Sign in to follow this  
victorwest2

SP2(DX10) is that what we really want?

Recommended Posts

After viewing the screenshots of the DX10 version, I'm not really impressed.If that's the best MS can do, then it certainly will not get me to migrate to Vista. I'd much rather see MS address the blurries issue before this SP2.Anyone else think that fixing the blurries at further distances more important to their flying enjoyment than dx10? Oddly enough, FS9 doesn't have this problem?

Share this post


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

If you are talking about the shots posted on Phil Taylor's blog, he's said numerous times and in numerous locations that the shots were only intended to show progress in bringing the DX10 codepath up to speed, not to show what it will look like in DX10. They have not yet added the extra DX10 features in those shots.He has mentioned that SP2 will contain a couple general fixes... it would not shock me if one of them had to do with blurries. And it should also give DX10 users at least a little performance increase which can be used to go toward blurries if you have your fps locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you might want to check Phil's blog again - there are some new DX10 pictures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>you might want to check Phil's blog again - there are some>new DX10 picturesHmmm... I'm not seeing them, I guess. I only see the "just another Wednesday" post from the 8th where he says: "Being done with the 3rd milestone, "DX10 looking like DX9", means all DX9 rendering features are now operational in the DX10 pipeline and look identical. That means the engine is fully flyable in DX10, but no new features are enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the DX10 service pack 2 is going to make that much difference on graphics, i expect a bit more frames per seconds. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculation & hope.....>>>>Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I best be seeing some God rays and water effects out of DX10 or I am going to feel used and cheap. ;)________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>you might want to check Phil's blog again - there are some>new DX10 picturesThere is nothing new here, same pictures from August 8th showing progress as the bring the game to fully functioning in DX10 status. Per Phil, no DX10 graphical improvements are shown yet, just showing the progressing of having the code run in DX10. Is there something you are reading into this that we don't know about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people are feeling used and cheap :-fume :-bang :-fume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose he's saying that if the DX10 update doesn't have any of the features of the DX10 update, then he will be upset.I think that's not unreasonable :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that be something? A DX10 update with no DX10 functionality implemented. Just think of it! We could then compare DX9 on XP to DX10 on Vista with regard to framerates, blurries, CTD's, clouds, water, autogen, etc, etc, etc. It would open up a whole new host of posts on the merits of each and the arguments could go on for months and months. Never a boring moment around here :-) .Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without screenshots its pretty easy to see that DX10 won't do much at all. Just look at all the other games that have DX10 like Company of Heroes or Bioshock. You can barely tell the difference and in most cases you have to have side-by-side comparisons of high res screenshots to notice them. On top of that there is no magical performance increase, only a slight decrease of about 2 fps. In FS 2 FPS is a huge hit when you're having to lock it at 24 or whatever. Staple this on to an engine that is already seemingly inefficient and frustrating to get running at an acceptable level and what you get is a product vastly different from what the Microsoft hype machine has been spitting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you haven't seen or heard of Crysis yet? You should. It's photorealistic, and unlike the word "stunning" in the screenshot forum, I don't use the term lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I've heard of, and seen it. That is an FPS which is the dog and pony show for MS and is built for DX10. Not to mention they pumped millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to maximize what is essentially a glorified tech demo. FS has always lagged behind the rest of the graphics world, and the DX10 patch will be no different. I'd love for ACES to prove me wrong, but they don't have the time or the inclination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACES should have dropped all this DX10 mumbo-jumbo about 12 months ago. It has really made them look bad, Microsoft look bad, and this whole Vista/DX10 thing look bad. FSX was supposed to be Microsoft's DX10 show-case game, and nearly a full year after FSX's release it isn't even DX10 compatible yet. That is simply laughable!!!!! ACES should have just planned on implementing DX10 with the next Flight Simulator and skipped it all together for FSX due to the Vista/DX10 release schedule not being the same as FSX's. DX10 has been completely oversold, and nearly everything dealing with DX10 has been filled with nothing but major disappointment because most of our hopes and dreams were driving out of this world due to the hype. Eventually, I am sure it will be nice, and things can only get better from this point on. But that will be more than a year away for most of us (I am not interested in another FPS like Crysis), and probably only a few games will even use the technology to its fullest potential over the next 2 to 3 years.I am even starting to consider skipping the entire Vista/DX10 experience myself. Maybe I will make the leap to their next OS system that will probably be out within 2 years at the most. Vista is looking more and more like the Windows ME experience back in 2000. Pretty scary!