Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BaronKen

DirectX 10 what was the hype about?

Recommended Posts

No they didn't have DX10 in mind. MS has stated repeatedly that FSX is a DX9 application. It wasn't released early at all (unless you count the bugs). It wont perform better under DX10 - where have you been? They (MS) will publish a DX10 patch later in the year but first they plan to try to improve FSX performance under DX9 and that patch will come out first.Is FSX slow on current machines? yes.Will the DX9 patch help? hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Fix all the Dx9 problems first. Then worry about patching it to Dx10.


Regards,

Max    

(YSSY)

i7-12700K | Corsair PC4-28700 DDR4 32Gb | Gigabyte RTX4090 24Gb | Gigabyte Z690 AORUS ELITE DDR4 | Corsair HX1200 PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

>Exactly. Fix all the Dx9 problems first. Then worry about>patching it to Dx10.>>>Thing is, will patching it help much? By the time FSX is finally DX10-ready (remember, it was supposed to be the flag-bearer for Vista/DX10) other games will be available which are in beta now, using the technology currently here, and advancing what can be achieved, perhaps surpassing what FSX is capable of without a complete rewrite?The first real in-game DX10 footage, taken from some RPG that means nothing to me, can be seen here:http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=551860What is immediately apparent, even in the comparatively low res video, is that the lighting is much improved and the surfaces all have a much more realistic and subtle lighting and reflection effect.That's a tall order to implement in FSX. It's not just a `patch`, it's a major ground-up code rehash, and FSX will still have to perform on DX9 computers. Dont underestimate the problems faced by ACES getting DX10 to FSX. It's going to be a monumental task, almost like building a new version.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only been 3 months...RhettAMD 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


Rhett

7800X3D ♣ 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ  Gigabyte 4090  Crucial P5 Plus 2TB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Hi all,>>Hmm DX 10 patch for FSX is not under the carpet i've looked. I>am becoming increasingly frustrated that microsoft haven't>released or at least informed people when DirectX 10 patch for>FSX will be delivered to consumers. I for one have the gear to>run DX 10 and am disapointed by the statement, reading>something in the line of (DirectX 10 will be available upon>Vista launch) that was issued by a representative of>Microsoft. Although DX 10 appears in DXDIAG box the features>and functions are not being utilized. I have scoured the net>searching for any lead on the DX 10 patch for FSX, but to no>avail. Now, i'm not sure whether this post will reach the>intended people but i needed to vent it out. Perhaps this>thread can be used for anyone wishing to input comments and/or>information/feedback regarding DX 10. >>Shortflyer.You bought into the marketing, now suffer. Us older guys will be laughing it all the way through like we did with DX 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 9b and 9c.. oh and 9a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PilotMoz

It is shocking that FSX, one of Microsoft's flagship products was planned, developed, tested and produced and not once did they think it would be wise to make it multi-core and dx10 capable.What a balls up!Right now I'm still using FS2004 lol :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>It is shocking that FSX, one of Microsoft's flagship products>was planned, developed, tested and produced and not once did>they think it would be wise to make it multi-core and dx10>capable.>>What a balls up!>>Right now I'm still using FS2004 lol :)They *****can't***** make it either!It is the FS2000 platform which uses the old DX architecture and is single CPU only. They can only emulate it to hope some people actually buy into the hype (which seems to be failing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shortflyer

