Software-Hardware Facts Concerning FSX

[RobbieHe 0]

This is what we know about some of the software-hardware issues with FSX.At this point, we know that FS10 is still evolving. The current FS team is limited by the lack of next generation hardware to run Vista and certain features that are available in DirectX 10. As a result, the team is still utilizing DirectX 9 for FSX development. As is evidenced by the current screen shots of FSX, however, the development team has surpassed FS9 features by including Shader 2.0 features (which are available in DirectX 9 but not utilized in FS9). So, I think that what we can deduce from the current screen shots of FSX is that they are just more detailed FS9 mesh scenery technology with the inclusion of Shader 2.0. Perhaps the water textures, rivets, birds, and nice polished, shimmering aircraft we see are a function of Shader 2.0. In the next phase of development, they plan on integrating Shader 3.0. Perhaps this feature can be integrated into DirectX 9 as well, and screen shots will be soon forthcoming.Once Vista and supporting hardware become available, they will then utilize Shader 4.0., which will include high dynamic range light scattering, geometric subdivision for water, cloud shadows, and multipass techniques. Shader Model 4.0 reportedly is termed a

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"the current FS team is limited by the lack of next generation hardware to run Vista and certain features that are available in DirectX 10"I am curious however. From the blogs it sounded like they used a dual core, SLI compliant box? If that's not next generation, what is? What will the technology cost the average hobbyist (we're talking hobbyist that still likes to take the wife and kid out to dinner, not the one with a house in the city and one in the country).I've delayed upgrading in part because I wanted to take advantage of the best and most expandable platform for running FS-X. I don't want to upgrade too soon if there's technology on the horizon that would cripple my system out of the gate vs. FS-X's features. Can anyone offer a guess on a good baseline system that will grow into FS-X/Vista? I'm a "build it myselfer", btw :)-John

[Guest PC509]

That's a tough upgrade call. The AMD M2 sockets are around the corner, as are the DX10 compliant video cards. The M2's will need DDR2, as well. So, it is going to be a major upgrade if you go that route. If you go with a socket 939, the FX60 (just released) is the last CPU for that socket. For me, I have a decent system, not the best, but it will get me until next Fall when I do a major upgrade. I'm putting all my $$ into a savings account just for that upgrade. Instead of buying a better part, I'll put that $$ into that account. Next fall, I want the best, though. I want FSX to shine! :) I only upgrade maybe once a year, but lately it's been once every 2 years. FSX is being developed on DX9 hardware, etc., but they should have some shader optimizations ready for DX10 hardware, even if done in emulation or requiring more passes to do the required work. i.e., if it takes 8 passes on DX9, it may only take 1 or 2 on 10, therefore speeding it up a bit. Of course, AOE3 took advantage of the shader model 3, which gives it a better overall look. Some of the older cards still use 2.x, which still look good, but not as good as 3. Even if FSX used 3, we'd be in for a treat. However, with the water looking the way it does, I don't think they are using shader model 3. But, it isn't done yet, so anything is possible. Heres a link showing the visual difference between the PS2.0 & PS3: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga...viii/page2.html The water there looks great with PS3.

[Bill A 68]

I hope my machine will be ok for it...I know it runs FS9 practically with all the sliders maxed out fine.Bill

[Mace 1,909]

Well John as you know it's all conjecture...but I will "conject" (is that word? :) ) because I like to:I think a 3700+ (that's a single-core cpu in case you are unfamiliar with AMD cpu's) or P4 3.xx ghz, 2 gigs of ram, and a 7800 series card will smoke on FSX, with Shader3, and DX10. There's your good cheap baseline system. Well the 7800 is not cheap right now, but even a 6800 would be ok. I'd go with 7800 though, because of Shader 3.0. Shader 4.0?? Somehow I really doubt that will be in FSX/DX10, that seems too far away, but the previous poster could be right about S4.0 appearing sooner.If I was going to spend a lot, like on an FX57/60 or top-end P4, I personally would rather get a 4400+ or 4800+ dual core than the FX. I would also wait for the 65nm process cpu's to come out, especially if I were going for an Intel-based setup. But I am not yet convinced that a dual-core will offer much advantage unless you're into coding MP3's and the like while you flightsim...and some are, don't get me wrong.In 1 year, I'd estimate that today's top-end dual core cpu's will be about 50%-60% the price they are right now. A 4800+ for $300-ish would be nice, wouldn't it? The 65nm-process cpu's will be top line, Presler core for Intel and M-whatever socket cpu's for AMD. DDR2 ram will appear for AMD, and then FSX will come out. Getting back to my original point, I think it's quite far-fetched to think that today's top line hardware be slow with FSX.Rhett

[AWACS 12]

I don't know what this means, but Mike (one of the FS guys here) said in another forums that there aren't any video cards available yet that will support DX10. Since I'm no computer guru, what does that means? That the video card companies will release drivers that make their cards compatible with DX10? Jeff

[Mace 1,909]

Surely that means that there are no DRIVERS that yet support DX10.In past years, when a new DX was released, I never remember having any problem with existing gfx cards. I would think that support would go through drivers! Surely. That would be bad otherwise. Bad.

