I pointed out fact, there was no negative response from me until someone said I was full of it and then I simply questioned if they actually knew what good filtering quality was and reiterated the facts. Is that wrong Paul?

Don't let BS get in the road of a good story. I did not say that DX9 and DX10 was the same. I stated that I get good quality AA in Dx10. I also switch to DX9 for night flying and I can do that in just a few mouse clicks. So I do see a difference. And DX10 is the difference. Smooth, no jaggies, and no OOM's.

I was a doubting David for DX10 for a while, and then found an excellent graphics driver that seemed to hum on my system, followed PJ's "How To Doc" and now I cannot get enough of DX10.

I know you dis agree with me, and that is fine, but please don't twist this around as if I provoked you.

The screenshots that cvearl posted do not look great when viewed directly from this thread page. However, left click on them, and they look very nice indeed. All I need to know from the experts is that I can use 8xS AA, 2xSGSS, and 16x AF in DX10 mode with the Fixer. If that is the case, then Steve may as well take my credit card details right now :smile:

I have tested DX10 a LOT and with correct settings I can't see a real difference between DX9 and DX10 when it comes to FSAA. You DO have to use TOTALLY different settings in nVidia Inspector, FSX and even in the FSX,cfg  though!!! I am now using DX10 because 1. I like the VC shadows and 2. DX10 runs a tiny bit smoother (which I btw only found out and really noticed when I actually started to use DX10 for a while: doing some tests really isn't enough to find out if DX10 works for you or not).

How are you looking at these posted images?  I don't see what you see?  They look great to me.  Are you looking at them via a Browser or OS Preview?  OS Preview will NOT show the image correctly (as is).  Pending what Browser you use it may also not be showing you the image "as is" ... suggest you download the image and look at it in Photoshop at 100%

 

Like I said in other posts, AA is a filter, filters reduce image quality (overall) ... AA filter exists to compensate for reduced screen resolution on pixel based systems.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't see this, I would expect an enthusiast to know that a 3840 x 2160 31.5" monitor to be a far better solution than trying to blend/filter an image at ever higher AA settings on a 1920 x 1200 24" monitor.  You should know there just is no substitution for resolution

 

AA/AF settings don't impact VAS.

 

I see what you did there.

 

You expect an enthusiast what? When was that being discussed?

 

Now we are talking about a the need for a $3500 monitor with a PPI of almost 140 to compensate for what you can see on a $600 or less 1920x1200 96 PPI monitor using decent filtering?

 

We can't have an adult conversation, debate in an honest way without being offended? If I'm wrong I'm wrong, so what? Great!

And I could move on and sound the trumpet, and I would love to be wrong about FSX DX10, would really make me happy, DX10 brings so much more!

 

But back to your point, as I am still trying hard to understand.

 

After all if we are talking high quality add-ons, not trying to OOM, what size are the majority of the textures do you think we will want to display? Especially since we rarely get to seem them 1:1, what size? And what size monitor and resolution do we need? In FSX in most any given scene that might include a view of some 3d objects and terrain, how many pixels are fighting to get into the same space all at the same time on the screen do you think? They don't need filtering you say? It doesn't matter? 

 

Loving shimmering AG and 3D objects, and boiling terrain with pixels poping in and out do we? Or do we love that blurry smeared looking terrain again with shimmering AG?

Or I propose do we enjoy setting up your hardware to get out of it what we paid to get? If you like low quality graphics that your personal choice, but back on topic Apples to Apples there is a big difference in IQ here.

 

If this was some IQ test on Anandtech or Guru3D the IQ here being compared here of FSX DX10 vs DX9 I think the majority know it would be ripped apart, not even close. 

 

Shall we poll to see how many here run with a $3500 monitor of 140 PPI vs average 96PPI monitor or less? Shall we talk about things that really matter like the need to use decent AA and AF or not?

 

So I guess I'm not sure the relevance of your reply, are you saying that all this time the debates about good graphics IQ in DX 3D games are moot?

 

So all the image quality sections that are included in almost 100% of the hundreds of video card reviews are just there because it doesn't matter?

 

I think I will stand behind what I said: FSX DX10 filtering quality is still inferior to what was achieved in back in the days of FS2K, let alone what we enjoy right now in FSX on DX9.

If you want to flame me for that go ahead, its ok.

 

I don't understand the tone in here with a few, sorry but shall we also say that FSX in XP is the same as Win7?

 

Or that current AMD CPU's are clock for clock as strong as the latest Intel CPU's in FSX?