It's a real shame that FSX technology is not much newer than advertised. mind you though dual core came out during mid development of FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You bought into the marketing, now suffer. Us older guys will be laughing it all the way through like we did with DX 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 9b and 9c.. oh and 9a."Post marked as ignorant. If you haven't seen any improvements from DX5 to DX9 over the years, then you must still fly in FS5.1.Stick to the facts, please.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is pretty clear that when the FSX dev sked was put together, they were expecting a working DX10 avail in time to feed into the development. But the OS and graphics guys slipped their skeds, and they didn't match up any more. Let's face it; the OS guys don't give a hoot about ACES schedule. Oh sure, they probably give lip service but that's it. I don't know when the first DX10 nv drivers were given out to developers, but it might not have been that much before CES. AFAIK the first DX10 title will be Crysis. I don't know what the sked is for the release of that. With the obvious performance problems, or at least loud complaints, of FSX in DX9 it seems reasonable that ACES would place its resources on improving performance first, and then getting to the DX10 extensions.We're still waiting to see some good posts on current FSX in vista performance.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is the FS2000 platform which uses the old DX architecture and is single CPU only. "This is patently false.FSX supports DX9 which didnt exist when FS2000 shipped. DX9 gold shipped in Dec 2002.While FSX isnt great at using multicore, it does use multicore during loading. So there is limited thread usage already. And it is measurable even if not immense. 20% or thereabouts.And we are working on both a service pack ( for performance and content fixes ) and an update to add DX10 support. When we ship those, that existence proof will throw a clearer light on the fact content of these sorts of statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to take the time to address these 2 areas since they come up so often:1)FSX designing for multicore2)FSX designing for DX101)FSX designing for multicoreAs I stated in a previous post last year, the switch from Ghz to Multicore took most everyone by surprise in the entire industry. Reading a little history and thinking it through is informative. All during 2004, when FSX was still in design stage and could be easily changed, the roadmaps were still predominantly Ghz based and multicore was a "variant". Take AnandTech, a highly regarded site and look at their reviews throughout 2004. Q1 2004 reviewhttp://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.html?i=1948no mention of coresQ3 2004 reviewhttp://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2233cores are a "variant", as in "it would make sense if the FX-57 were to come with a dual core variant"Q4 2004 reviewhttp://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2303It is only at the end of Dec 2004, with this review, that cores have been elevated somewhat in importance but note Ghz hasnt been deprecated hence quotes like this:"There are other areas besides the high-end multi-core arena, and we haven't seen the end of increasing clock speeds yet"Now move to 2005, and lets look at Toms' Hardwarehttp://www.tomshardware.com/2005/04/05/the...um_d/page2.htmland this review has a section "Sorry Guys, Clock Speed Does Matter" so the fact that the technology pony had jumped the tracks from Ghz to cores hadnt sunk it, even at sites whose job it was to keep up with this.It isnt until 2006 that it has really sunk in and permeated the community. Mainstream sites have picked it up, like http://www.informationweek.com/shared/prin...cleID=175802849. Still enthusiast sites like http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3620 mention:"Now through to the end of 2006, we will see Conroe taking up roughly 20% of Intel's shipments by then end of the year while the Pentium D processor will remain the largest bulk of Intel's desktop shipments."So from a volume standpoint multicore wasnt seen as a majority in 2006 thru the entire 1st quarter and March IDF. So while its easy to say "why didnt you see this coming" I think when you look at the available data it should be pretty clear that it wasn't that easy to see it coming. Given where FSX was, by end of 2005 and early 2006, when this data started to sink in the project was so far past design the team couldnt react to rearchitect within the existing plan. It wasn't really an option to ditch the existing plan.Even with that, we do have some multicore usage today and are working to get more. We reacted as we could within the original plan. So be careful with comments like "not once did they think" as that just isnt true.2)FSX designing for DX10With the last slip in Vista, combined with the associated slip in DX10 hw, the new DX10 schedule put it outside of the FSX ship timeframe. We didnt get DX10 prototype hardware until after the product was in manufacturing. Well after.DX10 is a fairly major rewrite. And without hw on a title like FSX it is a major challenge to make forward progress. So we didnt think it wise to wait and shipped on DX9. We did think about what could be done with DX10 and we do have a good plan. And many of our existing features that challenge the DX9 pipeline should get better in DX10. So we are really looking at what can be done with cool new features like texture arrays, large constant buffers for shaders, long shaders, low overhead API calls, better small batch Draw call behavior, etc. I have promised to go thru the "artistic impression" screenshots we have released and detail what features we see in them. We need to ship SP1 first and get back on to DX10 so I can talk to what features will actually be in the DX10 update and not a wish list. So give me time on that discussion.In conclusion, given the jump from FS2004 to FSX, I think people should be a bit more careful in making accusations about the dev team and its thought process. We were most decidedly not sitting still. And its entirely too easy to play Monday-morning quarterback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...