>>Boy the wireframes of Chicago sure bring back some flight sim>memories! heh>>Yeah, it's real retro...almost!Looks like they are flying the sim in wireframe! That would be sort of a blast from the past.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

When wireframe is where you are in the dev process, as I explained, that is what you get to test :-).It is sorta retro, in a soothing way.

>Given we have had a resource working on DX10 in the background>since last November, that is helping the team get up to speed>fast. I mention that in the article, as its only 5 weeks since>SP1 so this is good progress. I would hope we are out before>Thanksgiving and dont use up the entire season, but that>remains to be seen :-).>Are you going to grab someone from the MS crew on the other campus that worked on DX10?Is that even possible or do-able (or necessary)?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

We do get consulting time from the DX team when we run into something that perplexes us, but otherwise they are in a separate division.

Thanks for the update-- its really nice to know how things are coming along.However, I do agree with the sentiment that most would probably be more interested in running the features already available in FSX at a good framerate than adding new features if it means still not being able to use the existing features for fps sake.With that in mind, I would love it if when you finalize your work items for DX10 you place priority on items that will reduce CPU workload or move it to secondary cores in place of new eyecandy. You have already mentioned the possibility of issuing D3D calls from a secondary core -- I would *love* to see that make the cut -- but I would also like to see DX10 instancing used as heavily as possible or maybe even do things like using the geometry shader to run ground traffic movement, etc (though I think you already kinda shot that one down a few months back).Anyway, I'm looking forward to your updates this summer....

Agreed....since...well before FSX came out...

It only 'needs' Vista becaue MS is trying to ram it down our throats. They could easily make it compatible with XP, if MS decided it was financially feasible.

>It only 'needs' Vista becaue MS is trying to ram it down our>throats. They could easily make it compatible with XP, if MS>decided it was financially feasible.Please see here why DX10 is not on XPhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...isnt-in-xp.aspxEDIT:I'm at the end of a long and frustrating work day and posted something harsher than I should have. Please just see the link I posted.

A reply you dont like is 'spam'? 90% of all posts I see in these forums is 'unsubstantiated nonsense'.

Please see the edited post.

Np m8, we all have those days, Im just tried of MS tried its best to shove a mediocre OS down our throats.

Micrsoft made it a business decision to only produce DX10 for Vista -- Micrsoft have already admitted to this (regardless of Phil's blog post) -- any software developer (myself included) can tell you there is NO technical reason DX10 could not be made for both Vista and WinXP (and I'm not talking about post facto going back and retro fitting DX10 to WinXP, I'm talking about decision from day 1). Microsoft recently dropped 6 Billion dollars to buy an advertising company so I can assure you Microsoft had the money and resource to do this IF they wanted to - but they don't.However, keep in mind that OpenGL (if ATI/nVidia provided updated drivers) could be made to use the new capabilities of "DX10 video cards" -- DX10 is just a defining set of hardware specific functionality. You can do the same for OpenGL and provide functions and code sample to make use of this new hardware.Will we see more OpenGL games that can use the new features of the new graphics hardware on WinXP -- well maybe, depends on the adoption of Vista. The WinXP market is significantly larger than Vista so who knows, maybe we'll see a shift back to OpenGL for game publishers? If this does start to happen I think you'll see Microsoft devote the resources to coming up with a DX10 version for WinXP very quickly. But as it stands right now, I don't see many game/sim developers (other than ID software and Epic) pushing OpenGL for WinXP -- but it is an option.Is this good for the end consumer, no it isn't, but that's business and as far as I know their are no legal avenues to pursue that would force Microsoft to do so. Also, not really sure why Phil needed to post anything about this decision unless he was involved in it?? I thought Phil's DX involvement was back in DX8 and earlier days?Manny -- problem with? My points of contention are:1. It's time to move to 64bit (good excuse to get Vista 64bit)2. SP1 would NOT exist if Phil had not made some bad assumptions3. Morphing scenery4. Blurries5. Poor blending between 3D objects and scenery6. Better performance (improved with SP1 but even on exotic system 2 fps)Just an FYI -- I was able to "borrow" a HyperDrive 4 16GB RAM Drive and install FSX with SP1 on it -- load times were drastically reduced (pretty amazing actually) but the blurries and morphing scenery still remained (this was being run on a 4.5 Ghz X6800 with 4GB main RAM). The purpose of this test was just to eliminate the possibility of mechanical hard disk drive performance.Robin.

