I am with you on that one. I did not get it either. "FSX will ship using DX9 support," seems to be a definitive statement. If that is the case, why did they go on about DX10 on the FSX video? A step to DX10 is not a minor step. DX10 is a completely different way of writing code compared to DX9 that will require more than a patch, or at least it seems. Maybe someone can shed some light on this issue.RH

>What do you guys think?The DirectX API has very little to do with how heavily a game uses the CPU versus the GPU. Like most software APIs, it's a just a tool tha game developers use along with their core program code.

>I am with you on that one. I did not get it either. "FSX>will ship using DX9 support," seems to be a definitive>statement. If that is the case, why did they go on about DX10>on the FSX video? A step to DX10 is not a minor step. DX10>is a completely different way of writing code compared to DX9>that will require more than a patch, or at least it seems. >Maybe someone can shed some light on this issue.>>RHI'll try one more time, but then that's it for awhile: http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../23/516653.aspx.If you still have questions, you can view DX10 info in the December 2005 DirectX SDK: http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/sdk/.

"When we finally do get hardware we'll decide what to do about DX10. It might make it in the shipping product, it might not. If it doesn't I can't say (because I can't predict the future) when you'll see it in FS or what it will do once there."This is very WORRYING! It seems your suggesting FSX may never support DirectX 10 at all, not even a patch?? :(

>"When we finally do get hardware we'll decide what to do>about DX10. It might make it in the shipping product, it might>not. If it doesn't I can't say (because I can't predict the>future) when you'll see it in FS or what it will do once>there.">>This is very WORRYING! It seems your suggesting FSX may never>support DirectX 10 at all, not even a patch?? :(Is the glass half full or half empty?

Its 3 years later (2009) and we are waiting for FS11.. Our flight sim with 30 addons is designed for XP/32bit/Directx9?? Sounds familar.. Please do not let this happen! We really need all the graphic and performance benefits of DX10...

Or how about bringing back the pro version? Release that a couple of months later for Vista/64bit/DX10 only, if time runs out. Just an idea..

Thanks tdragger, you've provided just the kind of insight into your process that we (well, at least I) are looking for. In a perfect world, DriectX10 API would be done and available, and reference hardware out to run it on for some performance testing. But, I'm still waiting for that perfect world!If there's anything I've learned from program management, having to rely on some one else's software release date being met for your program's success is a recipe for failure. Your top problem/feature in the other guy's project is just another bug report to him!It's going to be hard enough hitting the moving target of Vista, and things like game explorer that I assume you have nothing to test against yet.Don't forget the first law of software development: If the program doesn't have to work, you can always meet any other requirement.scott s..

<>Are there any in particular you think are more important?

<>Actually many of the shell features are already there in some form. I believe the latest CP (customer preview) build has them.

It has been known for quite awhile that with DX10 coming together with Windows Vista in the last quarter of the year, both ATI and Nvidia want to be right there with a full line of DX10 cards. We were told that we might even see a release as early as the summer, with cards promising great DX9 performance and future-proof DX10 support when Vista finally arrives. Surely the FSX team knew that and did not expect anything before early summer.RH

This might be of interest to some of you:http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1913861,00.aspMike

<>> Are there any in particular you think are more important?Theres one in particular. The "long shaders" with "up to 8 times the performance increase". I am convinced this technology could end the stutters for good (regardless of the number of addons/traffic/weather etc)...John.

<>That assumes our shaders are already so large that the h/w needs to make multiple trips across the bus. If the shaders are small you'll likely see no difference. And, in general, most hardware vendors recommend shaders be as small and simple as possible since it makes it easier to optimize.What I was really looking for your suggestions for features that simply aren't possible using DX9. (Just be careful--it's a trick question. )

> What I was really looking for your suggestions for features that simply aren't possible using DX9. (Just be careful--it's a trick question. )-shaders that create new geometry-no more lost devices-removal of device caps-removal of fixed function pipeline-shader model 4Did you see the Crytek demo, how'd they do that without DX10 hardware?