DX10 Fixer released!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I agree with Dave. Whilst framerates aren't bad in DX10 mode in my 737NGX, I am not seeing this "magical" framerate increase that others are reporting. To be fair (and possibly significantly), I haven't actually flown anything except the 737NGX since I installed Steve's DX10 Fixer, so maybe I need to do that?

Chris, take out any Carenado ( I flew to Boston in the Bonanza) product and give it a go......

[Christopher Low 5,368]

I don't have any Carenado planes, but I will check out the RealAir Duke and Turbine Duke.

[MarkW 1,494]

There is file called Dx10.ini in c:\Program Data\DX10SceneryFixer  - do take especial care editing it mind.

 

There is a section

 

[ExcludeEffects]

ballast.fx=1

 

You can add the names of any  effects that seem troublesome so e,g

 

ConcordeSmoke.fx=1

 

and it wont convert that effect

 

Disable effects before you add the line then enable afterwards.

 

I am confused by the last line of your statement Steve.  Do we just add the effect to the Dx10.ini file and do we also rename it in the effects folder ?

[odourboy 1,290]

Press the V key.

LOL! Press it 30 times a second and string them together in a video maybe? :blink:

[MarkSC 122]

DX10 is the bomb! The cockpit shadows with the A2A 172 are awesome. The water effects make me want to fly over water again. The Inspector settings that Paul recommends in the DX10 forum eliminated shimmering, which was a constant nemesis to me in DX9. The whole experience is smoother than DX9. Highly recommended. I will never fly DX9 again if I can help it.

 

A few tips for those making the transition:

 

1. Select "aircraft casts shadows on itself" in FSX before running the fixer program. The fix smoothes the previously jagged shadows, but it only works if the fix is run after the box is checked (at least that was my experience).

 

2. Those using Nvidia, go to the DX10 forum and use Paul's recommended Inspector settings from the DX10 guide. I am using 4x AA in Steve's program and 4x transparency super sampling in Inspector, which is smooth as butter and eliminates nearly all shimmering.

 

3. Make sure that you enable AA and AF in FSX or else you won't get any AA even using the fixer.

 

4. If you are using REX textures, make sure you have loaded the DX10 optimized waves. The water weather effects are breathtaking with DX10.

 

 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I don't have any Carenado planes, but I will check out the RealAir Duke and Turbine Duke.

That would probably do as well.  I pretty much run tubes in FS9, there I have 3rd party on that airframe.  For FSX, pretty much stay with slow and low eye-candy gathering G.A. frames.

 

BTW, I have been playing around with the FSX AA types in sim settng mask. Anis, Bi, Tri, etc.  Is there one that is recommended by Steve, or is it open season on whatever one you want. In fact, does it even make a difference?!?  I can't seem to see much from one type to the other. Some do say though that you should run with anisotropic. Chris, what is your opinion or suggestion on this?

[cvearl 60]

I don't have any Carenado planes, but I will check out the RealAir Duke and Turbine Duke.

 

I can attest to this... The Dukes absolutely LOVE the DX10 mode in FSX. Almost like Realair made sure they developed "just in case DX10 caught on".

 

The Dukes seem to be the lightest of all my planes in DX10. It's almost weird. Another one that seems super lite in DX10 is the Carenado C337 and the Baytower RV7a. Super smooth in dense scenery.

 

Charles.

That would probably do as well.  I pretty much run tubes in FS9, there I have 3rd party on that airframe.  For FSX, pretty much stay with slow and low eye-candy gathering G.A. frames.

 

BTW, I have been playing around with the FSX AA types in sim settng mask. Anis, Bi, Tri, etc.  Is there one that is recommended by Steve, or is it open season on whatever one you want. In fact, does it even make a difference?!?  I can't seem to see much from one type to the other. Some do say though that you should run with anisotropic. Chris, what is your opinion or suggestion on this?

 

While I am not Chris, with ATI going to Bilinear in FSX menu looks crap last I checked. Disabled I get massive banding in the sky textures. I leave it at the highest setting... Aniso.

 

Charles.

[Q_flyer 766]

Pretty sure there is NO huge disparity ATI to nVidia. But I am willing to test a flight with anyone that wants to.

 

I have an ATI 7970. Only "heavy" aircraft I have is the PMDG JS41. I have all the ORBX NA, NZ regions and AU Blue. I have the first 8 or so payware airports from ORBX and KSFF and one of the Alaska ones. Also I have the Dukes, A2A 172, and a smattering of Carenado and also Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended.

 

What test works for you? My 7970 should match a GTX680.

 

I find in general. CPU limited will always be CPU limited no matter what. DX10 will not fix EVERYTHING. And I have one or two planes that don't run as smooth in DX10 mode. Specifically the B200 from Carenado. It gets higher fps in DX9 I think.

 

Charles. 

 

Perhaps you're right and it is all based on the individual aircraft being used; it's complexity, modelling, texturing, effects etc.

 

Unfortunately the tests I would be interesting in seeing from others are all with complex heavy resource airliners, which you've said aren't your thing.

 

Here's a quick and dirty comparison of all of the add-on aircraft I have tested so far.  All tests at FlyTampa Vienna, with like for like settings:-

 

PMDG NGX             DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

PMDG 777              DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

PMDG MD-11          DX9 performs better by a small margin.

PMDG 747              DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

Aerosoft AXE           DX9 performs better by a small margin.

