DX10 Release Announcement - Not Impressed

[PhilTaylor 45]

I explicitly said to not expect that, if you read the thread.

[Guest MauiHawk]

Sometimes I get the feeling there are bugs in the forum software almost all the recrent posts have been in this particular sub-thread and none of them involve DX10. According to the forum, N684 responded (#59) to Slashed 2's post (#58) acting as if it was discussing DX10 which it was not. N684 was following the discussion sequentially and not threaded and simply responded to the most recent post, this still doesn't make much sense since no recent posts discuss DX10. Further Phil seems to know exactly that N684 is refering to. How? What is going on with this? Is it really just a misplaced reply on the part of N684?>I explicitly said to not expect that, if you read the>thread.Anyway... Phil,Would you mind pointing me to the thread you and N684 are refering to? I don't recall seeing cloud shadows discussed for the DX10 patch. (And frankly, I'm surprised you are suggestings they are ruled out... isn't volumetric cloulds and their ability to cast soft shadows one of the big new benefits of DX10?) Further, the artist screenshots you guys put out clearly showed cloud shadows against the mountains so did you not discuss with the artist what you thought would and would not be possible? If not, it seems pretty irresponsible to have distributed them as representations of what you thought possible with DX10.

[Guest N684]

The cloud shadow statement was a 'speculation' before the game was released. I've googled a bit: http://www.flightsimulator10.com/news/inte...developers.htmlSo i was wondering if what they promised us would actually be realised... I sure hope DX10 'adds' cloud shadows, those are so beautiful :)

[DadJokeCinema 145]

The thing is, hardly any of the posts in this thread have been about DX10. The thread was incorrectly labelled to be about a DX10 announcement when it's actually about the Acceleration announcement on CombatSim.com. I suppose I could change it, but most people seem to have just rolled with it.

[nudata 10]

I don't know anymore do you????????He seems like some idiot that mis-posted a message and failed to take into account the feelings of others. These egregious errors have illuminated his stupidity to have suggested that the sacred Microsoft would ever have a hidden commercial agenda. Defaming a corporation that has always demonstrated its concern for the public good is indeed worthy of the primary question - what was he talking about.I am going QRT !_. .._ _ ...

[Guest N684]

Who's the idiot? :/

[PhilTaylor 45]

The OP mis-named the thread.The thread on Cloud Shadows is on the front page. If we are talking to a front-page thread in another thread, I assume people can find it pretty easily. See "Subject: "Any hope for Cloud's Shadow? - Number of variables insi..."http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=408992&page=I have repeatedly said the screenshots we released were artistic impressions and do not represent what is going to be in FSX-DX10. Back in February I pointed out that GeometryShader performance was iffy, and that had design implications. One of them is for the water effects seen in the artistic impressions. We are not going to be able to use the GS to "amplify" geometry on the fly around the water polys to generate foam as per the magic screenies. Just isnt possible to do in a performant way on current DX10 hw. Does that mean we will do nothing for water? Not at all. What are we going to do? I am not getting pushed on my timeline. mid-August for disclosure.As far as volumetric clouds and soft shadows - one of the purposes of the GS was for single-pass cubemaps - used for reflections and shadows. Another was for Stencil Shadow extrusion. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA== is a good source for this. Given my previous comment about GS - where does that leave those features? Needing an alternate implementation plan just like water does. Welcome to rubber meeting road.As far as the screenshots, you are seeing things others are not. Seehttp://www.istartedsomething.com/20060817/...ctx10-fabulous/ and I quote "There is no structural changes between the two images; except only lighting, weather effects and the water. Infact, the reflection and refraction of mountains in the water didn

[DadJokeCinema 145]

