Here are some parts they did not implement: (FACTS)

 

"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."

Here are some parts they did not implement: (FACTS)

 

Lets try again, for the 5th time:

 

Those are features and objects IN FSX that they are FIXING AND IMPROVING *FOR* DX10.  Those are not parts OF DX10, that they did not implement.

Ah ok did not implement and did not get into the DX10 code path mean two different things. Thanks for clearing that up.

Food for thought - DX10 isn't very backwards compatible, right? So maybe improvement is in part because of the fact that you cannot use legacy addons?

 

I'd really like if someone could clear up that question that I've been mulling.

 

 

Summer1... Simmer2050...

 

Nope.

 

More like Summer1=Marcielli as seen from Marcielli's ban.

This whole thing is unbelievable. Very disappointed in the whole situation.

To keep the long story short

 

My system is now very stable for folloing reasons

 

1. changed to as2012 dtx compressed 2048 clouds from 32 bit HD.

 

2. IN control panel advanced settings, set "Adjust System for Best Performance", makes win7 feel as light as win8 by getting rid of excess win7 GUI.

 

3. The big deal is however, voltages. inched up voltages in the bios, and not just in the usual places such as vcore, but

 

IOH Core

ICH I/O

ICH Core

QPI/Vtt

CPU PLL

etc

 

After uping the voltages, the PC that struglled at times with FSX is now blazing, all be it hotter temps, but as said my PC is a wind tunnel, all the temps end up outside the window.

 

So at first i turned down sliders to stop app crashes, and this worked, but the i was sure i ahd sliders higher in previous install on same PC and smooth.

 

So up the volatges finally meant i could take sliders back up, and stable so far, but temps are higher. As long as ambient temp is reasonable my Noctua ND14 and its 3 140mm fans will cope.

 

The verdict, app crashes indicate peaked resource, turnind sliders down avoud app crash, dont overlook uping volatges to get rid of app crashes and instability in general. If you got a descent power supply and descent cooling uping voltages withtin reasonable googled limits for FSx should do the job.

 

It was as if, soon as the voltages went up, the sim finally got what it had been wating for since i completed this install 2 weeks ago.

 

My last install did not need as high voltages as i do now, but then i did not have GEX,FSGlobal Ultimate, and UTX. There is vastly lot more disk activity with these addons, and crashes were 99% of the time during heavy loading like start of flight etc. Soon as voltages went up in the ICH/IOH area, the loading moved from laggy to snappy.

 

Also i did use GEX/UTX/FsGlobal Ultimate in my P3D install, and did not experience so much issues getting stable, but P3D is very complex to manage cause addons need tweaking to work etc. So back to FSX, but seems there is something to be said for P3D being more stable when addons are ready for it.

 

In summary

 

1. Turn sliders down to avoid app crash, turn sliders to zero to just make sure its sliders casuing app crash.

 

2. Its all in the clouds as far as where resource is being hugged the most, if you Use HD clouds and run smoothly , would like to know your tip. So far cant use HD clouds in REX or AS2012, looks very nice but laggy in storms.

 

Currently using Medium cloud density and 100 mile draw distance, and coverage is spot on, 1 test flight so far.

 

Since voltages went up though, will revisit clouds after some stability testing.

 

3.Once you get a fairly stable system, which can be arrived at by reducing graphics load, you can start to investigate voltages to increase stability.

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.

 

Marcielli,

You are wrong. It's that simple. Or you're misunderstanding what Jim is saying. I don't know if it's a language issue but you need to watch your tone here in these forums, if you can't make a point in a friendly or at least civil manner than simply don't make one. Jim doesn't need defending I'm sure, but for what it's worth he's been here a long time and has helped many people along the way, and I don't know if you're aware but he's also a developer and I would trust his take his opinion as true on most issues to do with simming, over someone like , well , you, with a vague and heard countless times before 'affiliation' with Microsoft etc etc.

 

Didn't see the second page sorry !! Go too worked up after one or two replies from him !!

 

 

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.

 

Jim, DX10 is either DX10 or it's not ... "Preview mode" means they didn't finish testing every aspect of DX10 and/or adjusting textures to work with DX10.  But this is the very reason why I think folks who have high expectations of P3D V2.0 DX11 are going to be in for a "shock" when it comes to "compatibility" with their existing aircraft, scenery, and other products that aren't even DX10 compatible with FSX today.

 

As for the original OP, are you talking about OOM?  I know how to hit OOM and I know how to avoid OOM ... the "golden" rule to avoid issues with FSX is by knowing it's limits and working around them.

