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.

 

Thats good Charles.

 

Aniso checked inside FSX display settings too?

Thats good Charles.

 

Aniso checked inside FSX display settings too?

 

no it's set to tri-linear in FSX.  I figured there was no need to run aniso internally if it's being forced outside by NI on the card.  Is that not correct?

Thanks for posting these, helps to set the record straight.

 

Look at full size, jaggies everywhere, not even close to 1x2 SuperSampling + 4 X MultiSampling 1x2 of 8xS combined with 16X Anisotropic filtering, let alone 12xS or 16xS.

 

You can show the pics of the cpl all you want but the proof is in the game:

 

Look at the outboard profile of the Cessna, jaggies everywhere, and what happened to that fence? No, that is not good Alpha AA and there is no Gama correction AA.

 

2nd see how smeared and blurrie the terrain textures are? Not

 

Nice shots, but the low filtering IQ is exactly my only gripe, we are all on the same team, only I just stated the obvious and you backed up what I said.

 

Will post some pics when I get home this evening and you can decide.

 

I can't wait to see your 12xS 8xSGSS shots! All while claiming that you always fly the PMDG NGX in overcast weather into large airports no prob all the time at those settings.

 

But seriously, I had a 660Ti Superclock and know that 8xS+4xSGSS was very sharp but in anything less than a GTX680, not really realistic from a performance standpoint. In fact Word Not Allowed tested 8xS 4xSGSS and it is barely acceptable in bad weather on the Titan! According to his tests anyway. Cant post his link here but Google "Titan Word Not Allowed" and go check his chart. But yes... My old (hell.... EVERYONES) nVidia go-to AA mode 8xS 2xSGSS is a tick sharper than ATI's SSAA in DX10. You bet, never said it was not. But your original comments eluded to barely acceptable AA and AF (Your Quote - "I am familiar with the AA in DX10, its less than I would have used back in FS2k days") and that's a load of crap.

 

But when you do "share" your screenshots, please .... use the realistic nVidia mode of 8xS + 2xSGSS. Otherwise it's BS. Maybe 4xSGSS on a GTX780 and a 5Ghz i7 setup but even then.... NGX+FSDT+AI+overcast? 20 ish fps and some stutters. Most of us dont have $650 cards on 5Ghz i7's.

 

Also... The "textures" quality you are refering to are because I am at 1024 in the cfg. Did you honestly miss that. I will fix it and do it again. Actually. I want to get to the bottom of this...

 

Pigs... Tell ya what. Screenshot somewhere in a plane and scenery we both have and I will load the SAME plane in the SAME spot from the SAME angle. Then we can see for real. I will admit off the bat... the lines in the Ultralite are thinner with nVidia at 8xS I know because I had nVidia and tested back and fourth when I went to AMD. But the thin little lines are just part of the story. I can do 24xSSAA in DX9 I think and could look at that. Have not tried. Can I fly FSX like that? Um no. Not if there is clouds around.

 

So... Not the Ultralite. Some other plane. Lets do it. Out of the gate I know it will be a tick sharper in your shot. But not nearly what you make it out to be. Period.

 

Waiting for your shots and info.

 

Charles.

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.

 

Waiting here as well! Hopefully its in a plane I have so we can go apples to apples.

 

C.

DX9 8xS, 16xAF Gama Correction AA and Alpha 2xSS LOD4.5 

 

Flightbeam studios KSFO  and Aerosoft City X San Francisco  with FS Global Mesh @ 100% with the D17

 

 

 

 

Aerosoft Los Angeles X with Carenado and other various craft.

 

 

 

8xS, 16xAF Gama Correction AA and Alpha 2xSS LOD4.5 

 

Trying to post only two pics per post, sorry for the over load, or is that ok if they are not hosted on Avsim?

 

More:

 

 

 

 

The dreaded Drzewiecki Design New York City X Max detail settings and max water.

 

 

8xS, 16xAF Gama Correction AA and Alpha 2xSS LOD4.5 

 

 

 

Looks soft and blurry sort of. Hows that for nitpicking. But seriously yes. Slightly smoother edges but not enough to stop a guy from going DX0. Ground textures not any better. This is not all that much sharper IMHO. A tick smoother though on the difficult angles.

 

Look... I have these...