"Making the project plan depend on GS for features would guarantee that until 2nd or 3rd gen DX10 hw the patch wouldnt run well, eg FSX RTM all over again. Thank you very much but we arent going to do that again."Damned if you, damned if you don't, right Phil? RTM and everyone says "What good are these graphics perks if they don't run well? That's just irresponsible."DX10 and everyone says "If you remove these graphic features that you wanted to put in, in the name of performance, you're irresponsible."I think if we want a constructive role as a community in helping to direct the future of the Sim franchise, which is what this thread is about in the first place, we need to pick a spot and stand by it. This much conflict within the community means that we aren't sending a clear message. If they are trimming features to avoid the performance issues of RTM, then it is because as a community, we made it well known that we want the sim to run well out of the box on current day hardware.In the case of DX10 hardware and other games that have been released with DX10 support, there is a big hardware hit. World in Conflict is a beautiful game with a few nice tricks in the DX10 bag to make it look even better, but other than that, there's no DX10 game that has come out with big increases to graphics fidelity and performance, and I have to blame the hardware on that. It's just mature yet, and we need to support the decision by ACES to make it something that actually will run well when they release it.Microsoft is here talking to us because we are the people who care the most about their product, and we need to use that voice to make it the best thing for the community. And when they take that to heart, we have to accept that almost always that means we'll have to sacrifice something else to achieve this. So yeah, we might not have cloud shadows or foam on the top of waves, but if we see a better looking sim with improved performance, then I think everyone will be happier for it. That's what we said we wanted when FSX came out and we had performance issues with it.

[Guest MauiHawk]

(deleted)

[Guest MauiHawk]

So, first, I realize I may have been a bit harsh by calling you irresponsible. I fully appreciate that any plans in software change one "rubber meets road". I also appreciate that you do regret they were posted.Still, my annoyance was predicated on the idea that cloud shadows were never a feature that was considered, yet, IMHO, are clearly depicted in the "magic" screenshots. I simply would like to think that, artistic or not, the artist was at least consulting with the developer, that's all.>As far as the screenshots, you are seeing things others are>not. See>http://www.istartedsomething.com/20060817/...ctx10-fabulous/>and I quote >>"There is no structural changes between the two images; except>only lighting, weather effects and the water. Infact, the>reflection and refraction of mountains in the water didn

[Guest MauiHawk]

>"Making the project plan depend on GS for features would>guarantee that until 2nd or 3rd gen DX10 hw the patch wouldnt>run well, eg FSX RTM all over again. Thank you very much but>we arent going to do that again.">>>Damned if you, damned if you don't, right Phil? >>RTM and everyone says "What good are these graphics perks if>they don't run well? That's just irresponsible.">>DX10 and everyone says "If you remove these graphic features>that you wanted to put in, in the name of performance, you're>irresponsible.">>>I think if we want a constructive role as a community in>helping to direct the future of the Sim franchise, which is>what this thread is about in the first place, we need to pick>a spot and stand by it. This much conflict within the>community means that we aren't sending a clear message. If>they are trimming features to avoid the performance issues of>RTM, then it is because as a community, we made it well known>that we want the sim to run well out of the box on current day>hardware.As I said in my reply to Phil, I came across a little more rash than I intended to, I'm sorry for using the word "irresponsible". I have no problems with trimming back features for performance on current hardware. I was bristling at the idea that assuming cloud shadows were never "on the table" yet were in the "magic" shots. Fine if they were being considered and were trimmed... I take back the complaint. As I love the communication Phil & ACES provides, I want to know that we are getting honest communication. That's all.>In the case of DX10 hardware and other games that have been>released with DX10 support, there is a big hardware hit. >World in Conflict is a beautiful game with a few nice tricks>in the DX10 bag to make it look even better, but other than>that, there's no DX10 game that has come out with big>increases to graphics fidelity and performance, and I have to>blame the hardware on that. It's just mature yet, and we need>to support the decision by ACES to make it something that>actually will run well when they release it.First, my guess is developers are, thus far, as much a part of the "problem" with DX10 as is immature hw/drivers. The "problem" being that they haven't yet had a real opportunity to develope code to extact the possibilities of DX10. My impression of DX10 is that it allows game engines to be designed with a more efficient architecture which, in turns, allows more goodies. But if the games wasn't designed around DX10 in the first place, its probably hard to expect it to provide much benefit. I think with WiC we are seeing for the first time a game that was truely built around DX10 and thus actually does derive some benefit. On the hw side, I think we will continue to see performance come up new driver releases since dx10 driver paths obviously are still not all that mature.Second, I think FSX is pretty unique compared to the other games that have been released with DX10 support in that it is CPU bound (very much so on high-end DX10 hardware). While I have read quite a bit of stuff about things that can be done more efficiently with DX10, the bottom line is that for the most part with DX10 support you are talking about adding shader workload that wasn't there before. So even if the added workload is being handled more efficiently that it would with DX9, it is still additional work for a GPU and a GPU bound game will immediately suffer a penalty. With FSX, as long as the overall CPU overhead doesn't increase much over the DX9 overhead, current generation DX10 hardware can take on a significant amount of additional work without becoming the holdup. Further, if total overhead can actually be reduced (and Phil has expressed hope that it will) and especially if some or all of the D3D overhead can be moved to a secondary core, FSX really could a fps improvement while adding gfx features. So I don't think its necesarily fair to judge FSX's potential under DX10 based on other DX10 games to this point.>Microsoft is here talking to us because we are the people who>care the most about their product, and we need to use that>voice to make it the best thing for the community. And when>they take that to heart, we have to accept that almost always>that means we'll have to sacrifice something else to achieve>this. So yeah, we might not have cloud shadows or foam on the>top of waves, but if we see a better looking sim with improved>performance, then I think everyone will be happier for it. >That's what we said we wanted when FSX came out and we had>performance issues with it. I don't really want to start this debate again, but I'm still skeptical of M$'s motives with DX10 and continue to feel that M$ exaggerated potentail of DX10 to sell Vista. I fully realize selling Vista wasn't the only reason to limiting DX10 to Vista, but its hard to imagine it wasn't part of the thought process. What other reason do gamers have to go to Vista? I still feel burned that I bought the hype and the fact that FSX DX10 support would arrive alongside Vista and bought Vista at least 9 months earlier than I had to. Sure, on the one hand this was naive on my part. Still, IMHO, M$ to a large degree brought this DX10 scrutiny upon themselves by playing it up so heavily.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Dood,L.Adam ... I bow to your excitement.You have it so right.You get a rarely seen smiley for your excellent commentary: :-ukliamI so want to kick your #### on the Reno course.

