Is it too early to ask?

[Guest Badger]

I know that nothing is final and code is still being 'worked on'I also know that there aren't any DX10 cards in existance yet, but is it possible (or allowed) to say if FSX has better frame rates than FS9 at the same settings on the same hardware or even if panning the cockpit views is less jerky?Is this the 64 millon dollar question?RegardsMark

[Guest]

I won't be expecting any great improvement in performance while it runs on DX9..

[W2DR 1,859]

There's also no evidence that DX10 will help as far as framerates are concerned. I'd expect that as the eyecandy increases, the framerates, all other things being equal, will, as in all past releases, be somewhat lower.DougEdited 'cause I can't spel

[Guest]

> There's also no evidence that DX10 will help as far as framerates are concerned.Thats wrong wrong wrong! You should go back to DX10 school..

[Guest grot]

Honestly, I don't mind the trades of candy for FR. What I do mind, and hope is fixed, are the performance issues which are clearly not hardware related - as in the popping texture blurries problem. I can set my machine for 640/480 and I still get noticable popping textures - I guess I don't understand how the same machine that runs Doom3 1280/960 tweaked out without a hitch with never a noticable hiccup can't run FS well enough...

[Murmur 3,941]

>> There's also no evidence that DX10 will help as far as>framerates are concerned.>>Thats wrong wrong wrong! You should go back to DX10 school..In Call Of Duty II, when playing in DX9 modality, the FPS were much, much less than in DX8 modality (other graphic options being the same).Marco

[W2DR 1,859]

I believe my statement is factually correct. But, I'm always willing to learn. Could you please point us to a controlled-test reference which shows, conclusively, that either the absolute or average framerate for FSX will increase under DX10 versus DX9.1c. I know that may be asking for quite a bit since neither has been released yet, but you seem so positive I'm sure you must have access to such data from some source.Doug

[Guest Badger]

Well I'll take a stab at that one.As far as I am aware (someone correct me if I'm wrong) every other 3D game such as Doom, Call of Duty etc load up all their textures as part of the level you are playing. Although you can look in 360 degrees the game developers always know what you will ever be able to see.FS is quite different. You can choose to start anywhere in the world at any time of day or night. The game can't load 'levels' as such. It has to load its textures and autogen and everything else 'on the fly' appropriate to where and when you are.Things 'pop' and 'jerk' because of all the processing and file loading that's going on each time you quickly change your point of view.My hope is that FSX will be able to utilize every processor in your machine (CPU or CPU's and the GPU) to banish pop and jerk forever, no matter if you are panning your view at a busy airport full of AI traffic or dense scenery area.RegardsMark

[Guest]

Heres one link you can read:http://www.answers.com/topic/directx"According to Microsoft, DirectX 10 will be able to display graphics up to 8 times more quickly than DirectX 9.0c"As you know FS is probably the most CPU intensive game out there. The communications between the CPU and the graphics card is contributing to a slower performance.Well DX10 "allows GPU processing without CPU intervention"!! If FS is converted to use DX10 and optimised for the CPU, you will be seeing an awesome increase in frames.

[W2DR 1,859]

But that statement says nothing about the impact on FSX. That speculative increase in shader performance may be fine for pixel-pushing-first-person-shooters but that's not the type of game we're talking about here. Remember, FSX is being developed as a DX9 game taking advantage of the existing abstraction layer. I still stand by my statement that there is no evidence that utilizing DX10 in FSX will provide a framerate increase. But, as I said, I'm always willing to learn. If you've got any direct evidence to the contrary please let us know.Doug

[Guest]

:-hmmm

[Guest Simpit]

I found this article:http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931946,00.aspinteresting with regards to the improvements with Vista and DX10. Normally I take speculation about unreleased software with a grain of salt, but what microsoft is doing with vista is very interesting. Simpit

[Guest Traffic]

Interesting article, especially under DX10 section "Why should you care?

[tasmanet 0]

>"According to Microsoft, DirectX 10 will be able to display>graphics up to 8 times more quickly than DirectX 9.0c">As you know FS is probably the most CPU intensive game out>there. The communications between the CPU and the graphics>card is contributing to a slower performance.>Well DX10 "allows GPU processing without CPU intervention"!!>If FS is converted to use DX10 and optimised for the CPU, you>will be seeing an awesome increase in frames.Pure speculation WingNut1It is sad that people still believe anythingthat the marketing people at M$ say.

[mgh 89]

wingnut1Your quotation is what that website says Microsoft says and is pretty valueless. A direct quote from Microsoft would have some value.tasmanetDoes your contempt for Microsoft, or M$ as you call it, stop you from using its products?