I've heard that DX10 mode greatly helps prevent OOM's and increases performance all while upping the visuals (Beautiful Water with no FPS Hit!).

 

So now that DX10 rendering in FSX has been fixed by various methods (payware/freeware) does the inclusion of FSX in DX10 mode put FSX on a more level playing field with P3D?

 

Especially graphical and performance wise?

 

Thoughts?

I get worse performance at the same or lower graphics settings, with DX10.

I get worse performance at the same or lower graphics settings, with DX10.

You must have it set up wrong. Have you been to the DX10 forum for help ?

This pretty much says it all for me...

 

Steve's DX10 Fixer Mutley's Hanger Review Quote:

 

But let’s consider an example machine: mine. I’m running an i5 760 overclocked to 4GHz (beyond that point the heat and the voltage both started to escalate dramatically) alongside a factory-overclocked Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 card. Immediately after implementing DX10 I found that my frames per second (fps) increased slightly, but only by around 3 - 5 fps. My VAS usage, however, dropped by getting on for 1Gb, so that I went from needing to think about what airports I landed at (DX9 VAS generally reaches its maximum when you touch down at your destination airport, only increasing beyond that if you summon deboarding from GSX) to being able to fly long haul trips for hours in my PMDG 777 into the most demanding airports in the world with no problems at all.

 

Anyway: the bottom line is that for me the performance increase in terms of fps was sufficient to allow me to tweak some other settings such as LOD_RADIUS to achieve significant improvements in what I see onscreen, so I’m an extremely happy bunny: my FSX has never looked so good, and hasn’t run out of VAS no matter how hard I tried to make it do so. (Can you take the PMDG 777 out of Orbx’s Southampton airport and land it at one of the advanced renditions of Heathrow, whilst using Orbx England and detailed mesh? I can (now) — but I certainly wouldn’t care to try that in DX9....).

 

 

Original Article Link:

 

http://mutleyshangar.com/reviews/bc/dx10/dx10.htm

This pretty much says it all for me...

 

Steve's DX10 Fixer Mutley's Hanger Review Quote:

 

But let’s consider an example machine: mine. I’m running an i5 760 overclocked to 4GHz (beyond that point the heat and the voltage both started to escalate dramatically) alongside a factory-overclocked Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 card. Immediately after implementing DX10 I found that my frames per second (fps) increased slightly, but only by around 3 - 5 fps. My VAS usage, however, dropped by getting on for 1Gb, so that I went from needing to think about what airports I landed at (DX9 VAS generally reaches its maximum when you touch down at your destination airport, only increasing beyond that if you summon deboarding from GSX) to being able to fly long haul trips for hours in my PMDG 777 into the most demanding airports in the world with no problems at all.

 

Anyway: the bottom line is that for me the performance increase in terms of fps was sufficient to allow me to tweak some other settings such as LOD_RADIUS to achieve significant improvements in what I see onscreen, so I’m an extremely happy bunny: my FSX has never looked so good, and hasn’t run out of VAS no matter how hard I tried to make it do so. (Can you take the PMDG 777 out of Orbx’s Southampton airport and land it at one of the advanced renditions of Heathrow, whilst using Orbx England and detailed mesh? I can (now) — but I certainly wouldn’t care to try that in DX9....).

 

 

Original Article Link:

 

http://mutleyshangar.com/reviews/bc/dx10/dx10.htm

Yep it is all true. I had much harder time setting things up with my addons than I have now. But it doesn't change the fact that even in dx10 bad limit is still there. No extreme autogen for me when I use addons which I have with Lod on 5.5 and so on... Always about finding sweetspot.

 

One thing which lowered my vas considerably as I am a vector user was lowering water quality. Under dx10 it looks beautiful and I don't need aircraft or autogen reflections as I am not flying that low.

 

Anyway - dx10 sf is for sure a huge step forward if you are not believing in 101 tweaks available online where most of them doesn't change anything but gives you placebo effect.

 

This one really fixes stuff.

I have never used P3D, so I can't actually answer the original question, but I can share my personal experience of DX10.

 

The computer that I use to fly online with has an i7 4770K overclocked to 4.3GHz paired with a GTX780 factory-Superclocked.  I primarily use photo sceneries, LOD at 9.00 with most settings at max except  Water at  2xLow, frames locked internally at 30.  With DX10 the performance is excellent, and I don't spend my life tweaking.

 

The icing on the cake is that I get almost identical results using DX10 on my development machine .....  i5 2500K @ 4.6GHz and GTX580

 

I use Scenery Config Editor to load only the sceneries that I need for a flight and OOM's are virtually non-existent now.  

 

If there is a down-side, I have various problems with airfield lighting - some of these may well be fixable by experimentation, or possibly enhancements to the DX10 Fixer.  In the scheme of things they are very minor.

 

DX10 is like a new simulator for me ..... thanks Steve for all your work  :clapping:

 

Dave.

 

 

DX10 is like a new simulator for me ..... thanks Steve for all your work

 

+1

 

Rarely if ever have FSX crash now. And even if FPS goes below 20fps I still get a smooth flying experience unlike DX9 which would stutter even at higher FPS.

 

There are a few issues with night-lighting and some aircraft (pre FSX) don't show properly but you can "tag" them in the DX10 fixer and it mostly fixes any issues. Great little addon.

I didn't see any performance improvement in DX10 mode (using the DX10 Scenery Fixer), and graphics quality was generally inferior to DX9 mode (bland looking water, purple wave animations, increased texture shimmering, flashing white pixels around the landscape, and no visible strobe or navigation lights on AI planes). The only advantage that I saw on my PC was superior VAS management.