[AWACS 12]

You're alright man, the way I saw it at first was that it seemed like you were saying the only way to "simulate" flight in FS was to fly a heavy airliner from point A to point B, but to race a P-51 or fly an F-18 was simply childish and "game like" and of course now you realize that, that is a silly assertion. ALL, please remember there are folks here who fly fighters and bombers for a living and put THEIR lives, not YOURS in harms way to defend freedom, there is nothing silly or trivial about it. I myself fly on an E-3 in real life, and fly GA as well on the side, but I use FS to simulate airliner operations, but I don't feel that any other use of the sim is "game like." To each their own, but let's not make light of the way others use the sim, it is condescending to say the least.Jeff

[Guest Len]

Honestly I agree with the OP and some of the other posters. I have never seen the relevance of war type aircraft in the context of a civilian flight simulator program. And not because I'm a peacenik but because what's the use of flying around an F18 if you can't shoot things and that kind of simulation belongs in a combat flight simulator not in FSX. Why doesn't MS and the team spend the time in doing a detailed commercial airliner complete with FMS etc? They have started the kernal of good detailed airports why not go the next step and provide a more detailed simulation for commercial passenger/cargo flight. Instead I can race others online. Big deal. I know, I know, I don't have to buy it. I won't.

[LAdamson 240]

>Dood,>>L.Adam ... I bow to your excitement.>>You have it so right.>>You get a rarely seen smiley for your excellent commentary:>:-ukliam>>I so want to kick your #### on the Reno course.>:-lol IMO, and my wife thinks the same way....The North American P-51D Mustang is the most "beautiful" aircraft ever produced! And it's sounds the best too! :-hah The Concord comes in second! Of course, if I was from the U.K., then it would be the Spitfire as number one! :7 And seeing how I like the Mustang so much; and especially with D-Day invasion stripes; I painted my RV that way, even though it has a nose wheel stuck on the front. But the tail is somewhat shaped like a P-51, along with the sliding canopy.Pic included: Note, havn't figured what to do with the cowl stripes yet, and the wings are due out of the paint factory this weekend.Long live "military" in FSX! :-bang http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175556.jpg