Wingnut,Wow, Aces should hire you as you seem to better informed than those who actually designed the game. My point is that nobody knows which DX10 features Aces are going to use for FSX :- Increase of visual quality (true 3D clouds, better looking water, new effects,..., etc.) ?- Improved use of the GPU, thereby leaving more cycles to the CPU ?- A mix of both ?There are no DX10 games available yet. The only thing we are sure of is that most DX9 games run slower on Vista than on XP. This might (or should) change with DX10 games but until independant benchmarks are published, we have no clue whatsoever.Do not get me wrong, we both wish that the upcoming patches on FSX will improve the gameplay. But until Aces tell us what they can actually do with DX10, no one can affirm that it will have a major impact on framerates.Jean-Paul Asus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo [email protected] - Leadtek 7950 GT TDH 512 - 4 x 1GB Kingmax DDR2 667 CL5 RAM - 2 x 250GB Hitachi T7K250 SATA2 AHCI - Creative Audigy 2 Value - Antec Sonata 2 Case - 450W Antec SmartPower 2.0 PSU - Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20" - Windows XP Pro SP2 - TrackIR 4 Pro

What he said.

Burrowed further into your blog site Hal and just loved all your photos. Any chance of having a "Bamboo Bomber" as an add-on to FSX?

That is good to know, I haven't spent much time looking into the Disk I/O aspects of FSX, but the reason they access other files that would appear unrelated is that they share the same texture map -- shhhh, don't tell anyone they are the same ;) Or it could just be a mistake, but I'd suspect just a shared region. But that's why a didn't do much disk I/O analysis too difficult to spot any real issues.I'm not sure what the DX9 patch can do for FSX, I'd be cautiously optimistic also. I know there are DX10 functions that would provided a huge benefit if they can use them within their self imposed constraints.What I think they can do:1. Pre-cache textures in video memory using 2nd or 3rd or 4th CPU2. DX10 object texture arrays3. Make better use of available RAM (there is no change in RAM usage going from 2GB to 3.6GB)But as far as polygon/vertex counts, FSX is not even close to the limits of a 8800GTX even with autogen maxed out.Yeah, it is a little disturbing that ACE's are doing this "after the fact" -- but I too have will cautious hope for them to get it right (at least for DX10).FS9 is still what I fly the most, but the new Arizona scenery for FSX has peaked my interest -- just to see if there is a hit in FPS.Rob.

Agree with flyhalfRhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

frames per second -- the motion picture industry deems "smooth" to the human brain as a minimum of 24 frames per second (typical DV quality video is captured at 29/30 fps, while better quality is 50-60 fps (interlaced), and the there is 24p (progressive). But not matter how you slice it, every industry involved in video/film considers 24 frames per second as the minium for "Smooth" perseption by the human brain.Microsoft have redifined "smooth" as 20 frames per seconds (for obvious reasons).Smooth is being defined as uninterrupted motion -- stutters interrupt the motion and hence not smooth. Stutters stall your fps and if you notice the fps counter in FSX stops.Now take into consideration the speed of you FSX aircraft, for Jets landing at about 160 your frame rate will directly impact the smoothness of your landing. If you don't have smooth motion (24 fps) during landing you will over compensate -- so worrying about frame is VERY valid.My landings at SFO in FSX at 8 fps (minimal details) are terrible. The same landing in FS9 at SFO at 40 fps (max details everywhere) is considerably better (dare I say even perfect).If you are running at 40 fps, your input will be that much more accurate vs. running at 8 fps -- you won't suddenly go from a 500 ft decsent to 1000 ft decsent because your PC wasn't able to render the fames between the inputs.But if smooth and fps are not related, why do you think Microsoft provided the feature in the first place? The feature is there to help folks "smooth" out their flying experience, they can use it to help them optimize their system and remove stutters and other distractions.To ignore fps is not in anyone's best interest for a happy flying experience.Rob.

>Now take into consideration the speed of you FSX aircraft, for>Jets landing at about 160 your frame rate will directly impact>the smoothness of your landing. If you don't have smooth>motion (24 fps) during landing you will over compensate -- so>worrying about frame is VERY valid.>>My landings at SFO in FSX at 8 fps (minimal details) are>terrible. The same landing in FS9 at SFO at 40 fps (max>details everywhere) is considerably better (dare I say even>perfect).I completely agree with you and Hornit.Also, I'd add that, although 30 FPS are acceptable to 99% of people, you still feel the difference in smoothness between 30 FPS and 50 FPS. Especially, as you said, if you're flying a fast and maneuverable aircraft.But many people still settle at 15 FPS for more eye candy, and this is beyond my comprehension.Marco

Jean-Paul,True we can't confirm what Ace's will do and it sounds like they haven't even started on DX10 release of FSX.However, we can make pretty close educated guesses based on what we know about the direction the Project Manager has provided.We can assume no core re-write, so multi-CPU optimization will be very limited. I would be VERY surprised if object texture arrays were not used in the DX10 update especially since FSX is so heavily dependant on the concept -- and I doubt it would cause a major re-write to implement.Also, what Aces tell the public will be carefully controlled -- there are many things that Aces Phil Taylor has mentioned that are partial truths but it is clear the real "issue" has been softened. I would NOT put too much faith in the information Aces provide, they will trickle out what they want to trickle out. Actually using the DX10 update will be the real test, how it performs on your DX10 video card and under Vista. Let your eyes be the judge.Rob.