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did nobody read the Blog from Phil complete?He wrote "So where does that leave us in Phase 3? Well, we are done. Here are 2 screenshots, DX9 and DX10 to show what the 2 pipelines look like side by side. Do you see a difference? Hint, look at the top left. Yes, ta-da, that is correct. DX10 is running faster than DX9. By 17% or so. So see, there is proof that DX10 might actually be ok. That is the only difference you should see!"This means DX10 version of FSX is 17% faster than DX9. All of us should know that FSX is mostly CPU bound, so 17% faster just for the use of not fully optimized DX10 is very promising and in line with the often posted +30% which DX10 would be faster than DX9. You must think about +30% in the graphics pipeline not mean that the whole game run +30% faster. So I would be blessed if the SP2/DX10 update would just released with the 17% performance gain.Cant wait too see what features Aces will build in, hope for some lighting features, maybe grass and if possible better handling of the SM2.0 water. All should be possible, because they can upgrade all shader code to SM4.0 if they wish. And like some of you saw in Bioshock, SM3.0 or SM4.0 shader code is much faster than SM2.x shader code ever was (currently FSX use at best SM2.x shader code).Maybe they use real HDR lightning?Cant wait for the next post of Phil.Thats my 2 cent to the DX10 version of FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Even without screenshots its pretty easy to see that DX10>won't do much at all. Just look at all the other games that>have DX10 like Company of Heroes or Bioshock. You can barely>tell the difference and in most cases you have to have>side-by-side comparisons of high res screenshots to notice>them. On top of that there is no magical performance increase,>only a slight decrease of about 2 fps. In FS 2 FPS is a huge>hit when you're having to lock it at 24 or whatever. Staple>this on to an engine that is already seemingly inefficient and>frustrating to get running at an acceptable level and what you>get is a product vastly different from what the Microsoft hype>machine has been spitting out. Well, on the one hand, I agree not to expect to much, particularily given the fact that ACES is only spending a couple months tops on implementing the new features. Also, it sounds to me like many of the benefits of DX10 come from it allowing the engine architecture to be coded more effeiciently... but if a game hasn't been coded around DX10 in the first place, I think a lot of that potential is lost (as with CoH). But more recently, other games have done better-- I thought the volumetric smoke in the World in Conflict beta added quite a bit to the game and there was virtually no performance hit to using it vs DX9 (on Vista, at least). And Crysis demo movies have shown even more potential.But while FSX SP2 won't include Crysis's level of DX10 work, I think it is a pretty unique candidate for improvements via DX10. Basically, a lot of DX10 seems to boil down to the ability to move work off of the CPU and on to the GPU. In every other game to this point that has supported DX10, the GPU has already been the bottleneck. But in FSX, you can pretty much guarantee anyone with DX10 hardware has a lot of unused GPU potential right now since it is spending most of its time waiting on the CPU. Therefore, ACES should be able to pile on quite a few graphics goodies before the GPU becomes as worked as the CPU is and begins affecting performance.On top of that, my most hoped-for feature is that Phil said they were looking into the possibility of shifting the DirectX work to a secondary core... something that hadn't been possible with DX9. Since it is my understanding that at least 30% or so of the work the first core is doing is making DX calls, it seems to me there is a lot of potential for this to allow for a large FPS increase on multicore machines-- moving 30% of the workload from core 1 to core 2 could theoretically allow for ~ a 50% increase in FPS... and that's before you factor in any other potential performance benefits of DX10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to DX10. Hopefully the bloom effect would be shifted to the Video card and not consume FPS.Also, I wish they do whatever is needed to make sure there is a parameter for users to slide the %age of CPU use for rendering textures. I don't want to see that neon green runways (blurries problem). My blood pressure goes up when I see that stupid thing. Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if anyone's taken a look at the Train Sim 2 screenshots from Leipzig.Personally, I think the FSX engine has a lot of pop in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better yet, that single in-cab video is simply stunning. DX10 isn't even working up a head of steam yet, and already it looks incredible. Likewise, I think we've only scratched the surface of what we'll see before FSX's reign is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I had to reformat my drive and reinstall everything due to those pesky activation errors that effect the innocent I haven't had any blurries on my now almost 4 year old system.What I really want-the complete flight experience on my aged pc for a one time $50-$70 fee instead of paying around $200/hr for the real thing. :-) Whoops-seems I already have that-at least to the next improvements. :-lol Always room for improvement of course but for the cost I can't see a better bargain in life. Bring on dx10, fsx 11 and whatever that will improve my home life for a fraction of the cost of the real thing! God we are lucky!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... no, actually Crysis is being developed by a (I believe) German developer called Crytek. They're just making #### GOOD use of the tools Microsoft has produced. For DX10 being in its infancy, it's some great progress and truly a sight to behold, speaking purely from a technical standpoint. Don't let a bias against first person shooters prevent you from seeing a fine example of the potential the API provides.FS11 is going to be awesome.

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