AA is a filter, a filter inherently reduces overall image quality ... the best image quality is when there is NO AA

This should read " ... the best image quality is when there is NO AA provided the screen resolution is effectively infinite"

 

I understand your context, hence my edit.  I guess the irony here is that the sole purpose of AA is to enhance image quality, given that most mortals don't own a monitor whose screen resolution is effectively infinite.

 

As for the "DX10 Fixer", my cursor is poised to find and click that purchase button....

 

 

I think what disappoints me most is the continued lack of support from 3rd party developers over DX10 ... like it or not, DX10 came with FSX, it's real, it exists, 50% of the potential buying market use DX10 (probably more when Steve's work is released).  These should be enough reasons to properly support DX10 and some 3rd party developers do indeed test and make sure their products are DX10 compatible, some do not ... even those in the $90 price range

 

I really dont understand this perhaps from a lack of programming knowledge. My understanding is that DX10.1 is backwards compatible with DX9. Originallly DX10.0 was not.   So if a developer ensures and programmes with DX10 in mind, will it not work in DX9 as its should and downscale as needed? All previous DX versions did the same. A game would be using the latest greatest DX version but would still work on your old DX version compatible video card, just not with the fancy features the latest provided. 

 

 

I think what disappoints me most is the continued lack of support from 3rd party developers over DX10 ... like it or not, DX10 came with FSX, it's real, it exists, 50% of the potential buying market use DX10 (probably more when Steve's work is released). These should be enough reasons to properly support DX10 and some 3rd party developers do indeed test and make sure their products are DX10 compatible, some do not ... even those in the $90 price range

 

That's pretty much a recent development since Steve's shader mod. Before that it probably was closer to 10%. From here forward though, there is no excuse for developers not to fully support DX10. 

 

 

provided the screen resolution is effectively infinite"

 

The eye has limitations, not sure you can describe screen resolution in terms of infinity?  Display quality continues to improve and as with all things PC hardware, costs reduce ... 4K monitors just a year ago were $10,000+, two years ago $30,000 ... today they're $3000, tomorrow they'll be main stream prices. 

 

 

 

So if a developer ensures and programmes with DX10 in mind, will it not work in DX9 as its should and downscale as needed?

 

DX9 is significantly different path than DX10/DX11 ... this is why in many games you need to "restart" your application/game once you've selected a DX path.  The D3D API is different, the methods (functions) used don't have the same parameters and support ... developers that support both graphics paths (don't confuse this with FSX 3rd party developers, add-ons are very different) will most likely have function wrappers to translate the differences between calls ... or they could just have two completely different (yet similar) code paths.

 

Here is a really good read on porting DX9 to DX10: http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Riguer-DX10_tips_and_tricks_for_print.pdf

 

Pay close attention to:

 

Pixel Coordinate System, DX10 don't have to offset coordinates by 0.5 texel.

Make shaders DX9/DX10 cross-compatible

Quick DX9 port hack, keep copies of "dummy" VS (vetex shader) just for signatures

Shader Signature matching

 

So in a word, there is no quick and easy backwards compatibility.

 

Rob

Has FSX¹⁰ been released yet?

<p>effectively infinite = when the naked eye can no long distinguish the effect of an individual pixel. This doesn't mean there are infinite pixels.  This same effect can be achieved if you run FSX on 40" HD set seated 20' away from the viewer.   Its like RL engineering: after N sigfigs the precision which follows is irrelevant.</p>

I feel sorry to ask, but what is that "FSX DX10 Fix"-Tool you´re tamlking about?! I´ve been away for a log time and just have started into the flying again with teh PMDG 777.

Heya, Steffen! Welcome to the New FSX!   Go to the top of the forum and open up the "How-To" guide, there's a blurb at the beginning which you'll find useful, and then follow the link inside to Steve's Blog.

 

All the Best,

 

pj

I give, how does DX10 affect image quality?  Seems like folks are saying there may be some performance gains, but I'm assuming there also must be something different about image quality, yes?

I give, how does DX10 affect image quality?  Seems like folks are saying there may be some performance gains, but I'm assuming there also must be something different about image quality, yes?

 

Much better image quality, IMO.  Colors are more saturated compared to the greyish/pale DX9 mode.

Much better image quality, IMO.  Colors are more saturated compared to the greyish/pale DX9 mode.

Not something you can duplicate I guess w/ desktop color controls & digital vibrance?  I guess not or others would have mentioned this.  Any place to see untouched screenshots?  Sounds intriguing.

I'm not subscribed to any picture hosting site at the moment so if I post any pic it would be reduced quality to meet avsim's picture posting rules.  You might want to check with other members on the other thread here.  I'm sure someone there is on a pic hosting site.

 

The part that stands out the most for me would be sky color, especially dusk and dawn.  It looks so much richer and vibrant.  Also, in DX10, you can have light bloom enabled and this makes a lot of things look better.

 

I doubt you can get the same effects by adjusting desktop controls and digital vibrance.

I'm not subscribed to any picture hosting site at the moment so if I post any pic it would be reduced quality to meet avsim's picture posting rules. 

That's complete nonsense.  Are you telling me that you could tell the difference between a 1600 x 1080 pixel image at 400 Kb and a 1600 x 1080 image at 1Meg?  If you can, you have, what we call in the photography business,  a 1% eye.  But "reduced quality" is way too far a stretch for me to swallow.  Same image, same format, only different density.  Nah.  In fact, I'm going to show you at the screen shot forum, if you would like to take a look.

 

 

 

Also, in DX10, you can have light bloom enabled and this makes a lot of things look better.

 

Are you also saying in DX10 the very pronounced performance penalty in DX9 is reduced significantly or eliminated outright?  If that's true that is a very strong argument for DX10 all else being equal. 

That's complete nonsense.  Are you telling me that you could tell the difference between a 1600 x 1080 pixel image at 400 Kb and a 1600 x 1080 image at 1Meg?  If you can, you have, what we call in the photography business,  a 1% eye.  But "reduced quality" is way too far a stretch for me to swallow.  Same image, same format, only different density.  Nah.  In fact, I'm going to show you at the screen shot forum, if you would like to take a look.

 

 

I just assumed that compressed images wouldn't look anywhere as good as full high res.  Never really payed attention.  Just going by how I notice a big difference between 1080p and 720p.

I'll give it a shot and post a few pics here.

I actually have some pictures ready that I want to post on the screenshot forum.  Just finishing things up with Flickr and once I have enough, I will begin posting them.  I made an account there years ago and I thought it's been disabled because I only used it once.  Found an old email with my password and it still works.

 

Are you also saying in DX10 the very pronounced performance penalty in DX9 is reduced significantly or eliminated outright?  If that's true that is a very strong argument for DX10 all else being equal. 

 

I haven't really done comparisons, but it seems I get the same performance in DX10 with light bloom on as I do in DX9 without bloom.

DX10 seems smoother to me also and I can actually have road traffic enabled which kills my fps in DX9. 

DX10 looks very impressive, but I'm still not sure if I'm staying with it. 

I'm having some issues with external lights that I'm hoping someone can help me out with on the other thread.

Here are some pics...

 

 

 

Looks like the pics turned out alright at 75% of original resolution :smile: .