Sign in to follow this  
n4gix

FSX without DX10 what will I miss

Recommended Posts

If I don't get Vista and thus can't use DX10 what will I miss? How long could this be an sensible option for the flightsimmer? Will the time come when nobody uses DX9 more and all new FSX addons will require DX10? If so when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

No one knows what you will miss until the DX10 patch is released somewhere in the fall (hopefully...). At this moment you are missing nothing. ;) But even after the release of the DX10 patch I don't expect DX10-only addons to flood the market. DX9 will be standard at least until the next version of FS, if that may ever be released. So there is no need to worry. Yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers at Microsoft are actually working on a watered down version of DX10 for Windows XP. That should work about the same with FSX as the Vista version. You shouldn't miss much if you stick with XP, at least not for a couple of years.From what I understand, DX10 will allow you to move your FSX sliders to the right a bit more without sacrificing framerates.Thanks,Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here scratching my head and wondering, just what "add-on" could possibly be made "DX10 only?"FSX is what will use DX10 (if available), not any add-on! *:-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The developers at Microsoft are actually working on a watered>down version of DX10 for Windows XP.Since Phil has posted quite extensively - not to mention emphatically! - that this is not within the range of possibility, where on earth did you come up with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given in the light that some new DX10 games have been a dissapointment, ie graphics no better and fps worse, one has to wonder. Not saying this will be the case for FSX + DX10 patch, but in the meantime I would recommend you just enjoy your current setup and don't worry about the grass being greener on the other side.No one knows what's in store for us, ACES are in the middle of DX10 development, even they probably don't know yet how it's going to turn out.Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance or more probably troll bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, this watered down version of DX10 isn't going to be fully featured, and is going to be closer to DX9 than DX10. From what I've heard from my friends who work at Microsoft, it's in the early stages, and is very basic. I do know, however, that it exists. Getting back to the topic of this thread, having DX10 really shouldn't matter much since FSX was designed using the DX9 platform. The biggest difference between DX9 and DX10 is increased performance.And as for DX10-only aircraft: Since FSX was NOT designed using the DX10 platform, it makes sense to say that the aircraft that work within the simulator also do not use this platform. In fact, it would be near impossible to get DX10-only aircraft into FSX, considering that FSX would need to be edited quite extensively.Just my two cents.Thanks,Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>From what I've heard from my friends who work at Microsoft,If I were you I would quickly change the friends who feed you this crap.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Like I said, this watered down version of DX10 isn't going to>be fully featured, and is going to be closer to DX9 than DX10.>From what I've heard from my friends who work at Microsoft,>it's in the early stages, and is very basic. I do know,>however, that it exists. MS is not working on any form of DX10 for WinXP. There is an "open source" wannabe being coded, but if you read Phil's blog (and the other posts here for that matter), you'd quickly see that this has been discussed and throughly debunked already.>And as for DX10-only aircraft: Since FSX was NOT designed>using the DX10 platform, it makes sense to say that the>aircraft that work within the simulator also do not use this>platform. In fact, it would be near impossible to get>DX10-only aircraft into FSX, considering that FSX would need>to be edited quite extensively.You do realize that there are a lot of professional and freeware folks here who design and develop content for FSX, right? ALL scenery and aircraft add-ons for the sim run IN the sim's environment, and have absolutely no contact with the video card. Period.Baring a miracle from on High, a "DX10 add-on" is as impossible as a pregnant virgin.As for the original question, even if the "DX10 update" only had "DX10 stuff" in it, installing it wouldn't hurt. FSX simply wouldn't use any of those bit unless (a) Vista was installed and (:( one has a DX10 video card.However, it's been stated many times already that there will be "some" additional bug fixes in the next update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to not have a basic idea of how computers work and this leads to ignorant remarks such as "DX10 on WinXP is COMING SOON by some hackers!!!" and other crap comments as people have only a half-intelligent idea on what's going on. If you are one of these people, let me share with you what I have found out through years of asking questions how certain pieces work and why they're important. After sorting through the bull**** answers and getting good answers, this is what I've come up with.In a computer there are many parts to work. The CPU does the generic computations and calculations and memory storage/retrieval, the sound card/processor handles all audio, the video card all the video post-processing and effects non-basic to the running of the operating system, the network interface device handling all the high-speed data transfers to and from the computer to a network and so on and so forth.There is a component on the motherboard that does very low level data handling and instructions to the hardware called the CMOS (the BIOS for some). The operating system talks to this BIOS to get it to do the more fancy stuff. The operating system has libraries of functions to tell it and expand it's abilities. You want a game to draw something on the screen, you would use something like a DirectX library or an OpenGL library. Windows/Linux/etc. after loading the library into its memory (thus the system32 directory for 32-bit programmed DLLs and utility programs) will know what a program is wanting it to do when the program requests a function in the library to do something.DirectX is a library that has been expanded for many years, decades in fact. As Microsoft has made progress enough to warrant an advertisement that "There is something completely better and new that will make your experience better" they add 1 to the previous version. There have