My DX10 Preview mode works just fine, but it is not a full DX10 mode and it never will be a full DX10 mode, no matter what. It doesn't matter what developers do, use, or say, you will still be using a Preview Mode, NAMED THAT BY ACES THEMSELVES.

 

 

My DX10 Preview mode works just fine, but it is not a full DX10 mode and it never will be a full DX10 mode, no matter what. It doesn't matter what developers do, use, or say, you will still be using a Preview Mode, NAMED THAT BY ACES THEMSELVES.

 

It's me that's not expressing myself clearly enough ? It must be..

 

Reguarless of what they "Labelled it" the "Preview Mode" OBVIOUSLY meant that ACES wasn't completely finished with the process of making FSX work *correctly* WITH DX10, but it was surely USING DX10. With the new fixes applied, it is surely USING DX10 reguarless of weather they labelled it a "preview" or not.

As usual the right hand doesn't know what the left hand was doing.

As usual the right hand doesn't know what the left hand was doing.

 

More like both hands always know what they are doing, and always expect a smart reply to compesate for the obvious usage of the user's hands that completely don't know what they are doing.

But this is what I thought of: Post #178

Perfect! Exactly what I was looking for. Interesting reading that thread, isn't it?

 

Hook

It's me that's not expressing myself clearly enough ? It must be..

 

Reguarless of what they "Labelled it" the "Preview Mode" OBVIOUSLY meant that ACES wasn't completely finished with the process of making FSX work *correctly* WITH DX10, but it was surely USING DX10. With the new fixes applied, it is surely USING DX10 reguarless of weather they labelled it a "preview" or not.

If someone put you in the driver's seat of a fully supercharged Ferrari and let you drive it around the block BUT never connected the supercharger, you COULD say you drove a Ferrari. Same with DX10 preview - it is a LIMITED example of what FSX might look like with a full implementation of DX10 - but the code for that implementation is NOT THERE and no amount of tweaking or praying is going to put it there. You are ALWAYS running the DX10 "preview" and NOT the full blown DX10. But if you like it - stay with it - but it is STILL the preview.

 

Vic

it is a LIMITED example of what FSX might look like with a full implementation of DX10

 

That makes absolutely no sense, you are really saying 2 opposite things in the same sentence really..

 

but the code for that implementation is NOT THERE and no amount of tweaking or praying is going to put it there

 

If the code for the implimentation wasn't there, FSX would simply crash, or the check box in FSX would do absolutely nothing.

 

 You are ALWAYS running the DX10 "preview" and NOT the full blown DX10.

 

I didn't know DirectX released a V10 "Preview" before releasing actual DX10.

 

You are ALWAYS running the DX10 "preview" and NOT the full blown DX10. But if you like it - stay with it - but it is STILL the preview.

 

By PREVIEW, ACES was MEANING it was still in the process of updating TEXTURES and SHADERS to work *CORRECTLY* with Dx10.

 

Not that it for some reason it wasn't DX10 in the first place, that would be nonsense, and loose the ENTIRE functionality of how DX10 works.

Vic,

 

Give it up because it's obvious that ACES had no idea what they were doing or saying. It's a good thing that direct support from MS is finished for FSX.

 

Wonder if the old ACES blogs are still up?

Give it up because it's obvious that ACES had no idea what they were doing or saying. It's a good thing that direct support from MS is finished for FSX.

 

It's fairly obvious that you don't have any idea what your doing or saying, saying this from someone who has worked for Microsoft since FSX came out, and with your logic, ACES somehow only implimented a "part" of DX10 into FSX.

 

 

I went looking but it's hidden very well. I know it exists, because I've deleted it before.

 

It's in the User\(your user name)\AppData\Local\Microsoft\FSX.  It will be rebuilt when deleted.  But I don't think that's the problem.  I think it's more eye-candy you throw into a flight.  For instance I might fly with just the PMDG 737 and an addon scenery for a while and no weather and things work great for a while.  Then I might throw in weather and a more graphic intensive scenery and the CTD's begin.  I have since moved my LOD_radius to 6.5 and Texture_Max_Load to 2048 and I have not seen a crash for a long time.

 

 

 

Wonder if the old ACES blogs are still up?

 

I think most of them are Jim.  I know Phil Taylor's is still there - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/ and I frequent there occasionally.

 

Best regards,

Jim

<snip>

Wonder if the old ACES blogs are still up?

Yes, blogs are still up.

 

Do you even know why ACES labeled DX10 a "preview"?

 

I quote Phil Taylor. Among other things in his blog, he wrote:

<snip>

Because of these two issues, we are labeling the DX10 support a “preview” in the UI.

<snip>

And the lack of FSX-SP1 level backwards compatibility is the key reason why what we decided to label the FSX-DX10 work “preview”.

 

I'm a DX10  convert, no more OOM, better frame rates, better graphics.

Do you know why ACES labeled DX10 a "preview"?

 

I quote Phil Taylor. Among other things in his blog, he wrote:

 

And the lack of FSX-SP1 level backwards compatibility is the key reason why what we decided to label the FSX-DX10 work “preview”.

I'm a DX10  convert, no more OOM, better frame rates, better graphics.

 

 

This proves my point exactly, hence the word *compatibility*. Meaning they were getting FSX to *work correctly* with DX10, not that it wasn't " True DX10"

From the same blog page:

 

 

FSX-SP2 DX10

 

 

 

 

 

"The features we do have are:

 

1) VC shadows

 

2) HDR Bloom

 

3) Water enhancements

 

4) Efficiency improvements via more Autogen batching, more efficient shaders, and a more efficient method of generating bloom."

 

 

And a bit further down:

 

"Two things we had hoped to get in on the DX10 code path; but we just didn’t get to are crepuscular rays and improved world lighting. We had hoped to improve the world lighting, so that back sides of buildings and trees showed better rendering; as well as render crepuscular rays ( popularly called godrays ) through the clouds but those two features didn’t make the schedule when we added the VC shadows."

 

 

And there was no more SPs in the works:

 

"With that said, you now know what is in FSX-SP2 from a DX10 perspective. At this point, from a studio perspective it is time to move on from FSX so we have no future updates planned for the engine."

 

 

Thanks for the link Kabronicus.

His mind is made up, Jim - don't confuse him with facts! After all, he has worked for MS for years - he MUST know everything about everything.

 

Vic

 

 

"The features we do have are:

1) VC shadows

2) HDR Bloom

3) Water enhancements

4) Efficiency improvements via more Autogen batching, more efficient shaders, and a more efficient method of generating bloom."



And a bit further down:



"Two things we had hoped to get in on the DX10 code path; but we just didn’t get to are crepuscular rays and improved world lighting. We had hoped to improve the world lighting, so that back sides of buildings and trees showed better rendering; as well as render crepuscular rays ( popularly called godrays ) through the clouds but those two features didn’t make the schedule when we added the VC shadows."

 

All those things they are improving with AGAIN, making FSX work *correctly* with DX10 , such as the sides of buildings and trees rendering better, and as i've said, more efficient SHADERS.

 

It's like i'm saying "The sky is blue", and all you are doing is bringing in more facts that prove my point further, really.

 

 

 

His mind is made up, Jim - don't confuse him with facts! After all, he has worked for MS for years - he MUST know everything about everything.

 

And where are your facts ? Do you have any work experience ? Other than being a professional at making up false theories ? Like the false theory that ACES only implimented a "Part" of DX10 ?