 

Is the default Cessna as good as the A2A version? If you did go over to the A2A and they uses 256x256 texture would that make you happy?

Is the air quality in Tokyo as good as the air in central Canada? Yugo as good as a Lexus or even a Chevy?

 

Again, really I hope everyone's health, your day your family all the really important things are all good and.. that your enjoying FSX in DX10 or DX9.

 

I will for the sake of discussion post pics as promised but will not include any text as I seem to be incapable of offending you dear fellow simmers.

 

Good day to you all.

I use Prepar3D but I also have FSX installed for the PMDG T7. I have tested FSX DX10 using the DX10 guide and Steve's latest patch. I used various AA settings in the nvidia inspector. My results:

 

Pros:

1) Cockpit shadows

2) The FPS was indeed very fluid. Was not the 'day from night feeling' croming from P3Ds-DX9 though.

 

Cons:

1) Image quality was not good in my opinion. Colors was washed out and the aircrafts texture didn't look as good as they look in P3D. 

2) I was seeing pixelization when looking at far straight lines, example in FlyTampa's Athens.

3) The biggest one for me...you can't use ENB

4) Night lighting is not correct

5) Not all airports are configured for DX10. Actually very little add-ons are designed for DX10.

 

My conclusions:

 

1) Of course I would like to have cockpit shadows in Prepar3D. However, I have seen that the edge of the shadows is not straight in DX10, but was triangular in shape and so, not realistic. Shadows are impressive if they are modeled to have the precise edges of the light obstructing objects. So, I was not so much impressed by the effect. So, cockpit shadows, as they are modeled right now, not a game changer for me. 

2) FPS was ''butter smooth''. That's the only benefit for DX10 for me. It may be great difference from FSX, but from P3D , the difference is not that great. I was getting locked 30FPS in both FSX-DX10 and P3D-DX9 using the same add-ons.So, I am not 100% sure if the ''butter smooth'' feeling from DX10 was not a brain trick, knowing that DX10 should be ''butter smooth'', or ''100 times smoother'' etc. But, I cannot disagree, FPS was extremely good, same or better than P3D. Is it a game changer? Maybe yes but I'm not sure, as I get also ''buter smooth'' FPS using P3D in my machine. I'm not sure, but certainly FPS is a great plus for DX10.

 

3) However the 'Cons' are a definetly no-go for me. I don't know what exactly Steve's upcoming patch is able to fix from them. But if it doesn't fix ALL of them, I'm not going to use DX10. The reasons are simple:

 

-I can't just throw away beautiful add-ons airports I have paied for and I like to fly to.

-I can't fly any dayflight without the ENB (Plus Natural, REX) tweak anymore. With this tweak, the sim looks like cinema graphics and not like a game. Stunning!

If cockpit shadows add 1 level of realism (even incomplete), ENB adds 10 !

-I can't fly without night support in the add-on airports. Even if FTXG lighting is fixed, what about all the add-on airports? 

-As for the pixelization in straight lines and color rendering, I suppose Steve's upcoming patch will address them, but if not cetrainly I'm not thinking at all DX10. I don't see how adding cockpit shadows to improve IQ-realsim and the same time increasing pixelization in the far objects witch degrades IQ and realism is a 'better' simulation.

 

So, If ALL of the 'Cons' list are fixed, I will consider removing P3D and running FSX in DX10. But if not, I will stay in P3D-DX9, giving me a smooth ride with beautiful graphics. Later, when P3D V2 comes out, I will move there.

The cockpit shadows have been smoothed out very well from default DX10, are you sure you have followed the DX10 improvements thoroughly?

I don't see anything wrong with those pics. I'm actually impressed and looking forward to the DX10 tool.

 

Thanks for posting those pics, They LOOK great!

 

They are great, compared to default DX10. 

 

Was only pointing its just not up to DX9 IQ, look at the pictures 100%, look at the wires on top of the power Kite, look at all the edges of the Cessna, the prop. Yes it is AA, but a bit on the mediocre side - IMHO. Hey for some it doesn't bother them is a personal choice but to say it is the same or better than 8xS AA in DX9 with 16xAF is simply not the case. Thats all I was saying, why everyone read so much into that, I do understand, forum debates are difficult, you can't see the other guy and its too hard sometimes to read the correct tone, or I should say to project the correct tone. Apologize again to everyone.

Don't let BS get in the road of a good story. I did not say that DX9 and DX10 was the same. I stated that I get good quality AA in Dx10. I also switch to DX9 for night flying and I can do that in just a few mouse clicks. So I do see a difference. And DX10 is the difference. Smooth, no jaggies, and no OOM's.