Hi Chris,

 

To be honest, the superior VAS management would be enough reason to use the DX10 Fixer alone.

 

As for water, what do you call bland?   Is this bland:

 

 

 

 

Dave.

One general note, althoug hpersonally speaking :biggrin: :

Let's all please bare in mind that FSX was released around 2006 and that it was never designed to run such highly detailed add-ons on such a high level altogether as we are expecting it to do nowadays.

And as it is not developed any further, all that can be done is to get the best out of what is possible - but that's the crucial point:

Some things simply are not possible anymore!

So every tweak, every new setting may work on one PC, but not so on any other's one - not just because FSX is an aging sim, but also due to the fact that every PC is different from another one.

The same goes out to applying DX9 and DX10.

 

What can - and should be done though is to ask in advance what i (the user/simmer) expect from my sim to offer for my(!) liking:

Do i fly low and slow, VFR with some GA planes around - do i want AI planes flying around, do i want to fly IFR, do i like to fly with heavy tubeliners as of the kind of a PMDG 777 and so on ...

Once this is done i can move on to find the best set-up and tuning for my sim.

 

If i want to fly on a wider spectrum including detailed sceneries, weather, aircrafts ranging from small planes to tubeliners, and hence a "wider/broughter" and more general set up of FSX is required, i can still look around in advance and see what other users are reporting about various tweaks/settings, software and hardware.

 

If for instance the majority of users reports that since they use DX10 their OOM's have almost vanished and that there simming experience has - overall - improved, then i'd seriously check out if DX10 suits for me as well - but(!):

Better never ever expecting any miracles as - again saying:

FSX is getting older and older day by day.

And - one last note:

Some tweaks can be applied faster, some take a bit more time to work in a convincing manner.

And although i for instance consider setting up DX10 with the DX10 fix to be a pretty straight forward procedure, it still took me (and many others) quite a few days to really find the settings which suit best for my liking - and it took even longer to get it all working with SweetFX, which i (personally) just did not want to miss.

But now i am absolutely happy with my FSX set up!

Does this apply now for anyone else - well, the best way to go is ...

to find it out personally - because - as we all know:

This is still good old FSX

:smile:

 

And in regards to P3D:

As i don't use it (yet) i can't and won't make any judgement about it, but - again rather personally speaking:

Although in development for quite some time now i'd certainly give it still more time to evolve.

P3D.2 was just released a few weeks back and the first major patch for it just recently - and so as it is continuously developed further, i'd pragmatically say: Those of us who have not jumped over to it, let's keep an eye on it and look at it again for instance in six months ahead from now.

 

 

I didn't see any performance improvement in DX10 mode (using the DX10 Scenery Fixer), and graphics quality was generally inferior to DX9 mode (bland looking water, purple wave animations, increased texture shimmering, flashing white pixels around the landscape, and no visible strobe or navigation lights on AI planes). The only advantage that I saw on my PC was superior VAS management.

 

... hmmm that's sad to read.

I assume You did, but just in case:

Have You reported Your issues at the dedicated DX10 fix support forums here?

The support provided there is really great and maybe Your issues can be solved - especially now as the current version of the DX10 fix addresses really almost all issues.

 

As for water, what do you call bland?

 

The textures look a bit bland in that first screenshot, Dave. However, it is difficult to tell in a screenshot. I need to see FSX in action to know for certain. All I know is that the DX9 water with REX textures and wave animation looks vastly superior on my PC to that in DX10 mode.

 

 

Have You reported Your issues at the dedicated DX10 fix support forums here?

The support provided there is really great and maybe Your issues can be solved - especially now as the current version of the DX10 fix addresses really almost all issues.

 

I will not be using DX10 mode again. I have a suspicion that this caused my "one second hard stutter" problem at large airports with lots of AI planes active, and there is no way that I am risking that again. Like I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum, a complete reinstall of FSX and addons has cured this problem for me, so I am sticking with DX9 mode. If that means an increased chance of OOMs, then so be it. That stutter problem made me lose interest in flying, so avoiding that is my number one priority.

If you'll wander over and watch the beautiful video in the first look at NCA thread, you'll see the default water textures in DX10 under the wings of that lovely F9F Panther.   That water looks better to me than anything I've ever gotten in DX9 with all the various addons I've tried through the years.  

I am happy for the guys that see a significant improvement in DX10 mode.

 

 

So now that DX10 rendering in FSX has been fixed by various methods (payware/freeware) does the inclusion of FSX in DX10 mode put FSX on a more level playing field with P3D?

Especially graphical and performance wise?

Thoughts?

 

I run both P3Dv2 and FSXDX10 and feel that yes, DX10 brings FSX closer to P3Dv2. But it's not quite there and never will be because P3Dv2 provides further enhanced features as described in the P3D forum. I will say this, to run FSX without DX10 is doing yourself (and FSX for that matter) a disservice.

 

1. Performance wise, if used correctly, I get better performance with P3D.

 

2. Graphically? Again, if used correctly, I get better graphics and shadowing with P3D, more autogen, volumetric clouds that I fly through, minimal and sometimes zero autogen popping.

 

But regarding those two points above, I could also easily state that performance and graphics can be worse (and here is the mistake many make) simply by pushing the P3D sliders too far to the right.

 

So in summary, if you are considering purchasing the DX10 addon, I would say it is the best thing you can do to FSX to give a little more life in the old girl, but she can only travel so far on her old worn out tyres.

 

PS You will end up changing the wheels - eventually.