DirectX Royal Rumble... FSX DX9 vs DX10 vs P3Dv2 DX11!

[cvearl 60]

Lets get ready to rumble!!!!!

 

Never in the history of Microsoft Flight Simulator 10 have we had so many graphic choices. DX9, DX10 with the DX10 Fixer and now P3Dv2 DX11. Wow. So I got to thinking it was time for a showdown.

 

This is the same scenery loaded (FTXGlobal 1.2), same plane (Duke v2.0), same time and season (Summer Day), same weather (Cold Fronts) and same airport (KSEA) with P3Dv2 dialed as closely to the same settings I have for FSX (DX9 and 10 have the exact same settings and I have all shadows turned off in P3D although some cockpit shadows only cost a few fps). As you look at these you will notice that P3Dv2 has lower fps. But looking at the last comparison, you will see why. Autogen sprite draw distance. It will be grossly evident that P3Dv2 is drawing up to 3 times the autogen sprites. Not in density but in distance from the plane. The AG radius is at least 3 times if not more further out. You can see below the plane that the density is the same but as you go further out away from the plane, a huge reduction in the number of objects drawn in FSX. This, IMO, accounts for the lower fps in P3Dv2.

 

NOTE: You may also notice that some of the objects at KSEA are missing in P3D even though all are using FTXG 1.2. Ah well.

 

Settings are simple. 4xSSAA 16xAF with vsync on but fps unlimited. Scenery Complexity Very Dense and Autgen at Dense, cloud density high and 70 miles, water Low2x. LOD radius 4.5 ect... so on and so fourth. Very few changes to FSX.CFG. Highmemfix and wideviewaspect and that's it.

 

[GHarrall 494]

Good shots.

 

One thing I would also consider is using an addon plane that may or may not be fully compatible with P3D v2.

 

I think we are already seeing that P3D v2 can be FPS affected pretty drastically by addons that arent V2 certified or native to V2.

 

Just a consideration.

[RWFeldman 159]

Umm, though I see differences. Not enough for me to make any conclusions of whats better or worst. All in the eye of the beholder I reckon. But, I do more flying than looking.

[cvearl 60]

Good shots.

 

One thing I would also consider is using an addon plane that may or may not be fully compatible with P3D v2.

 

I think we are already seeing that P3D v2 can be FPS affected pretty drastically by addons that arent V2 certified or native to V2.

 

Just a consideration.

 

Good idea! Here you go. Native P3D plane.

 

Umm, though I see differences. Not enough for me to make any conclusions of whats better or worst. All in the eye of the beholder I reckon. But, I do more flying than looking.

 

Look at the very last two shots. the whole point of the thread. Look at the very last two shots paying close attention to the number of houses and trees are on the ground just beyond the Golf course and just North of the river almost into downtown Seattle. Not about "better or worse" I guess but an explanation of WHY fps seem lower in P3Dv2 than FSX under same conditions. P3Dv2 is doing more work (weather or not that is more or less pleasing to you while you "fly"). The framerates are displayed in the top left corner in case you missed it. And ya. I fly and I don't watch the fps counter. This was an academic comparison in the context of different rendering engines we have available in our sims.

 

Charles.

[Guest]

 

 

But, I do more flying than looking.

 

What do you fly?  I'm not a real world pilot, but from the cockpit videos I've seen of real world private and commercial pilots, they're always looking inside and outside.

 

 

 

Settings are simple. 4xSSAA 16xAF with vsync on but fps unlimited. Scenery Complexity Very Dense and Autgen at Dense, cloud density high and 70 miles, water Low2x. LOD radius 4.5 ect... so on and so fourth. Very few changes to FSX.CFG. Highmemfix and wideviewaspect and that's it.

 

Trouble maker!  I appreciate the work you must have put into this to get those screenshots in all the various modes/locations -- I bet that took some time.  But, you might need to provide more details on FSX and P3DV2 settings.  P3DV2 can light the "scene" much more realistically than FSX regardless of DX10 or DX9 so it's not really fair on FSX.  And screenshots can be a bit misleading in terms of the "actual" experience ... RAW video probably gives a better representation of the respective platforms.  But it's nice to see the differences between them.  IMHO,  photo scenery still looks better in FSX primarily because of AA and the ability to set LOD to 9.5 in FSX which I can't do in P3DV2.  But LM have indicated "better blending of photo scenery" was fixed for V2.1 - not sure exactly what that means, and if they sort out AA settings with nVidia/AMD then photo scenery might be great in both platforms.

[cvearl 60]

What do you fly?  I'm not a real world pilot, but from the cockpit videos I've seen of real world private and commercial pilots, they're always looking inside and outside.

