ExtremeTech.com has a report on a new DX10 upgrade to Company of Heroes. In their words, ""right now the DX10 message delivered by the game is, "enjoy a modest improvement in visuals by sacrificing only two thirds of your performance!" That's hardly the DX10 experience we were all hoping for."" Yes, framerates were down to one third of the DX9 framerates.I'm sure I have read here in the past opinions that DX10 code was going to run so much faster than DX9 that all our FSX framerate problems would be over. We'll just have to wait and see, but it doesn't seem as if it is going to be easy :)--Bryn

This report is in line with the observations made with the Lost Planet Demo released a few weeks ago.The DX10 version had slower framerates than the DX-9 version with only slight visual improvementsBryan

What, you actually expected Microsoft's hype machine to tell the truth? The DX10 patch for FSX will only slow things down. I bet it will be like welding an anchor to the slow, ungainly garbage scow that is FSX. I could be wrong, of course, but when was the last time you saw a big leap forward in graphics without having to pay the penalty?

Bryn, Thanks for the info.I guess I wait until next year before upgrading to Vista/DX10.Ulf B :-)

Thanks for sharing. I'm guessing you purchased FSX and are unhappy with it. If that is the case, please send me a private message with the price you paid, and I will personally pay you back your purchase price, with the caveat that you never post here again.-Jon

If this is true then FSX will be an absolute joke performance wise. Forget the DX10 graphics. It will just be a joke if it's going to be a slideshow. How many thousands of pounds is this going to cost just to get about 15FPS??

Oh I forgot, we can't express opinions on this forum. My bad. And for the record I'm not unhappy with FSX - I'm just dissapointed that its simply more of the same from MS. We buy the new version, framerates suck, we tweak like crazy, framerate still sucks, ACES still hasn't figured out how to load ground textures on time or model ground friction. Then we buy new hardware, and maybe 2 or 3 years from now the game will be great and all the whining and complaining from people like me will be over. Then we can start the cycle with FS11 all over again.

If they hadn't improved the graphics in CoH, fps would be better! If Aces would choose NOT to add any enhancements but to focus ONLY on improvement of fps with the aid of DX10, the DX10 patch will be awesome! But I am sure they will not do that. They will add all kinds of stuff that will make FSX run slower than ever before. But... considering the fact that FSX has lots of sliders and cfg-options I really hope (and almost expect) that we will be able to use the speed-enhancements ONLY! But... of course, even if this will be possible, everyone with DX10 hardware will try to get the visual and other enhancements working to... and as soon as they'vew seen how good that looks they will start complaining about the crappy fps they get. It's the same as it is now: everyone (me too) wants their sliders completely right, right?Sometimes having a choice is a curse... ;) But anyway, it will be months before we will even get a hint of what we will get. Fall is about 4 months from now. I can hardly believe the DX10 patch will really be released by then.

>ExtremeTech.com has a report on a new DX10 upgrade to Company>of Heroes. In their words, ""right now the DX10 message>delivered by the game is, "enjoy a modest improvement in>visuals by sacrificing only two thirds of your performance!">That's hardly the DX10 experience we were all hoping for."" >Yes, framerates were down to one third of the DX9 framerates.>>I'm sure I have read here in the past opinions that DX10 code>was going to run so much faster than DX9 that all our FSX>framerate problems would be over. We'll just have to wait and>see, but it doesn't seem as if it is going to be easy :)>>>>-->BrynIt's all about which quotes you choose to pick from the article:"These high-end cards still deliver enough performance to make the game quite playable in DX10 mode at resolutions up to 1920x1200""This big trade-off of performance for a little extra visual fidelity is intentional and perhaps unavoidable. CoH was developed using DirectX 9, and shoehorning in DX10 after the fact is simply not going to be as efficient as if the developers had access to DX10 hardware for a good year before release."Also, that "one third" of the DX9 perf means 1/3 of 140 fps on average. First game to be patched to DX10 on first generation cards with rookie drivers, I hardly think it's time to be writing elegies for DX10, guys.

I would have to disagree with the reviewer assessment. Point lighting in games is extremely demanding. Only occasionally will you see a single source of point lighting in game. The reason is because it is a very intensive calculation. Rendering point lighting in movies gives it a realistic look, but this hasn't been done in games in real time. Wait until Crysis or Age of Conan come out to really see the effects of DX10. I believe the reviewer even mentioned that the game and art assets were not done with DX10 in mind. We will see how ACES handles the transition, but there are alot of changes in the architecture that will make it run faster. I guess having cloud shadows will reduce your framerates a bit, but will it be the same without cloud shadows now?My 2 cents worth!!John

So far what I have seen of DX10 demos on the internet are great, and yes, there is a big difference, especially when it comes to smoke, particles and lighting! I also downloaded the Lost Planet demo and the motion blur, snow and other things like debris are good; and my average FPS are 30, very playable indeed. I previously played the game on the 360 and I have to say, the DX10 PC version visually looks better than the 360 version.Every major graphic leap, at least when it comes to the PC, no matter what the game, has slowed down the performance of the average PC. But I much rather welcome the advancement then nothing at all. Blocky stick figures from Collecovision anyone?

I think it's way too early to be freaking out about this...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>Thanks for sharing. I'm guessing you purchased FSX and are>unhappy with it. If that is the case, please send me a private>message with the price you paid, and I will personally pay you>back your purchase price, with the caveat that you never post>here again.>>-JonJon,Let me know if he accepts your offer. We can share the cost ;-) Ulf B

Hmmmm... I guess I don't like FSX either and eagerly anticipate offers to purchase my copy. I paid $2,394.00 plus tax; but I'll eat the tax. Please pay-pal to [email protected]... :)

>ExtremeTech.com has a report on a new DX10 upgrade to Company>of Heroes. In their words, ""right now the DX10 message>delivered by the game is, "enjoy a modest improvement in>visuals by sacrificing only two thirds of your performance!">That's hardly the DX10 experience we were all hoping for."" >Yes, framerates were down to one third of the DX9 framerates.>>I'm sure I have read here in the past opinions that DX10 code>was going to run so much faster than DX9 that all our FSX>framerate problems would be over. We'll just have to wait and>see, but it doesn't seem as if it is going to be easy :)2 points:1) Most games outside of FSX tend to be limited more by the GPU, not the CPU, CoH included. Despite the fact that DX10 is supposed to make certain kinds of gfx operations more efficiently, the bottom line is CoH's DX10 patch has dumped even more work onto what was already the bottleneck.With FSX, the GPU is the bottleneck for very few of us (esp those of us with DX10 cards). Most of us are "wasting" GPU horsepower while the GPU waits on the CPU. This means that even if DX10 ends up being a disappointment overall, the fact that it should enable more GPU work to be done per command from the CPU means that we should be able to make use of some of that wasted GPU without adding burden to FSX's bottleneck (the CPU). To a point anyway, burden can be added to the GPU without decreasing framerates in FSX. If the patch does make the GPU the bottleneck for some or all of us, we should still be able to use settings to balance the GPU/CPU load so that for once one is not holding up the other.I think the most promising aspect of DX10 for FSX is that Phil says they are looking into issueing the D3D calls from the 2nd core. If that proves possible, I think that should translate into a very significant performance improvement CPU-wise on multi-core machines. I think I recall it was mentioned that at least a third of core1's work was issuing D3D calls, so if there is no cost to moving the calls to core2, that could mean a 50% increase in FPS for multi-core machines (assuming no added CPU burden from DX10... ie, possibly turning off some or all of DX10's gfx bonuses).2) The DX10 drivers are surely very immature at this point. I would be shocked if we don't see further leaps in DX10 performance as drivers mature.