Thanks, Osirith for the Dx10 workaround!

 

Jos

FSX DX9 has better performance than XPX!!

 

This is XPX with the following render settings, No AI aircraft. Default C172SP KTPA no airport scenery

 

 X-Plane-32bit 2013-07-27 14-45-15-88.jpg

 

 X-Plane-32bit 2013-07-27 14-02-46-91.jpg

 

This is FSX with  Extreme autogen and scenery (I usually run Dense autogen which would give me about 25FPS here) and 100% UT2 traffic (about 15 aircraft active this area) Default C172SP KTPA FlyTampa!

 

 fsx 2013-07-27 14-28-22-15.jpg

 

At a less detailed airport I can easily reach my locked 30FPS target at the same settings, and this is only with a 3Ghz E6850 C2D. It's only when you throw in the much more complex system aircraft like the PMDG NGX that things slow down in FSX.

 

 

 

........ Are you an ATI Graphics Card user?

 

They look like the sort of dreadful performance results I got with XPX before I binned it.     It doesn't do ATI too well at all..... :wink:

Really?? That's your argument? 

 

 FSX DX10 is much better than XPX.  It's the near future of flight simulation.

 

 

:lol: "I object, your honour"!!..........have you seen XP10 64bit with HDR at night or day?

Have you seen your fps PLUMMET with HDR on?

 

I bought XPX for the HDR night lighting... Little did I realize how horrible the performance is. *sigh*

 

XPX is the new FSX in terms of powerful systems needed hehe

I'm sorry I responded to the bait!  Looks like we are getting way off topic here, because of it! Let's see if we can get back to FTX Global discussion!!

I'm sorry I responded to the bait!  Looks like we are getting way off topic here, because of it! Let's see if we can get back to FTX Global discussion!!

True, but its funny how many FTXG threads there are, one was sure to start the comparism wars.

Wow! With all the hub bub I almost forgot about the PMDG 777. I have only tested one flight so far EGLL-LGAV. I find Europe to be my next biggest region to fly in and it is sorely in need of a face lift. My impressions of FTXG thus far are good. To me its juvenile to say that FTXG is better than GEX. The users experience is subjective. The biggest advantage over GEX is that the coverage is world wide in one product. Personally I like that way that FTGX looks so far in Europe. I find that GEX has a rougher and more washed out look, where as, FTXG is softer and brighter. Its all personal choice. I had smooth frames (I lock at 30)  flying the NGX and using Aerosoft Mega Airport Athens with dense autogen and 10% road traffic and a blend of UT2 and WOAI. For a scenery to pass in my books it must have good frames with a combination of a complex addon aircraft and airport since I exclusively fly into payware airports with payware aircraft. The default does not provide a bench mark for me. I had a great first flight. I have not tested at night yet and there is lots more to explore. So far so good. 

DX9 what 90% use and DX10 not worth tweaking around with.

You're absolutely right. A lawyer never asks a question if he doesn't know the answer to it. I knew exactly how my question would be answered, and how defensive the reaction would be. I meant it rhetorically.

 

The downside to DX10 at this point is that it's become a distraction in the development process. Having to code for DX10 compatibility when the majority of users are still using DX9 is a lot like trying to cater to FS9 users. It wasn't long ago that someone asked whether the PMDG 777 would be backward compatible to FS9. Development is much easier when you're not trying to accomodate the entire spectrum of the FS evolution.

 

Granted, achieving DX10 compatibility is much easier than making software FS9 compatible. But there's still a cost in terms of development resources. I'm just not sure it's justified when there are other cures for the OOM plague (see Word Not Allowed's blog).

The only reason DX10 mode is classed as preview within FSX is because the ACES team were unable to complete its full implementation due to commercial pressures. However, it was deemed 'good enough to go' and IS an integral part of FSX.

 

Had development continued on FSX, their would have been a transition phase where third party developers would have had to make a choice between making their addons comparable with both versions. Clearly things have moved on and we are stuck in vortex where DX9 is the default option and DX10 is the preview. We can stick with the old way or as some like Steve have done find a way foreword. Their are ways of avoiding OOM's without moving to DX10 and they all include trade offs. You don't get something for nothing. Even moving to DX10 means that (currently until an imminent patch is released) you have to trade something. However, their are many advantages and those that have moved to DX10 enjoy those and benefit.

 

Because FSX is In a time warp and is stuck in that no mans land where DX9 is the default and DX10 is seen as a beta even though 90% of it is complete. It is only those developers that use it as an excuse commercially to reduce their time to market and release unfinished goods because they can get away with it and recoup development costs. This is how I see it and I may be wrong in this assumption.

 

This is how the world works and for those that use DX10 the wait will simply be longer. The developers will probably still get our money just not straight away.

 

As you may have gathered, I don't fully agree with your statement as their are always two sides to an argument and the best solution is finding the right answer.

 

Although I won't be buying due to the current issues with DX10 I agree with the reasons why it was probably released in its current condition. This way many can enjoy it and a few will have to wait. But to say those that use what is and has been an integral part of FSX for so long now is IMHO a little erm odd smile.

Downloaded earlier and up and running here. Used the downloadthemall firefox extension and had it done in about 30 mins. Absolutely loving it.

Is there an AutoUpgrade for FTX? 

Finally got this installed and up and running. So far my impressions.....

 

Did a small flight from KPHD to Atlantic City. Definitely looks better than the stock FSX terrain by far.

 

Then for fun ran one of the tutorials (tutorial 6 -  in mountains, take off and land at small airfield along a river valley. Absolutely looking a lot better than the stock terrain. However I must have installed a topo mesh as the runway start position was incorrect and the runway landing was at least 100 feet above the ground. Resulted in a crash. 

 

Looking good so far - now to try flying in more exotic places....

 

No, I don't run DX10 but am considering it.

(Quoting myself)

Another simmer on FTXGlobal support forum has found the file used for the 3D Lights. Seems to work :

 

go to (FSX Directory)/Scenery/Global/scenery/ and rename file 3D_Light_NEW_DDN_1_5.BGL to 3D_Light_NEW_DDN_1_5.BGL.bak

 

It will not be loaded anymore and voila! the black squares (and related night lighting, of course) is gone. To switch back, just rename to .bgl.

Shouldn't you just have to tick off the "Vector Road Lights" option in the FTX Central utility?

Is there an AutoUpgrade for FTX? 

 

No - all of their products are upgraded by downloading a patch from their site.

My assessment after one day of testing, I'm loving it! Don't get me wrong, GEX is a great product but man, did FTXG add the depth?!? Superb. The coloring is more vibrant and the night flying became fun again. It's pricey but well worth it since it covers the whole world. I'm clearing the map of all of my previous destinations and I'm revisiting them all over again. Fun fun fun.

 

I hope that either UTX or ORBX release the custom landclass pieces that unfortunately I had to turn off in UTX because it looked pretty bad at night. All in all I am very pleased with it.