 

 

 

 

Trouble maker!  I appreciate the work you must have put into this to get those screenshots in all the various modes/locations -- I bet that took some time.  But, you might need to provide more details on FSX and P3DV2 settings.  P3DV2 can light the "scene" much more realistically than FSX regardless of DX10 or DX9 so it's not really fair on FSX.  And screenshots can be a bit misleading in terms of the "actual" experience ... RAW video probably gives a better representation of the respective platforms.  But it's nice to see the differences between them.  IMHO,  photo scenery still looks better in FSX primarily because of AA and the ability to set LOD to 9.5 in FSX which I can't do in P3DV2.  But LM have indicated "better blending of photo scenery" was fixed for V2.1 - not sure exactly what that means, and if they sort out AA settings with nVidia/AMD then photo scenery might be great in both platforms.

 

Hey don't get me wrong.

 

I like the Autogen in P3Dv2 and I am willing to spend a few fps (and bucks on a more powerful card) to get it! Sadly it will be a year before P3D is usable full time for me. I am waiting for all the ORBX stuff to have Native installers. Need more natives in my scenery! LOL

 

I mean look how hairy P3Dv2 scenery can be! Love that autogen. As for Photoreal? I do alot of my flying below 3000 feet AGL and I have yet to find scenery in the photoreal catagory that makes my day. That said... If I was more into high flying and bought some well blended big airports, I would be a photoreal ######. But down low... I need trees and houses man.

 

Love your racing stuff by the way. I used to race alot on iracing.com with a FFB steeringwheel until FSX stole all my time. Always wanted to do it in real life. No tracks near me though so no use getting into the costs associated with it.

 

Charles.

[Dirk98 354]

Thanks for the comparison. I have about the same FPS difference between dx9 and dx10, which is still a little too much to my eye and the planes I fly.

 

I bought P3D last year, but I haven't really flown it for compatibility issues.

 

FSX+SweetFX still work best for me.

 

Dirk.

[Pe11e 812]

DirectX version going up - FPS is going down! That's the way to go *facepalm* :lol: 

[cvearl 60]

DirectX version going up - FPS is going down! That's the way to go *facepalm* :lol:

 

To be honest... In this comparison, there is 3 times the autogen in the P3D shot and HDR is enabled. Now... you COULD do the butter spread thin approach and drop the density sliders down just a tick right? Then the fps would be in the same "zone" of performance. So less dense but drawn further out so you dont see clumps of houses and trees popping up 1 mile out which is a hallmark of FSX. But I would prefer to grab a faster video card and embrace the extra scenery. Both options are there.

 

Charles.

[samtx 1]

Thanks for the comparison shots. Looking below the golf course area, there seem to be less structures and trees closer in on P3Dv2, but many more trees further out. As for the far background, why are the distant mountains not visible in P3Dv2 (especially on the left side horizon)? Is that a lower draw distance or a thicker/more reflective/washed out fog/haze effect?

[styckx 1,870]

Thanks for the comparison shots. Looking below the golf course area, there seem to be less structures and trees closer in, but many more trees further out. As for the far background, why are the distant mountains not visible in P3Dv2 (especially on the left side horizon)? Is that a lower draw distance or thicker/more reflective/washed out fog?

 

This is Lockheeds answer to your question about the horizon and fogging. 

 

 

The fog distance for full visibility is based on the approximated horizon distance. If we let the terrain but up against the sky, it aliases pretty bad, so it needs to full fade out to the sky color by the time you get to the horizon. Having tall mountains throws off the horizon approximation a bit. We changed our fog equation way back in Prepar3D 1.0. As I recall FSX/ESP used something closer to a linear fade while we modeled ours on an exponential curve because its more physically accurate. Exponential fog has a much steeper ramp up toward the end of the visibility range. So 3/4 of the way through the fog range, we're probably fogging less than FSX but at 90% we're fogging more. Many early adapters who moved from ESP or FSX actually said they preferred our fog over that of FSX because it didn't wash out the scene as much. They may have been referring to the d3d9 fog though. In either case its just a matter of preference and your feedback is appreciated.

 

Beau Hollis

Rendering System Lead - Prepar3D® Team 

[samtx 1]

This is Lockheeds answer to your question about the horizon and fogging.

Thanks for that. I do miss the scenic distant mountains.

[cvearl 60]

Umm, though I see differences. Not enough for me to make any conclusions of whats better or worst. All in the eye of the beholder I reckon. But, I do more flying than looking.

 

Here's looking at you! Check out this flight around CYVR PNW (hacked into P3Dv2). Autogen thick and lush as as far as the eye can see. It is there before it reaches the limits of my view horizon. It's not hard to see what it's eating 2.5 GB Video memory.

 

Makes me wonder how much my FPS will be if I get a GTX780 or the slightly cheaper R9 290 which are both about 70% more powerful than this 7970 (now known as an R9 280X).

 

[RCITGuy 35]

Hiya Charles

 

You say you are using FTX Global v1.2?

Is that some sort of beta or special release as I just bought FTX Global a few days ago and only have what seems to be the latest release of v1.10?

[cvearl 60]

Hiya Charles

 

You say you are using FTX Global v1.2?

Is that some sort of beta or special release as I just bought FTX Global a few days ago and only have what seems to be the latest release of v1.10?

 

They had to patch it as some textures were not overwritten...

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/69629-ftx-global-120-patch/

 

C.