This has probably been brought up before, but thought I may as well bring it up again... I guess it goes back to the performance issues many experience and are experiencing. If memory serves me correct, people have brought up the simple fact of why doesn't MS use OpenGL for it's rendering engine... Well, I'm sure we all know DirectX is put out by MS, and that's the reason why they're using it. However, you'd think after numerous years of people complaining about performance-related issues, that MS would learn to use OpenGL. It runs much faster, smoother, and can handle much more than DirectX can with much more stability as well as features. It seems that with each release, everyone has to go out and buy a new computer which gets to be rather expensive, and counter-productive to say the least. Not saying you wouldn't have to do some upgrading with an OpenGL based application, but the complaints would be at a minimum I'm certain. I've seen many other applications written for OpenGL that are much more graphically intensive than FS is, and they run smooth as silk compared to it. OpenGL is a well-proven platform, and has been around for much longer, with much better results. Why are we not taking advantage of it? You would think MS would give us the option to run FS in either DirectX or OpenGL. Obviously, my choice would be OpenGL. Just my 2 cents...Allan

Blah blah blah, whats the point in even posting this, honestly?

Sorry, this is one of those "folk" myths that OpenGL would really make any difference in MSFS.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

There's no way microsoft would release a game that didn't run on DirectX.

What's the point of posting it? Gets people to 'think' outside of the box. I guess my point here is, we should have the option of doing it. I truely believe it'd deliver much better performance, especially for people with slower systems. Don't forget, some people can't afford to be going out and buying new computers all the time, or spending a grip on new components. It'd at least offer people more of a choice. DirectX has a lot of bottlenecks which OpenGL does not and allows for a smooth rendering vs. this jerky slide-show effect that DX has. Even more importantly, it'd allow for a more 'functional' experience to allow more FPS during critical stages of flight on approach and takeoff. All-in-all, you would ultimately think that MS would care about customer satisfaction; current trends show the opposite though.

The perf issues you refer to in the Demo have nothing to do with DirectX limitations.I'm not sure what to tell you... your assessment of this specific situation and DirectX/OpenGL in general is simply not correct. :

In the past OpenGL was better than DirectX, but that doesn't hold anymore. In some regards DX9 is better (and in some OGL is better), but on balance you get almost identical performance using both.MS has no obligation to make it's games in OGL, and there's nothing wrong with DX 9.James

>The perf issues you refer to in the Demo have nothing to do>with DirectX limitations.>>I'm not sure what to tell you... your assessment of this>specific situation and DirectX/OpenGL in general is simply not>correct. :I was always under the distinct impression that OpenGL failed as a mainstream rendering API because it was slower and took a much stronger machine to run. That's why you only see it implemented in high end rendering programs these days, because it takes a powerful workstation to run it effectively.

Hello DC-9,This might not make you feel better, but...For those that can afford new hardware(in the not to distant future), DX10 might address a lot of the concerns you have mentioned for games and apps that are programmed with it. Here's a part of an article about it from Maxmium PC, a very good magazine imo..."Micrsoft is throwing the baby out with the bathwater --- and that's a good thing when it comes to DirectX, because the new version looks to be lean, mean, and clean. Backward-compatibility is the bane of many a programmers existence. Creating software that's capable of running on hardware that's five or more years old can lead to a creaky, cranky, unstable product; backward-compatibility is also one of the biggest causes of code bloat. So for the first time in the history of DirectX, Microsoft is rebuilding its infamous collection of APIs and streamlining them into one all-inclusive package. According to Microsoft, the result is a DirectX that's faster, contains less resource-hogging overhead, and will enable developers to create visual and other effects that have never before been possible on the PC."The article goes on, but that's the hype part of it. It sounds good so let's just hope it lives up to it! A lot of what they talk about there should turn out to be true, with DX10 is being built all new from the ground up with backward-compatibility being chucked out the window should make for a less bloated and faster API.Regards,OneTinSoldier

Hi Guys,If that were the case, I'm certain full-flight sims would be using it, but it's not. Everything on those are OpenGL, and believe it or not, the newer ones aren't running main-frame workstations anymore. The days of the old SPX systems are gone. In fact, they're using much of the same hardware available on the consumer market now. I guess what I'm getting at here is, DX in my opinion, hasn't proven itself, and what it's seaming more and more like is MS is doing it purposely for processor and video card manufacturers. Not saying that new isn't better or faster, but what I think you guys are failing to realize here is, the smooth performance everyone wants is already here through OpenGL, and wouldn't take most of us $1,500-2,000 to achieve it given the program is written for the API. I think instead of complaining about it and consistently trying to 'tweak' to get that, I think what we should be doing is requesting that we have the option to run FS in OpenGL. IMHO, DX is far inferior compared to OpenGL. Make much sense? It's a rip-off ploy. What we have is more than good enough if put to it's full potential, and DX obviously isn't doing that.

THe only new commercial flight sim that I know of running OGL is X-plane- and it's developed on a MAC and designed to be cross platform.MSFS is Windows only. No need for OGL. OGL is not 'better' than DX9, just different. Look at all of the other 3d titles that are DX only, and the handful that are OGL for the Windows platform.

>I've seen many other applications written for OpenGL that are much>more graphically intensive than FS is, and they run smooth as>silk compared to it. Allan, FS is not like any other graphically intensive game. FS does not just render a scene like Crysis or Quake do. It has far, FAR more calculations per second. FS would *not* run smooth as silk on OpenGL.I am a big fan of OpenGL too, but it would NOT solve any problems with FS.Rhett

Hi Allan, I believe X-Plane uses OpenGL if you're looking for a PC sim that uses that technology.

I am getting a tad tired of people expecting the ultimate graphic sensations and best performance and complaining at the same time that their 4 year old computer can't handle it. How does this expectation makes sense? It's like complaining that a DVD can't fit on a CD.Solution: Turn the sliders down!!!Pat

fit on a CD.>>Solution: Turn the sliders down!!!>AW! You make it too easy! Visit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/