some images of the new DirectX 10

[frankla 44]

I was under impression that DX10 had a lot lower overhead and thus ran more efficently!

[frankla 44]

I hate it when people just shoot in the breeze. How do you know that they missed the DX10 boat? In fact, FSX was supposed to be the show case software for DX10 and vista before both vista and DX10 hardware got delayed.

[Guest smarti05]

>I hate it when people just shoot in the breeze. How do you>know that they missed the DX10 boat? In fact, FSX was supposed>to be the show case software for DX10 and vista before both>vista and DX10 hardware got delayed.Well i for one am going to wait for real screen shots with real frame rate numbers before i believe anything shown to me and from the latest blog postings it looks as if the dx10 patch will not appear until way into 2007, at least they are working on a dx9 'performance' patch which could be around early 2007 (depending on progress), nothing wrong with hoping.I get the feeling that whilst dx10 is going to be an interesting technology, its use for us punters is still a long way of. After all isn't Crysis the first dx10 game and sounds like its been delayed until April and maybe beyond.

[Guest MrBitsy]

>>>hahahaa yea junk, thats what FSX is now, im running FS9,>>FSX>>>is collecting cobwebs, waiting for the performance patch.>>>>That is a shame. I am using it with 1m resolution VFR>scenery>>and navigating using real VFR charts and a Pooleys airfield>>guide.>>>>When I practice circuits at my local airfield, I can see>>trees, houses, swimming pools and just about everything else>I>>see out the real aircraft window. I am doing this at 22>smooth>>fps.>>>>Ray Keattch>>With autogen?>AI traffic on the roads?>Night textures?>Seasons represented?>And aftermarket airfields fitting inconspicuously into the>landscape?>>Didn't think so.I get smooth performance from FSX as I purchased it from the box ( just two tweaks was enough to get great performance). If I fly outside the UK then yes, I display normal Autogen. I choose not to display road traffic because I find it to be a gimmick that doesn't work for me.For what I want, FSX gives me a superb visual and flight experience. I especially like the more active atmosphere.>It's STILL just a compromise with promise. JUST LIKE FSX ;)It is a product that works well for me - and it looks a whole lot better than FS9.Ray Keattch.

[Guest Jimbofly]

You guys are a bunch of #### trolls. Thank god you've relegated yourselves to fewer and fewer threads.James

[clayton4115 56]

JamesSorry to have offended you but ive been around these forums for over 3 years now so please don't consider me a troll. I did not post this to act like a troll, i suppose you just need to backoff abit and respect everyone elses opinion, just because someone dislikes what you like you don't have to get all upset about it.

[LAdamson 240]

>James>>Sorry to have offended you but ive been around these forums>for over 3 years now so please don't consider me a troll. I>did not post this to act like a troll, i suppose you just need>to backoff abit and respect everyone elses opinion, just>because someone dislikes what you like you don't have to get>all upset about it.Yes, you are correct!And I've been around these forums for ten years or so, and IMO, FS9 looks like blurred low resolution cartoonville in comparison to the clear and precise photo-like high res texture beauty of FSX! :-hah Would I make this statement on Avsim's FS9 board? Probably not, as it would sound very much like "trolling"...This is just my counter reply and opinion , to the following, which is yours:"hahahaa yea junk, thats what FSX is now, im running FS9, FSX is collecting cobwebs, waiting for the performance patch." L.Adamson

[clayton4115 56]

oh sorrry, i never knew it was an "us" and "them" mentality here!i thought we were all likeminded flightsimmers!

[Guest BOPrey]

>I was under impression that DX10 had a lot lower overhead and>thus ran more efficently!And you are correct. DX10 does have lower overhead. The current overhead on DX9 is 40%; DX10 will bring it down to about 15% to 20% at the best. That means you will get about 20% more frames or if you are getting 10fps in a dense area, you are hoping for a 2 frame increase per second.

[LAdamson 240]

>i thought we were all likeminded flightsimmers!>Must not be, as my FSX isn't collecting dust! :7 L.Adamson

[Deaf Pilot 1]

It never fails... nobody can win with you guys. I know it couldn't matter less to some of you who think that DX10 is nothing to think about... but one of the key things about the new technology is that with the incredible boost in graphics comes a whole new way of processing the graphics... in other words, you get more looks and with the same amount or even more frames per second. Have you guys even THOUGHT about why the MS guys crammed such a huge amount of autogen and scenery into FSX, when nobody can even run it, not with really high-end systems? Maybe thats because they DO know that DX10 and it's video card architecture is a huge performance booster. I would NOT be surprised to see people run FSX near-maxed out or even maxed out settings once DX10 comes into play. I just feel disappointed that many of you are so negative and nothing can ever be good enough.Oh well...

[Guest 777_lr_2k7]

>It never fails... nobody can win with you guys. >>I know it couldn't matter less to some of you who think that>DX10 is nothing to think about... but one of the key things>about the new technology is that with the incredible boost in>graphics comes a whole new way of processing the graphics...>in other words, you get more looks and with the same amount or>even more frames per second. >>Have you guys even THOUGHT about why the MS guys crammed such>a huge amount of autogen and scenery into FSX, when nobody can>even run it, not with really high-end systems? Maybe thats>because they DO know that DX10 and it's video card>architecture is a huge performance booster. I would NOT be>surprised to see people run FSX near-maxed out or even maxed>out settings once DX10 comes into play. >>I just feel disappointed that many of you are so negative and>nothing can ever be good enough.>>Oh well...I think even when Vista and DX10 come out people will still have problems running it and the reason is because of the current CPU's. So far dual core isn't doing much for FSX and the future of CPU's is all about dual and quad chips. Unless FSX is patched to work with dual core (which isn't going happen) or AMD and Intel decide to come out with a single chip with more juice, I don't think DX10 is going make that huge of a difference in when it comes to FPS. That been said I

[Guest]

Am i missing something or did the OP post dx10 artist shots from like a year ago that we've all seen 1000x already? I just hope Aces isn't delaying the dx10 patch so that they can work on this so called 'performance' patch instead. Given the choice between a performance patch that gives at best a 15% increase in fps or a dx10 patch, I'll take the dx10 patch any day. Unless they can figure out a way to give drastic performance increases with this patch, then they should concentrate their efforts on delivering the dx10 patch that they have already committed to.

[Guest smarti05]

Just in case you haven't seen it, this is the blog I was referring to, dx10 patch doesn't sound too imminent to me,http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx

[Guest allcott]

>>I was under impression that DX10 had a lot lower overhead>and>>thus ran more efficently!>>And you are correct. DX10 does have lower overhead. The>current overhead on DX9 is 40%; DX10 will bring it down to>about 15% to 20% at the best. That means you will get about>20% more frames or if you are getting 10fps in a dense area,>you are hoping for a 2 frame increase per second. That is an acute over-simplification of what the new API does, and how it does it. In reality the gains will likely be a percentage of the viable theoretical potential - say half or less what you claim. So 1fps increase, mebbe. However, matched to this is the move to a complete Shader model, with an order of magnitude more pipelines - up from 64 to 4096 or more.In other words: The game engine must be designed for it. Although MS are calling the switch to DX10 a `patch` it will have to be much, much more than that - almost a whole new engine. But one that also does not undo DX9 compatibility.What will definitely be different will be the way Vista/DX10 handles the RAM calls from the graphics engine, and is able to use spare unallocatde system RAM to boost grpahics (Shader) performance. Learn more about DX10 before posting unsubstantiated claims.Allcott