 

A2A 172

Carenado CT206H, C337H, B200, C90, F33A, C208, C340II

PMDG JS41

Real Air Duke Turbine and Piston

 

Can we compare one of those? Do you have them? And some VC shots would be nice. And can we shoot this on the ground so we can see the BIG diff in AF and texture where I can park at the same location and check the AF and textures? You said mine were blurry. I have all of ORBX NA regions, AU Blue and NZSI and NZNI.

 

I mean. Those are nice scenery shots from 5000 feet and all... But I would be interrested in Apples to Apples. Where I can use the same Angle at the same spot at the same zoom at the same plane on the ground. That would be more helpful.

 

For people that want to check your setting out... You should post your nVidia Inspector page because in DX9 land that looks about as good as it gets.

 

Charles.

Looks soft and blurry sort of.

 

 

 

That's what I was talking about as well and I noticed that in those pics as well.  DX9 using NI for AA results in soft blurry scenes.  Drove me nuts.  DX10 does not have that issue.  I even tried setting NI to 4x MS aa instead of 4xS so I could make a direct comparison between DX9 and 10 on my machine and it was still fuzzy so it's not something with the xS modes.

To anyone who cares...

 

My textures are 1024 as well. I posted the Inspector settings, nothing more nothing less.

 

The locations and the add-ons have been posted, so anyone can go do the same angles if you need to, show the scenery terrain below the plane with full AG etc, knock yourself out.

 

I have already done all the DX10 fixings, great improvement, and I look forward to the "fixer" just like everyone else, but I'm back in DX9 for all the reasons I posted.

 

I showed 8xS, but that is not as good as it gets, there is 12xS, 16xS and 32xS there are better Alpha AA settings as well, I mentioned a reasonable balance so I stayed with 8xS.

 

Fly the New version of New York City X in a decent Carenado, turn some weather on and see how you do.

 

I personally don't care if anyone else notices or appreciate the difference in settings, what works for you and your hardware and preferences as Robains mentioned is all that's really important, just as long as you know there are, and sometimes are not options, its always good to know.

 

But for me I have been accustomed to the better settings since FS2K days and it bothers me too much to go backwards with the IQ.

 

Cheers and have a very good night.

To anyone who cares...

 

My textures are 1024 as well. I posted the Inspector settings, nothing more nothing less.

 

The locations and the add-ons have been posted, so anyone can go do the same angles if you need to, show the scenery terrain below the plane with full AG etc, knock yourself out.

 

I have already done all the DX10 fixings, great improvement, and I look forward to the "fixer" just like everyone else, but I'm back in DX9 for all the reasons I posted.

 

I showed 8xS, but that is not as good as it gets, there is 12xS, 16xS and 32xS there are better Alpha AA settings as well, I mentioned a reasonable balance so I stayed with 8xS.

 

Fly the New version of New York City X in a decent Carenado, turn some weather on and see how you do.

 

I personally don't care if anyone else notices or appreciate the difference in settings, what works for is all thats important, just as long as you know there are and sometimes are not options, its always good to know.

 

But for me I have been accustomed to the better settings since FS2K days and it bothers me too much to go backwards with the IQ.

 

Cheers and have a very good night.

the reason I asked for the inspector settings screen shot was so that I could see were those settings were set. I wanted to share them with one of my friends but don't worry about it.

 

Oh... thanks for not doing an apples to apples comparison with me... that's great.

 

C.

Looks soft and blurry sort of

 

Oh, ok.

 

Just another DX9 shot of LA X with Aerosoft Airbus X A320 Extended and 20 miles visibility, I guess that could have been turned down to show more detail, but its what it it is.

 

Now for instance you can compare how "sharp" the terrain and how well the aniso is in DX10  if you use anywhere near same viewpoint, all the AG,  ( oh and thats FS Global US mesh at 100% with FTXG - I should have mentioned that)

 

Take care.

 

Oh... thanks for not doing an apples to apples comparison with me... that's great.

 

C.

 

First off, I have a large family and I operate my own business out of N and S America, there are other priorities and some of us actually have a life.

 

2nd, I'm not here to serve your needs, you can take the same shots yourself, as you say you have the same add-ons, no one is stopping you are they?.

So can tough use SweetFX with DX10 of not? If you can are there any special settings you need to do?

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

Oh, ok.