There are several factual inaccuracies in this post, as well as things that are just plain wrong.>Micrsoft made it a business decision to only produce DX10 for Vista Microsoft made a business decision to make a new product with new features. If we didnt make new products with new features, we would soon no longer be in business. >any software developer (myself included) can tell you there is NO >technical reason DX10 could not be made for both Vista and WinXP >(and I'm not talking about post facto going back and retro fitting >DX10 to WinXP, I'm talking about decision from day 1I have said this before, if you look at the scope of changes to the kernel and to the runtime, it would no longer be XP when the job is done. It would be Vista; because the job of DX10 is to make games and the desktop play nice. Sure, if you want to retro-actively redefine DX10 to be just the new hw features then maybe you have a point but that is not what DX10 is; that is an incredibly narrow reading of DX10 to get your point across.>so I can assure you Microsoft had the money and resource to do this Sure, MS has a lot of resources but they are not infinite. The Windows division would have to cut something to work on this, as the work is non-trivial and would take a large investment by that division. What should they cut? New product development? Does GM go back and make the C5 Z06 match up to the C6 Z06? No, they make the new car and then move on to the next one. And the C5 Z06 owners have to decide for themselves to upgrade or not. XP owners have had 5+ years with the investment in XP and thus have gotten their monies worth. Its pretty hard to see how this is a consumer hardship. If you want to play with the new toys, then you have to make a decision. Its like that in almost every part of life.>DX10 is just a defining set of hardware specific functionalityActually, this is just plain wrong. Any D3D version is a sw specification. The hw implementation is up to the IHV. And D3D10 is more than D3D9 and previous revs in that it defines system wide behavior wrt resource management ( as well as capabilities ) instead of the old "the last app in owns the resources" style of behavior. That is why the kernel and driver changes cannot be separated from what D3D10 is.>Also, not really sure why Phil needed to post anything about this >decision unless he was involved in it?? If you read the post, or followed the thread - it was to counteract the argument that you could just recompile the D3D10 dll for XP and be done. Which is silly as well as wrong, its never that simple.The kernel and runtime behavior cannot be separated from the API behavior without getting significantly less than what DX10 is. OGL doesnt expose this functionality at this time, and it will be a challenge to get that functionality in OGL without significant driver work. When the .1 and .2 releases of DX10 start adding the more fine-grained virtual memory paging for graphics, and the more fine-grained task switching - it will be interesting to see what subset of that is actually extended to OGL apps without significant driver work ( which would validate what I am saying ).>I thought Phil's DX >involvement was back in DX8 and earlier days?My involvement with DX spans from DX1 to now; including stints in game development ( DX1-DX2 at Sierra/Dynamix ); DX evangelism ( DX3-DX8 at MS); the DX product team ( DX8, DX8.1, DX9 at MS), graphics strategy ( DX9, DX10 at ATI ), game development ( DX9, DX10 on FSX in MGS ) so from a historical perspective as far as being involved there are very few who have the span I do. Note my background in GDI predates my DX experience and is at least as deep, there is a reason I am in the acknowledgements to Undocumented Windows :-).On to the points of contention.>My points of contention are:>1. It's time to move to 64bit (good excuse to get Vista 64bit)The consumer market isnt there yet, this is premature from that standpoint.>2. SP1 would NOT exist if Phil had not made some bad assumptionsThis is also just plain wrong. If you had read my post in November when I introduced myself to the community - I started the concept of SP1.To recap - I started in Aces last July when the product was baked and in the final approach. I could do nothing. SP1 exists largely because I rounded up support for it. And engaged the community. And drove it out the door. And am continuing to support it.So to say I am to blame for SP1 needing to exist completely turns reality around - so you are way out of line there. Way. I dont know why you have an axe to grind against me, but put it down and get your facts straight. Please.> 3. Morphing sceneryInteresting, what are you talking about that is different than the blurries?> 4. BlurriesYes some people have blurries. But many dont. And note Christian Buchner recently posted that he thinks one part of the blurry problem is a bad config entry that we just havent isolated. So this is a hard problem, we havent walked away from it or the community, we are still looking at it and working with the community, and as we discover data points we will continue to communicate them like my article on "Type 3 Blurries". If we werent communicating at all, then I see a real reason to be seriously peeved. But we havent.> 5. Poor blending between 3D objects and sceneryThe lack of alpha fade for Autogen is a function of our support for fixed function pipeline and the rendering decisions we made. It was in RTM, as it is in SP1.We are removing FFP support in FSX-DX10 and are bringing back alpha fade for Autogen. Stay tuned on whether we decide to bring that back to DX9. If we do, that is an extra feature we are delivering, and the community should recognize it as such.> 6. Better performance (improved with SP1 but even on exotic system > 2 fps)If you are saying SP1 only gives 2FPS, then I beg to differ.There is a problem with some higher end configs, mostly on Vista and mostly on DX10 class hardware. And those configs are vastly underperforming other configs. That makes one lean toward config specific - but its hard to say what the problem is yet and just in case it is FSX I want to avoid pointing at Vista or the drivers until it is isolated and categorized.However, many others are showing gains within the guidance I gave or more; and thats not just 2 FPS. So your comment blatantly ignores that spectrum of the experience and substitutes one part of the spectrum as the whole.

/me sheds a tear for Dynamix.Now I want to go back and play Earth Siege 2 again. Thanks a lot, Phil.

Or King's Quest. OR.......... XWING!Brilliantly phrased, by the way, Phil.