Coolsky DC-9          DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

QA 146s                  DX10 performs better by a small margin

Aerosoft T,OtterX    DX10 performs better by a small margin

A2A C172                DX10 performs better by a small margin

MilViz 732                DX9 performs better by a significant margin

Eaglesoft CX 2.0     DX9 performs better by a small margin

Carenado C208      DX10 performs better by a significant margin

[cvearl 60]

Perhaps you're right and it is all based on the individual aircraft being used; it's complexity, modelling, texturing, effects etc.

 

Unfortunately the tests I would be interesting in seeing from others are all with complex heavy resource airliners, which you've said aren't your thing.

 

Here's a quick and dirty comparison of all of the add-on aircraft I have tested so far.  All tests at FlyTampa Vienna, with like for like settings:-

 

PMDG NGX             DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

PMDG 777              DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

PMDG MD-11          DX9 performs better by a small margin.

PMDG 747              DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

Aerosoft AXE           DX9 performs better by a small margin.

Coolsky DC-9          DX9 performs better by a significant margin.

QA 146s                  DX10 performs better by a small margin

Aerosoft T,OtterX    DX10 performs better by a small margin

A2A C172                DX10 performs better by a small margin

MilViz 732                DX9 performs better by a significant margin

Eaglesoft CX 2.0     DX9 performs better by a small margin

Carenado C208      DX10 performs better by a significant margin

 

I will have to try some similar tests as time allows. I have not done anything this intensive. For me it is not about fps. I lock at 30. So if both cases are at 30 I am happy but if either is below I will know. B200 at KPDX with Very Dense AG and some clouds. 20 something...

 

One test I have is this....

 

When I fly I have the RadeonPro (nVidia users can use MSI Afterburner) and it will show me VRAM usage and GPU percentage in real time. When GPU and VRAM usage are low, I know my card us waiting for the CPU. I wonder if BP=0 in DX9 versus not using it in DX10 has anything to do with this? Or peoples DX9 settings versus DX10.

 

But you bring up a good point. There will be plane and or airport models that might be happier in one DX mode over the other so people will report different results about all of this.

 

Charles.

[Christopher Low 5,368]

I agree with Charles. I stick to Anisotropic filtering in the FSX menu.

 

Interesting results there, Dave. I have only tried the 737NGX in DX10 mode so far, but my own results are a bit mixed as far as framerates are concerned. I need to visit more of my most detailed airports and scenery areas to make a more accurate assessment.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I can attest to this... The Dukes absolutely LOVE the DX10 mode in FSX. Almost like Realair made sure they developed "just in case DX10 caught on".

 

The Dukes seem to be the lightest of all my planes in DX10. It's almost weird. Another one that seems super lite in DX10 is the Carenado C337 and the Baytower RV7a. Super smooth in dense scenery.

 

Charles.

 

While I am not Chris, with ATI going to Bilinear in FSX menu looks crap last I checked. Disabled I get massive banding in the sky textures. I leave it at the highest setting... Aniso.

 

Charles.

Hi Charles,  I'm  just at cruise going up the Sarnia River towards Grand Bend, Ontario at 3,500 in the Carenado Bonanza.  I have the sun today splashing across my instrument panel at a nice clip of 160 knots and 30 FPS!  I would not give this up...for the world!  Bloom has the atmospherics, the most real I have ever sim'ed inside.  Man...what I was missing for YEARS! Sort of peeves me right off in hindsight..

 

I have my set up as 4x FSAA 'at Steve's place, lol, and 4 grid super sample in NI.  It looks just as good as if set to 8 for both figures.  I see no visual difference, so have settled into 4/4. I have  filtering set up as anistrophic inside FSX, and have the box for AA checked off.   Everything at max and turned on in the sim,... just looks freaking fantastic!  I guess that everybody has to tweak whatever it takes for their particular card model and manufacturer, but man, is it SO WORTH THE EFFORT!

I agree with Charles. I stick to Anisotropic filtering in the FSX menu.

 

Interesting results there, Dave. I have only tried the 737NGX in DX10 mode so far, but my own results are a bit mixed as far as framerates are concerned. I need to visit more of my most detailed airports and scenery areas to make a more accurate assessment.

I'm sticking with anisotropic inside FSX as well. I really don't see any difference in using any of the other formats. I'm pretty well after a day and a half with DX10...settled in..and now am forgetting about tweaks and settings..and just flying in the best virtual world and system performance,  I have seen to date...

[DescendDescend 25]

Did some (fairly unscientific) tests to compare 777 and NGX in DX9 and DX10,

 

VC and external at UK2000 EGKK: DX10 frame rates are marginally lower in VC and external (except the NGX external which is significantly lower in DX10 possibly due to the FX file mentioned elsewhere).

 

However I suspect that if I change to 4xSGSS and switch on bloom the DX9 will be much worse and for me, these settings make a big difference.

[hoser70 40]

Way too expensive...

[Guest]

 

 

I'm sticking with anisotropic inside FSX as well. I really don't see any difference in using any of the other formats.

 

If you have Inspector set to User-defined and 16x for Anisotropic filtering, it doesn't matter if you set it in FSX to Aniso or Trilinear: the driver is doing the work anyway. I have FSX set to Trilinear so I am sure FSX AF won't interfere with NI's AF but probably that's not even possible...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

If you have Inspector set to User-defined and 16x for Anisotropic filtering, it doesn't matter if you set it in FSX to Aniso or Trilinear: the driver is doing the work anyway. I have FSX set to Trilinear so I am sure FSX AF won't interfere with NI's AF but probably that's not even possible...

Thanks for the head's up, Jeroen.  I have it tweaked, poked, massaged...and am no longer touching anything but the 'For FSX, press here' button!  Things couldn't be better. Life is good!

 

 

Cheers!

 

Mitch