FSX without DX10 what will I miss

[michal 44]

>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 ...A "newbie" doesn't have a license to spread false information. Some folks think that they won't be noticed or recognized unless they throw a few bombs here. I rather have someone who posts in "bold" and counter this sort of bomb-throwing mentality. :-hahMichael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[n4gix 4,947]

>My impression is that DX10 will introduce new graphical>features. Could not an addon use this new features? And in>such a case could not a DX9 only system give problems? If I>would use an older DX version than DX9 will I not have>problems with both FSX and FS9?Any "new graphical features" will be invoked/controlled by FSX itself. There is nothing in any model that's "DX10 specific," nor can there ever be. The SDK used to create the model file's content doesn't have anything "DX10 specific." That point is what I was trying to establish all along. To even speak about a "DX10 model" is a non sequitur; a logical fallacy ("it doesn't follow")... ;)Notice also that I don't commit the equally egregious logical fallacy known as "appeal to (self) authority." Everything I've posted as fact is based on the "real authorities," those being the ACES developers themselves, along with the official SDK documentation ACES has provided.As for the concerns you've expressed above, FSX itself will send only that information to the video card that the video card, video drivers and OS configuration allows. IOW, it will automatically "fallback" to using DX9 (via the Vista DX9L API) if that is all that's available.So, with this factual knowledge in hand, one can safely conclude that installing the forthcoming "DX10 update" will not only be "safe," but will indeed benefit everyone at some level, even if only for the "non-DX10 fixes" that will be included.Because the topic of FSX, Vista and DX10 has been such a volatile and emotive one, it is critical that we ALL stick with FACTS, and that the misinformation, incoherent declarations, and other distractions be squelched, lest rampant hysteria once again take over the forums... ;)

[PhilTaylor 45]

FSX itself requires DX9, and the current SDK exposes functionality based on that. So there is no way to use FSX on a system that doesnt have DX9 and any conflict there is avoided by definition. That doesnt mean another app couldnt use the lower version number interfaces, which are present even on a DX9 system; just that FSX doesnt.Worrying about DX10 issues in the SDK before I even talk to the plan for FSX itself is a tad premature. I said I would talk one or two more times to progress and would then be in a position to talk features of the release. Something like around mid-August. Given that timeframe to get solid data; I would think its even more premature to be writing an epitaph for either FSX-DX10 or DX10 in early July with no data on the plan.To talk to specifics, an add-on could only use a DX10 specific feature if we expose it in the SDK. Which we havent committed to either way yet. So that one is TBD. But even there, the more likely scenario is some add-on gets better on DX10 and not some add-on would require DX10.

[virtuali 4,421]

>There can never be such a thing as a "DX10-only aircraft.">Period.Aehm...I wouldn't be *that* sure about it.Yes, it's quite cumbersome, it might have unknown side effects, it needs some research first but, in theory, an addon could use DX10 in some way. For example, a gauge MIGHT have its bitmaps processed by a shader using DX10 shading language who knows for what, maybe custom illumination...(now, I wouldn't want to put crazy ideas in your mind, I know gauge illumination is very dear to you )That was the first thing that came to my mind, so I'm not 100% positive it would be feasible, nor that it would be such a good idea (what developer would place such a strict HW/SW requirement, just for a special effect ? )A really crazy developer could even get into the foul idea of using some of the available power of the GPU, and using it as a coprocessor, like the Folding@Home program is doing (intensive calculations with the GPU)...now we are really into the realm of geekiness, rather than usefulness, for FSX.Another possible scenario might be of a Vista-only aircraft, still running in DX9, though. If a gauge, exactly like gauges nowadays are using GDI+, would use WPF instead, that's Vista only, you'll have another combination: a Vista-only airplane that will run on DX9 hardware!See: the moment we put the huge Windows APIs into the equation, anything (well, almost ) starts becoming possible.How do I know ? Because something very similar has ALREADY BEEN DONE, in FS2004. FS2004 didn't supported some of the more advanced shaders that came with FSX, like Bump Maps on the airplanes, or the Rain effects on the runway. Well, a very ingenous guy in Italy, implemented such effects in FS2004, going as far as developing a "graphical improvement kit" for the PMDG 747 and the Cloud9 MB339! See here all the screenshots:http://www.ibirdsoft.net/PMDG/PMDG747.htmlThis module ( I had the chance to test it ), added textures with normal maps, just like FSX, IN FS2004! It was a little bit of a hack, of course, it did had some stability problems, but the concept was there. The guy simply intercepted FS2004 graphic calls, and redirected to his own shader, that was written using the more powerful 3.0 shader language, that FS9 never used.So, the principle it's the same, someone might come with the same crazy idea, and writing DX10-only shaders for FSX, who knows...

[aerdt 0]

DX10 will introduce a new shader model, bigger textures and higher quality graphics.We haven't seen ANY in-game DX10 screenshots of FSX yet - just artistic renders how it "should" and "might" look like, so there is nothing to speculate about.Pat

[n4gix 4,947]

>>There can never be such a thing as a "DX10-only aircraft.">>Period.>>>Aehm...I wouldn't be *that* sure about it.>See: the moment we put the huge Windows APIs into the>equation, anything (well, almost ) starts becoming possible.You know of course that I was speaking of models that are 100% compatible with the published FS SDK.Yes, one can - with some effort - step outside the bounds of the SDK and do wild and wacky things, but that wasn't the point of the claim.With that in mind then, I'll revise the statement to be more specific:There can never be such a thing as a "DX10-only aircraft" when it is 100$ compiliant with the currently published SDK.Even IF ACES exposes some DX10 specific feature in an updated SDK, FSX itself will provide an automatic fallback to ensure that the model will run, albeit without that DX10 specific feature present.