Rob; What new AZ scenery do you speak of? I'm all ears man!

http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxphoenix.htmLooks good huh -- but as always the shots are taken from "optimal" altitude -- looks like AutoGen is OFF (no surprise there).Rob.

Hi Rob,I totally agree with your post. You chose your words carefully :"educated guess", "we can assume",... which are probably much closer to reality than some blunt unverified statements heard recently. Some pretend that Vista + DX10 will be the Holy Grail for FSX. Yes, we can expect improvements with the upcoming patches but no one knows what their scale will be. We just don't know and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not unmanly to admit it and when you know that you don't know, you try to educate yourself. But I'd better stop now otherwise this thread will be moved to the Hangar chat forum :)Jean-PaulAsus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo [email protected] - Leadtek 7950 GT TDH 512 - 4 x 1GB Kingmax DDR2 667 CL5 RAM - 2 x 250GB Hitachi T7K250 SATA2 AHCI - Creative Audigy 2 Value - Antec Sonata 2 Case - 450W Antec SmartPower 2.0 PSU - Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20" - Windows XP Pro SP2 - TrackIR 4 Pro

That's ok, I'm not religious either ;)But I do have cautious "hope" for DX10 update of FSX. But for DX9 patch, I have no idea -- profiling seems to show a problem so maybe the DX9 patch will address that.Rob

>http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxphoenix.htm>>Looks good huh -- but as always the shots are taken from>"optimal" altitude -- looks like AutoGen is OFF (no surprise>there).>There are two ways to look at it. As I do use Megascenery Hawaii for FSX, I'm more than willing to put up with no auto-gen for a short duration on the climbout, because textures do come into focus much more quickly than FS9, and are sharper altogether. I still have many 3D objects that are not standard auto-gen, so the effect isn't bland flatness by any means. I'm going to assume that MegaScenery Phoenix would appear to be the same.Perfection would be plenty of auto-gen trees at low altitudes, but houses would need to look more realistic. IMO, auto-gen houses on this photo-scenery actually takes away from the realistic look, by adding a cartoon effect that isn't needed. At a thousand feet altitude, "authentic looking" auto-gen houses would need to disappear completely, as they look rediculous when placed on top of photo-real scenery in FSX. The advantage of FSX here, is sharper textures at much lower altitudes, than in FS9. This DOES make quite a difference when using photo-real scenery such as FSX MegaScenery. I've tried FSX Megascenery Hawaii with and without auto-gen, and I'd still turn it off, even if it didn't help frame rates.Now, on the other side of the coin, is FS9 with full auto-gen and well done airport area addon scenery. While on the ground, the trees and specific buildings which are part of the actual scenery areas, add much to making it a realistic experience. However, once airborne and away from these 3rd party areas, FS9 just doesn't have the same appeal to me as FSX, because the surface isn't near as focused, and I still have a problem with "cartoon" looking auto-gen subdivisions.But I'm convinced, that FSX doesn't have the overhead to handle excellent after market airport scenery along with it's crisper and clearer texturing. I don't want to fall below 25 fps, which I get 95% of the time. In the end, I'm just going to continue to compromise between using FSX and FS9.At this point, I'm certain that FS9 won't ever look like MegaScenery Hawaii which is very smooth on my machine with auto-gen OFF; and that FSX might take a long time to like the FS9 FlightScenery Portland, at least with acceptable frame rates. If possible at all.Nevertheless, based on my enjoyment of MegaScenery Hawaii for FSX, there is no doubt that I'll purchase the new Phoenix title. And BTW, MegaScenery Hawaii has no frame rate hit at all.L.Adamson

I believe the MegaScenery Hawaii for FSX is actually just a re-worked FS9 version. The Phoenix title is ground up using higher resolution data.But I agree, autogen is good upto a certain altitude, then it sticks out like a soar thumb -- it doesn't blend well with altitude change -- but this is true for FS9 and FSX.Hmmmm...but you have given me food for thought -- I wonder if this is why FSX does what appears to be twice "normal" rendering -- are the Ace's team trying to blend better?For me, that other 5% of the time where I need good frame rates (like during landing) I don't get -- but I guess it depends what you are into -- for me, the landing is the most enjoyable and challenging part of the flight (espeically with real weather).Rob.

I have no idea about your "twice the rendering" idea but I think FSX autrogen should completely disappear after a certain altitude - it should dissapear much closer then it does right now. ACES should try experimenting with the LOD for autrogen a bit more. It would probably help performance considerably (less things to render) and it would look more realistic. I'm not to educated about how this stuff works but it's just a thought.