 

But I'm sure moving the sliders all the way to the left will always be a good starting point

 

 

I'd really like if someone could clear up that question that I've been mulling.

 

DX10 is a different code path from DX9c ... this is why all games/simulations to date will have you select (some will auto detect) what version of DX you want to use.  Typically there are different shaders/textures and more specific to DX10/DX11.  DX9c is a different code path than DX10/DX11 ... ironically DX10/DX11 are actually the same code path but you have a few more options available to you with DX11.

 

OpenGL however is different in it's implementation but OpenGL 4.x has very similar feature support to DX11.  (OpenGL is used by XPlane)

 

If you get a chance, go to the DX10 forums and download all the DX10 tools/updates for FSX, they fix a lot of issues ... not all issues, but many.  Going the DX10 route/fixes does NOT impact anything on the DX9 side -- that should give you a good clue on just how separate the two code paths are. 

This whole thing is unbelievable. Very disappointed in the whole situation.

Never mind Jim. The Avsim BS detector got him. Apparently, if you have not read the post on the hangar forum, he is a Chiropractor from the mid west.

 

Good riddance to him.

To the best of my understanding, Direct3D (of whatever version) is an API with a set of interfaces, functions, structures and enumerations, which does nothing by itself until it’s called by an application like FSX.

 

Basically, the application needs code to process its model and texture files, as well as its shaders, before using Direct3D to render them in two dimensions.

 

It would appear that ACES never completed all the code needed for FSX to take full advantage of Direct3D 10. My understanding is that the DX10 patches are re-programmed shaders – but I could be wrong.

It would appear that ACES never completed all the code needed for FSX to take full advantage of Direct3D 10.

 

I agree, ACES didn't complete their project scope/requirements.  I think the confusion is "take full advantage of Direct3D" ... for example:

 

crepuscular rays and improved world lighting

 

 

is something than can be coded in DX9c, it's just easier to do in DX10+.  Sorta like saying you have to buy a Ferrari if you want to go faster than 150 mph, when you could buy a VW bug and do a lot of work to it and make it go over 150 mph.  DX10 doesn't define a programming path to visuals, it just provides better tools to accomplish one's scope/requirements.  You may think this sounds like "semantics" but it's an important differentiation, I've seen DX9c games/simulations look better than DX11 games/simulations -- it's all in the implementation.  A particular version of DX maybe better suited to implement a visual requirement, but that visual requirement doesn't define a DX version.

 

I'm NOT trying to be an expert, since I've only worked with "managed DX code" (via SlimDX which is what the P3D folks use also).  FSX is C++ with some Assembler and all "unmanaged" code. 

 

DX9, DX10, DX11 are sets of DLLs -- look in your Windows\System32 folder and you'll see them listed, many of them d3d9.dll, d3d10.dll, d3d11.dll (for each version of DX) ... source code can reference them all but you have to pick one and only one path.

 

My 2 cents.

 

To add some humor to this thread that got a little to serious

 

 

Cheers, Rob.

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:

 

 

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

 

Trouble is, many payware add-ons, airports, scenery and the like, will not function in DX10 AFAIK.

... and in answer to Chris's (Helo-Head) comment:

many payware add-ons, airports, scenery and the like, will not function in DX10 AFAIK.

  :lol: 

 

 I've used DX10 exclusively since July of last year, with my LH's Maddog, Rick Piper's Chipmunk, FT's St. Maarten's, FT's FS9 Seattle, FlightZone's FS9 Portland, LatinVFR's SanDiego, FlightBeam's KSFO & KLAX, and FSDT's Vancouver, LosAngeles and GSX, SimAddon's Halifax and Toronto, plus almost all of Orbx's PNW, CRM and NRM airports..... and many more scenery's and aircraft.....

 

I hafta say that I am not going to make a song and dance over the only two bits of DX10 that FSX doesn't have - "crepuscular rays" (  :huh: ??) and improved world lighting", but I will merely state that I have enjoyed the smoothest, most reliable, best-looking FSX experience since getting involved in this hobby, some 27 years ago. andI absolutely LOVE this DX10 sim, and I am sorely disappointed when I see long-time, respected simmers rarely passing up an opportunity to refer to this different version of the sim with such continued  disdain. The work and enthusiasm which Steve and many others have put into the shader repair, and the sharing and generosity of so many people on the DX10 forum here at Avsim deserves better. 

 

All the Best,