viable, or it's only a preview" concerning DX10. I would have more respect if they just man up and say "we strayed outside of the SDK to make some things work and until we can find a way to make it work in DX10, it won't, sorry". Luckily for me, there haven't been to many issues with addons I want and DX10 conflicts.

 

I fly the Caribbean often and photoreal tropical reef waters look amazing in DX10

I echo your post. In cruising around the Caribbean and such, I found like you, that DX9 gave the best visuals in general.

This type of statement keeps cropping up and I don't understand it. My visuals in DX10 are markedly better than DX9, which to me appear kind of grainy and soft by comparison.

I have DX10 because I like the shadows in the cockpit and the water animations are absolutely stunning when real weather is turned on.  Higher FPS too in comparison to DX9 technology.  Here is a list of all of the enhancements from the lead developer of FSX - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/10/02/acceleration-and-sp2.aspx.  I like it too as I can easily switch from DX10 to DX9 without changing any of my graphics or FSX settings.  There were anomalies with the SP2/Acceleration DX10 but most of these anomalies have been fixed by Steve and more are coming.

 

Best regards,

Jim

This type of statement keeps cropping up and I don't understand it. My visuals in DX10 are markedly better than DX9, which to me appear kind of grainy and soft by comparison.

...well, my keyword here, is 'general'.  There are aspects of a DX10 visual, like water-crest sparkle, etc, but for the overall, I still do find DX9  'hassle free' for whatever add-ons I have, etc.  This isn't a dismissal of DX10, but only that with DX9 running the show, you fire it up, and go------------->

 

BTW, while I'm typing,...

 

Seaside Municipal Airport (56S) is a great VFR area of FSX....just pick which direction of coastline you wish to VFR over, and grab a chunk.....very beautiful with FSX cranked right up!  SHADE really shines in adding depth to the mountains along the coastline!

Heading South along the coast at 2700 ft. with ORBX is pretty spectacular scenery. Makes one want to invest in some seaside property....

DX9, I don't have trouble with OOMs or performance, and don't need bloom and shadows so DX9 works good for me B)

If Pete Dowson's staying with DX9, so am I !

 

I've tried DX10 but the main factor for me is that I don't really have any issues with DX9, that moving to DX10 would resolve.     

 

With ATI cards, DX10 had no working vsync (unless that's been addressed?), so while I have a ATI card, it's DX9 all the way, and it's performing pretty much perfectly at the moment.   Never really had issues with OOMs.

DX9 for the next few months then it's off to DX11!

DX9, apsolutely!

 

I also tried all fixes and twekas for DX10, and i didn't saw improvements in comparation with my DX9 settings. In fact, DX10 was not smooth like my DX9. It looks promissing, shame that is left unfinished. And i tried and compared all very carefully

Orbx FTX Global will be DX-10 compatible.

How do I know what I'm using????