been at least 10 different leaps and bounds. From DX7 to DX8, we have the introduction primarily of model shaders. From DX8 to DX9 we have vast performance increases and visual betterment as well as a more standardized set of rules for how video cards should think. Now with DX10 we have raised the level of detail (thus need bigger engines in our video card's processors and more memory to store the information they need), made features such as HDR and other high-end gaming features standard.The game/programs that people make call these libraries of functions, some in the operating system itself (for variable types, file functions and other routine items that the operating system has to do) and others in the addon libraries like DirectX/OpenGL. The program talks to the operating system, the operating system to the CMOS and the CMOS to the hardware. The hardware carries out its instructions and you have the end result coming out of your speakers and monitor.DX10 is nothing more than another layer on top of DX9. They built a 10th floor on an existing 9 floor building. But in order to do so, they had to get a massive crane and lift the building up, re-do the foundation a bit to hold the extra story and make it a little more firm for future additions.The extra foundation work is why DX10 can not be made into WinXP. The foundation work was designed to be used in the VISTA environment with VISTA file structures and VISTA library calls and VISTA features that are complete redesigns from the WINXP way of doing things. In a way, DX10 is a langauge used to talk to the computer. That language has advanced from the Basic Chineese of DX9 to the Advanced Chinees of DX10. There is no exact translation possible, word for word, phrase for phrase which a computer requires. When you call a function by name and that function doesn't exist, you get a nice little error message. Back in the Win98 days, you got the beloved Blue Screen of Death.This idea of DX10 on WinXP came from the misunderstanding of what the hackers are attempting. They're basically intercepting the library function calls of the games and converting the calls into DX9 library calls. Where a call for a function doesn't exist in DX9, they simply do nothing at all and make the game think the function went smoothly. They are trying to write a translation book for Advanced Chineese to Basic Chineese. There just isn't any simple way of doing it and things can and do get lost in translation. The problem with a computer losing things in translation is usually the game or program doesn't function as intended and you have major glitches and bugs that can't be fixed by anyone. The author's can't fix the game and can't redesign the library to add in the non-functioning or updated function calls.If anyone reads this post and has anything to add, please do so. The more people know about how their computer works, the less wrong assumptions they make about what microsoft isn't doing that ####### them off or the more they realize how stupid their extremely high expectations are when looking from the programmer's perspective.Aaron W. Parsons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>MS is not working on any form of DX10 for WinXP. There>is an "open source" wannabe being coded, but if you>read Phil's blog (and the other posts here for that>matter), you'd quickly see that this has been discussed and>throughly debunked already.I would like to formally withdraw my comment seeing as how everybody disagrees with me, and I have been out of contact with this friend for nearly six months.>Baring a miracle from on High, a "DX10 add-on" is as>impossible as a pregnant virgin.I agree. That's what I was trying to get at with my previous post. I don't understand why you are criticizing me/warning me that professional FS developers work on these forums. I'm well aware, and I was merely trying to make the point that a DX10-only aircraft would require an entire redesign of the MSFS platform to communicate with DX10 (which is a program, not a video card), something which would never be worthwile just to improve the performance/graphics of an addon minimally.I really do apologize if I haven't been clear in my previous posts.Thank you,Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,I wouldn't get yourself too worked up and worry about apologies to some folks around here. Unfortunately forums are a lot like the road ways. Some people act towards others in a manner that they would not likely act with a person face to face.Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I'm new to this whole forum thing.Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can see how the whole Bill Leaming bold thing can be quite overwhelming to a newbie. Don't let it put you off - keep posting!Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess after all of the enlightening posts (I know I learned a thing or two from reading them), my opinion is that I would not make any purchase decisions at this point centered around running FSX in a DX10 format. From basic observation, this whole DX10 mumbo-jumbo has taken gaming absolutely no where so far. There is not one DX10 game that has been released as of yet, and I think there is only one or two games that have been patched to DX10. As far as the games that have been patched to DX10, the reaction has been pretty "unexciting" to say the least. I can't remember what game actually received the DX10 patch, but I do remember the reviews talking about how the improvements weren't anything to get excited about at all.Perhaps games that are developed solely for DX10 will actually take advantage of all the things DX10 can offer, but games that are only "Patched" to DX10 will still be based on DX9 technology. So these games will still be DX9 games when you cut to the heart of the them. Nobody knows how FSX will turn out, but I am managing my own expectations at the moment and telling myself that FSX will not be dramatically different when it receives its DX10 patch. I think we have all learned to take what we hear with a grain of salt concerning FSX performance and what it will really offer us. I think you would be perfectly fine to just run FSX on a DX9 platform for the life of FSX, and then worry about getting DX10 hardware when the next flight simulator comes out (thinking about the next MSFS coming out is like hearing nails screeching down a chalkboard, oh what an experience these last 10 months have been). By that time, there will also be more "DX10 Only" games out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I was merely trying to make the point that a>DX10-only aircraft would require an entire redesign of the>MSFS platform to communicate with DX10 (which is a program,>not a video