[scott967 62]

There is no hardware that supports D3D10. This is a separate issue from building to Vista-compliant driver model. MS presently are using a software renderer to emulate D3D10 hardware. D3D10 will not have hardware cap setting capability; to use D3D10, hardware must meet the D3D10 requirements. This way code won't have to have separate execution paths for ATI and NVidia.D3D10 provides for a geometry shader, and also for an output stream from the geometry shader, so that the vertices can be run through the pipeline again. The geometry shader can create and destroy vertices. The MS D3D10 demo showed how this could be used in a particle system to display exploding fireworks. They also demonstrated some improved lighting technology beyond ambient/diffuse/specular materials.Separate from D3D10, is the new Vista driver model which will allow, among other things, virtualization of graphics memory and intelligent scheduling of GPU. This will allow multi-tasking, and obviously, makes use of multi-GPU designs easier. They are calling this cabability D3D9ex for D3D9 API programs. This will work with current D3D9 hardware (with a new driver obviously). There's some other stuff about how GDI willl be handled in Vista as well.The above is my reading of the MS Vista web site, and the Dec 05 DirectX SDK.Edit:I should add that if you look at the Mike Gilbert interview on Gamespot.com, he states they are currently coding to D3D9 API using shader model 2.0 and some things from Shader model 3.0. He mentioned some benefits that D3D10 will provide, but it wasn't clear when D3D10 would be incorporated in the FSX development. It's a 5 minute video. I wich there was a transcript, so I could quote it accurately.(sorry if URL wraps).http://www.gamespot.com/pages/video_player...988&tab=relatedscott s..

[Guest JoJoDawg]

>"the current FS team is limited by the lack of next>generation hardware to run Vista and certain features that are>available in DirectX 10">>I am curious however. From the blogs it sounded like they>used a dual core, SLI compliant box? If that's not next>generation, what is? What will the technology cost the>average hobbyist (we're talking hobbyist that still likes to>take the wife and kid out to dinner, not the one with a house>in the city and one in the country).>>I've delayed upgrading in part because I wanted to take>advantage of the best and most expandable platform for running>FS-X. I don't want to upgrade too soon if there's technology>on the horizon that would cripple my system out of the gate>vs. FS-X's features. Can anyone offer a guess on a good>baseline system that will grow into FS-X/Vista? I'm a "build>it myselfer", btw :)>>-JohnJohn I would suggest holding off till late summer early fall or even till Vista and FSX are out. First off there will be 2 more refreshes on the vid card side before/around the time fsx comes out.Quote from a anandTech discussion: "Rumors are for a summer G80 launch, surprisingly enough. It's probably safe to say expect both R600 and G80 slightly before Vista, so around 3Q06." Just rumors mind you, still along way off.Like a gentlemen commented here that M2 is about to come out for AMD and then Intel will probably pass up AMD mid-summer and then AMD will catch up at the end. That's rumored also. Have to wait and see whenthey get benched and are out. So all in all this year has a lot coming our way. So if you went out and upgraded now you would be shooting yourself in the foot later whenyou could have used that money and bought a pretty high-end in the current tech. Dx10 and possible quad-core cpu's or triple's. Not forsure have to catch up on cpu's launches.I'm in the same boat. I have a 2600M o/c, 1gb, and a 128mb 9800pro and it barely chugs away at almost maxed out sliders. Thanks to all the wonderful add-ons :(.My guess is systems that are really high-end now will be just barelyaverage when vista and fsx comes out. It will run it fine, but notlike it could be. (or in my view like it should).

[GHarrall 494]

FX60 is dual core if you are interested

[Guest tdragger]

As I understand it DX10 will require a hardware change. There will be no DX10 drivers made available for current hardware. You'll have to upgrade.

[Mace 1,909]

Bill,I'm upgrading *right now* because I can't tolerate my P4 1.8 and 64 meg graphic card any longer with FS9. Sorry, I just can't.Your setup might be a strained, but mine is way lower-end. Believe me.And regarding the 7800GT I just bought... If I have to buy a DX10-compliant card next year, so be it. At least I'll have great FS9 stuff this year.

[RobbieHe 0]

The technology will probably cost the average user lots in terms of upgrade costs. I certainly would not upgrade until it has been released and we get feedback from real users on what it will take to run FSX.I am guessing an M2 platform that is DDR2 (with a minimun of 2Gb of RAM) ready with a multicore AMD CPU and a DirectX 10 256 MB graphics card.RH

[Guest JoJoDawg]

>>Bill,>>I'm upgrading *right now* because I can't tolerate my P4 1.8>and 64 meg graphic card any longer with FS9. Sorry, I just>can't.>>Your setup might be a strained, but mine is way lower-end. >Believe me.>>And regarding the 7800GT I just bought... If I have to buy a>DX10-compliant card next year, so be it. At least I'll have>great FS9 stuff this year.Ugg I would upgrade too. Maybe not as high of a upgrade but for sure something. Hey at least when it all comes out you can use it as autility box or if the rumors are true about using another pc to run as a copilot then you got that covered.

[Guest]

No, DX10 will not require a hardware change.It will only require a hardware change in order to get all the commands it supports to execute in hardware, if you don't have the required hardware those commands will instead be executed in software by the GPU or CPU.This will cost some performance, it won't mean your software won't work.