I was a doubting David for DX10 for a while, and then found an excellent graphics driver that seemed to hum on my system, followed PJ's "How To Doc" and now I cannot get enough of DX10.

I know you dis agree with me, and that is fine, but please don't twist this around as if I provoked you.

 

Sorry Julian if I read you wrong, I think you were generalizing and I was being precise and I crossed you, apologize my friend.

 

Cheers and have a great day.

 

 

Sorry Julian if I read you wrong, I think you were generalizing and I was being precise and I crossed you, apologize my friend.

No worries. If you do decide to give Dx10 another try ( maybe when fixer is released) you can let us know what you think. I am sure you will like it.

Cheers

The cockpit shadows have been smoothed out very well from default DX10, are you sure you have followed the DX10 improvements thoroughly?

 

I followed a youtube tutorial. I will give a second try to the ''how-to-go-dx10'' .doc. I will wait to see what the upcoming patch fixes.

As for the solution to switch from DX10 to DX9 when flying at night its not an option for me, because I use P3D. I can't have installed every add-on twice. Also, if a flight starts in the afternoon and ends right after sunset you wil have to save the flight in midflight, restart FSX in DX9 mode and continue. 

 

 

I will for the sake of discussion post pics as promised but will not include any text as I seem to be incapable of offending you dear fellow simmers.

 

I'm not offended at all, look forward to your pics.  I think the issue is that you suggested DX10 can't look as good as DX9 ... my point is that everyone has different levels of hardware and cost commitments to FSX ... one's hardware (including display) will impact how they "see" DX9 vs. DX10.

 

I don't know about AMD cards, but for NVidia you will need to work with FSX.CFG and NVidia Control Panel and NVidia Inspector to get the most visual benefits out of DX10.

So I have to ask, is 8xS filtering a big difference from 4xS other than the ability to get rid of jagged edges?  Before I switched from DX9 to DX10 I was originally running in game AA and aniso because I wasn't aware of NI.  Then I moved to NI and due to my older hardware I went with 4xS and 2xSGSS.  Sure it got rid of the jagged edges, but it also gave everything a slightly fuzzy look.  While the in game AA was not nearly as "anti-jagged" and the textures were not antialiased, at least everything was sharp looking.  

 

Running DX10 with 4x MSAA set in the .cfg file and 4xSGSS in NI (has to match the MSAA setting) I get good "normal" AA and things are not fuzzy looking.  In DX9 I got rid of the fuzzy a bit by running SweetFX with lumasharpen on.  However, SweetFX was also fond of crashing randomly and I had to dump it (tried every possible fix out there including the removing MS KB fixes things).

So I have to ask, is 8xS filtering a big difference from 4xS other than the ability to get rid of jagged edges?  Before I switched from DX9 to DX10 I was originally running in game AA and aniso because I wasn't aware of NI.  Then I moved to NI and due to my older hardware I went with 4xS and 2xSGSS.  Sure it got rid of the jagged edges, but it also gave everything a slightly fuzzy look.  While the in game AA was not nearly as "anti-jagged" and the textures were not antialiased, at least everything was sharp looking.  

 

Running DX10 with 4x MSAA set in the .cfg file and 4xSGSS in NI (has to match the MSAA setting) I get good "normal" AA and things are not fuzzy looking.  In DX9 I got rid of the fuzzy a bit by running SweetFX with lumasharpen on.  However, SweetFX was also fond of crashing randomly and I had to dump it (tried every possible fix out there including the removing MS KB fixes things).

 

For AA to look and behave properly you need to use it with appropriate levels of Aniso filtering. 16xAF is pretty much standard and recommended.

For AA to look and behave properly you need to use it with appropriate levels of Aniso filtering. 16xAF is pretty much standard and recommended.

 

Yep I always run 16x aniso since I started using NI.  4xS and 2xSGSS was plain fuzzy on DX9.  Tried 8xS as well and seem to remember it being the same.  I should note this is at 1680x1050 which is the native resolution for my Samsung T220 monitor.

Yep I always run 16x aniso since I started using NI.  4xS and 2xSGSS was plain fuzzy on DX9.  Tried 8xS as well and seem to remember it being the same.  I should note this is at 1680x1050 which is the native resolution for my Samsung T220 monitor.

 

How were you trying to use it? NV cpl, global settings or did you setup a profile etc?

How were you trying to use it? NV cpl, global settings or did you setup a profile etc?

using NI and the FSX profile in it, modified with the correct settings of course.  Followed the guides around here on how to set NI up.