card), something which would never be worthwile>just to improve the performance/graphics of an addon>minimally.I'm sorty that the main point I've tried to establish still seems to have been missed...There can never be such a thing as a "DX10-only aircraft." Period.And no, DX10 is not just "a program." It is that and more. There are three components to DX10: code in the operating system, the DX10 API layer, and DX10 hardware. All three must be present and operational before anything will happen. ;)The only reason for mentioning that there are many knowledgable folks her is simply to establish that it's pretty tough to buffalo anyone with buffalo cookies... :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yes, I can see how the whole Bill Leaming bold thing can be>quite overwhelming to a newbie. Don't let it put you off ->keep posting!Gary, never mistake my "bold statements" as anything other that passion for flightsimming and a desire to pass along accurate information...:-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you never have DX10 you won't miss anything. I don't miss the jet set life style because I've never had 200 million dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>From basic observation, this>whole DX10 mumbo-jumbo has taken gaming absolutely no where so>far. You are right. So far DX10 is VERY disappointing... I sort of had to buy a new computer at the beginning of this year. So I did and I went for Vista and the 8800GTX, in order to be ready for DX10. Almost half a year further down the road I still haven't had any real use of them... I've tried one DX10 demo (Lost planet) with was BAD (meaning SLOW and sloppy) and that's it. I really expected to see more DX10 stuff after Vista was released. Yes, I am VERY disappointed!At the same time......this hardware is MORE than capable of playing DX9 games. ;) The only thing that I do not like is Vista when it comes to games: I believe XP is the better gameplatform at the moment. Vista gives problems or just lower fps than XP does. But compared to my old rig I can play every game there is without problems, so... in the end I am happy with my purchase. Specially because I needed a new computer. But maybe I should have gone for XP and wait with Vista until DX10 really became usefull.If I had bought my computer ONLY for DX10 compatibility I would be very annoyed by now...!BTW Someone said DX10 will give better performance than DX9. But I wouldn't count on that. The thing is that every developer will use the new possibilities DX10 offers. If they would ONLY use the possibilities DX9 already offers, fps would indeed go up a lot, but I'm sure the new DX10 features will be used too, which means that in the end, due to all the extra possibilities, fps will go DOWN compared to DX9 games. Look at Company of Heroes. The DX10 patch (the only DX10 patch up to now!) gives you LOWER fps due to all the DX10 enhancements (specially lightning effects and extra objects). I really do NOT expect higher fps with the FSX DX10 patch. I expect better visuals thanks to the DX10 enhancements, but you won't get them for free. If they manage to get close to the (so called) screenshots they released last year (which I doubt VERY much), that HAS to mean low fps, at least on current DX10 hardware. You really won't get those beatifull waves without any loss in fps...! But as I said, I really don't believe they will get even NEAR those DX10-Photoshop-artists impressions... not even CLOSE... They might come a LITTLE bit closer if they write the new FS completely for DX10 only...!BTW If my expectations are right and Aces/MS won't indeed manage to give us what they promised (that's how I see it) with those artists impressions, I will feel VERY tricked, conned, cheated, etc. I already am quite disappointed it's taking them so long to deliver the goods. After all, we were told Aces were trying hard to have the DX10-patch ready at the time of Windows Vista launch!!! I based my DX10-purchases on information like this:http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1989809,00.asp...and now we know this is nothing but ********! Come to think of it, we ARE already cheated...! Carl Edlund gives the impression they were already REALLY working on DX10 for FSX, while now we know, thanks to Phil Taylor, there was just one man working on it and they just started getting serious about it AFTER SP1. All in all the DX10 patch will comes AT LEAST 10 months later than promised. Hm, I'm getting more and more ###### here, so I'd better stop and enjoy what I've got. :( I mean, I AM enjoying FSX right now... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original question:Not much.Need proof?Download this:http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_ptboats_videos.htmlA side-by-side comparison of a game similar in concept to FS, needing many of the same attributes for DX10 graphics. In 110 megs of download of a frame-by-frame, side-by-side comparison, I can see about six seconds of difference, and absoutely nothing in terms of enhanced gameplay, save for a few splashes. Can YOU see a difference? I can, just, but it wasn't worth 110 megs of donwload, much less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for the link to the movie: didn't know about that one. But er... you might need to get your eyes examined...! I can see lot's of differenced! The texture on the boat, the AWESOME soft particles (imagine having fog looking that soft in FSX!), the reflection on the water, it's a LOT better. If you can only see 6 seconds of difference, you need glasses or a new monitor. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the movie, and I must agree with Alcott. It just isn't that "breath taking" of an improvement. Is it nicer? Yes. Does it look good? Yes. Would you go buy Vista and a DX10 card to have it? No. Sorry, it just doesn't improve the visuals by a wide enough margin to make me excited. DX9 is fine by my standards for now.Besides, those visuals would be old after you play the game for a day. Visuals are not worth 1 FPS in my opinion, so I will stick with DX9 for now. Microsoft is becoming extremely vulnerable at this point with their "DX10/Vista" disaster. Most people would argue that Microsoft has sold millions of copies so far, so Vista is not a disaster at all. Well, this is why Microsoft is so vulnerable at the moment, because they have sold millions of copies. It will be the Vista experience that drives people into considering other Operating Systems in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I don't take them to heart, but put yourselve in the shoes of a newbie. But then again, if they get involved in an emotive topic ...Gary

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