 

Just another DX9 shot of LA X with Aerosoft Airbus X A320 Extended and 20 miles visibility, I guess that could have been turned down to show more detail, but its what it it is.

 

Now for instance you can compare how "sharp" the terrain and how well the aniso is in DX10  if you use anywhere near same viewpoint, all the AG,  ( oh and thats FS Global US mesh at 100% with FTXG - I should have mentioned that)

 

Take care.

 

 

First off, I have a large family and I operate my own business out of N and S America, there are other priorities and some of us actually have a life.

 

2nd, I'm not here to serve your needs, you can take the same shots yourself, as you say you have the same add-ons, no one is stopping you are they?.

 

Way to brag! I have a family and job as well. IT Support Team Lead for 28 sites with 4000 end points and 12000 users. Yay for me!

 

What was all the jaggies on your wing? Weird. Kidding. Looks good. Downloading LA X from Aerosoft. I assume that is the one. Always wanted it. 20 bones. Cheap.

 

Anyway... Here are some shots. Again. I do not yet have LA X. Sooo..... Ok here. This is what I have. Far from unacceptable DX10 AA and AF IMO... 

 

 

 

DX10 Fixer is out for those that use DX10.

 

Those that don't. No one can fault you. Use whatever you like.

 

Charles.

 

 

The dreaded Drzewiecki Design New York City X Max detail settings and max water.

 

Looks good, but I agree with others, some pics are more soft than others ... including the FSX menu which is odd because DX9 AA/AF doesn't impact the menu at all?? ... maybe it was just image compression

I have never had a problem with 8xS AA "softening the edges" in DX9 mode. It looks a lot better than clear, sharp graphics that highlight any texture blemishes or inaccuracies.

Oh, ok.

 

Just another DX9 shot of LA X with Aerosoft Airbus X A320 Extended and 20 miles visibility, I guess that could have been turned down to show more detail, but its what it it is.

 

Now for instance you can compare how "sharp" the terrain and how well the aniso is in DX10  if you use anywhere near same viewpoint, all the AG,  ( oh and thats FS Global US mesh at 100% with FTXG - I should have mentioned that)

 

Take care.

 

 

 

Where is this? I bought LA X from Aerosoft but cannot find that spot. I also own FTXG and I am on 1.1 of it now.

 

Ooops found it. Wow. Aerosoft is the master at Vector and AG annotation! Shame about the FTXG versus Aerosoft color mismatch. Not that evident there but other areas it really sticks out. I will have to play with this more later. Off to work so I can pay for all these add ons.

 

C.

Having seen so many posts for the DX10 after the release of the DX10 fixer, I devided to do a test between P3D DX9 and FSX DX10. 

I haven't installed the famous DX10 fixer, but I have installed the latest patch uploaded in avsim library and also completed all tasks reading the 'how-to-do-doc'.

I have a pretty good system, i5 3570K overclocked to 4.4Ghz, 8Gb or ram, Samsung SSD and Asus Nvidia GTX660 GPU.

 

I used Heathrow Extreme, with FTX Global, LOD 4.5, same Display sliders on both systems.

For airplane I used the Aerosoft Airbus Extended A321.

 

I also use OpusFSX with TrackIR and REX textures.

 

My results:

 

1) P3D was smooth with some microshuters. FSX DX10, a little smoother (+5-10%) but also had microshutters both on the ground and in the air. 

 

2) No Cockpit shadows for the Aerosoft Extended.

 

3) If 'aircraft casts shadows on itself' is selected, btriangular external shadows on the plane's fuselage.

 

4) When looking at the airport from a distance I was seeing white ittle pixels poping out from the scenery's buildings/poles corners.

 

5) Colors more washed out.

 

6) Generaly lower quality image, PFD screens lower resolution, external model lower AA quality etc..

 

All in all, a bad visual expirience compated to P3D. But let's say I can start tweaking the nvidia inspector with various AA settings and buying Steve's Fix to reduce the visual artifacts.

 

While many advertise the DX10 as a 'butter smooth' experience, I get many micro shutters in London, I have no shadows in VC in the add-on aircraft I use and I get a lower quality image. Really what's the point of doing such a mesh to my beautifly running P3D with crystal clear graphics, smooth FPS plus the ENB tweak that really takes the visuals in another level. I don't see any reason. Given the problems in some airports I read from others, I'm sticking with DX9 P3D.