Tdragger, where did you get the following information?"FSX will ship using DX9 and will be followed up (hopefully shortly) with a release that adds DX10 support. That's all I can say for now."RH

Seeing he is part of the ACES team, I would suggest from working with FSX everyday!Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

Hmmm, that should afford him some edge information-wise (is this a proper word?) :-lol Anyway, I would still like to hear how they plan to implement the upgrade to DX10.Regards,

Isn't it more like team leader or project leader or program leader......So I guess he would have a little clue :-)Cheers,Chris Porter:-outta

>Tdragger, where did you get the following information?>>"FSX will ship using DX9 and will be followed up (hopefully>shortly) with a release that adds DX10 support. That's all I>can say for now."Let me guess... You've never bothered to go visit Mike's blog, right?Had you done so, you'd have known that he's THE head honcho for FSX development... *:-*

That must mean he is someone important. What is the ACES team?RH

>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.No, DX10 requires DX10 compliant hardware. There is no software emulation, no exceptions.Cheers,Steve

Oh sure, what do you know, Steve? Just because you co-wrote DirectX 1.0, sheesh! ;)

>That must mean he is someone important. What is the ACES>team?ACES = part of Microsoft Game Studio...

Thanks for the info then. So, being that FSX will be a DirectX 9 release, it will continue to be the CPU hog that it currently is. It is not until DirectX 10 that it becomes less CPU dependent to any significant degree. I suppose the DirectX 10 version will be FS11.What do you guys think?RH

I'd be surprised if we see any relief with DX10. It sounds like the DX10 functionality is going to be more on the order of eye-candy. Whatever the engine is in the initial release, I don't see that changing with a DX10 patch.Doug

I don't mind FSX being a CPU hog because currently I have a cheap GPU and an expensive CPU... :-violin But I DO care on how they will implement the transition to DX10. This is the third time I ask in the same thread. If someone doesn't answer this now...I'll...I'll...I'll pretend I never asked...Regards,

The way it sounds, with DirectX 10, it would have to be a complete rewrite rather than a patch.RH

I suspect the problem is that right now DX10 is sort of a moving target. Maybe we will have better insight once Vista Beta 2 comes out. (Around March?) It would be resource intense, but it could be that MSFS team are building an parallel to the anticipated DX10 specs. I think this would be quite a challenge, since AIUI, in DX10 most of the work will be written in HLSL, so it doesn't really build on the DX9 code. (Unless there is some high level design code that can be translated into the appropriate HLSL.)scott s..

I'd like to know that also. I really don't understand the tdragger comment above which says "FSX will ship using DX9 and will be followed up (hopefully shortly) with a release that adds DX10 support. That's all I can say for now.". Why buy the DX9 version if there is to be a "release" that adds DX10 later? Or, if the DX10 implementation is a patch to the initial release, and not the release of a new version, then it wouldn't matter when the purchase is made. It still sounds like, all comments considered, that the DX10 functionality isn't going to be more than added eye-candy. But, time will tell...Doug