Sign in to follow this  
greggerm

DX9 > DX10: Just Perf Upgrade or a Feature Upgrade?

Recommended Posts

Hi all,1. I'm still struggling to get a final picture of DX9 vs. DX10. Now I'm not unhappy to see DX10 seems to be more or less a performance update. At the same time we were hoping for some features too, but apart from the VC shadows (likely to appear only in the FSX stock planes) there's VERY little differences. As Phil might not be able to explain the difference that HDR bloom makes the next days, I'm hoping for Sebby to hopefully spend some time to tell us.2. After thinking deeply about all news and screenshot I've seen so far, here's a different interpretation of DX10 apart from being a Perf Update. Given that almost no PC was able to fluently use water 2.x and Light Bloom with FSX end of 2006, now DX10 PC's can (really?) switch that on with no penalty. SO there should also be a comparison between screenshots DX9 without bloom and 2.x compared to DX10 with HDR bloom and water 2.xalong with (hopefully) almost identical fps figures. That's a fair comparison, isn't it? If you take it that way, there *might* be an difference in appearance. That also sheds light onto what exactly IS light bloom in FSX. Is it just reflections? from planes AND buildings? The sun? Also runway lights and landing lights? Hopefully somebody could make that sort of shots and post them somewhere???So I's suggest to have scenes like- coastline with houses and trees mirroring in DX10 water 2.max vs. DX9 1.max- approach lights (runway center lights, PAPI's, approach pattern lights, ...) in the dark with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- planes landing lights with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- normal airport gates as you see when parking with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- sunset with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- cloud scenery with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 withoutAlso important to know for us: Is there a minimum level of DX10 hardware or does it just scale linear over GF8400...GF8800Ultra/HD2600...HD2900XT to use DX10 as a whole or DX10 bloom+DX10 water 2.x? Maybe Phil or someone else can give an opinion on that?I'm into the decision to go to FSX or FS9, and I'm more irritated at all.Cheers, Bigean

Share this post


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

What are your computer specs? If you've got the system to run FSX, then get it. Its night and day from FS9 graphics wise (mainly because the texture resolution is so much higher).Light bloom is a hazy effect added to lights. I guess its supposed to simulate amospheric effects. It looks pretty cool IMO, but its unplayable unless you use SP2 at this point.The water has been redone in SP2 also. Its shinier looking IMO and looks cooler, but its not really realistic if your uptight about stuff like that. You can also now use the higher water 2x settings without killing your frame rate. As of now I can only use 2x low as its a 7-8 fps killer with higher water on (and I have a good system).Check this thread out for 100's of FSX Acceleration/SP2 shots. Some are DX9, most DX10. http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index...howtopic=128136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What are your computer specs? :) P4 2GHz. I could by a cheap one for FS9 and wait for FS11. Or a full one for FSX. Painful decision.>Check this thread out for 100's of FSX Acceleration/SP2 shots.>Some are DX9, most DX10.>http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index...howtopic=128136That's what I've seen. Very impressive. So that's why we need only *some* more screenshots of the types I mentioned.Oh, anyone with flightsimworld account to ask those guys there for the screenshots?Bigean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one here said that by going to Vista from XP, (FSX + SP1) without the SP2 in acceleration, would degrade your FPS by 20-30%.Now, going to SP2 (acceleration), would we get back that original loss of 20-30% and more?I would like someone to validate this.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its untrue. 6 months ago when they didn't have good drivers out, yeah. Not anymoreI just went to Vista 2 days ago from a barebones XP install. My FPS are exactly the same after tweaking Vista for about 20 minutes (disabling Superfetch and some other background processes; its all stuff XP didn't have either so its not a big deal). There was also some kind of memory problem in Vista that theres a patch out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have an FSW account, what do want me to do?@Bell, oh, nice and thanks.Well, if you could ask for screens in general comparingDX9 without bloom and without 2.x (or whatever water it took to avoid huge drop of fps)compared to DX10 with HDR bloom and with water 2.x (or whatever water is possible without a drop in fps)So we can compare the overall impression and see if fps stays fluent.And if they kindly accept suggestions, it's those:- coastline with houses and trees mirroring in DX10 water 2.max vs. DX9 1.max- approach lights (runway center lights, PAPI's, approach pattern lights, ...) in the dark with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- planes landing lights with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- normal airport gates as you see when parking with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- sunset with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 without- cloud scenery with DX10 light bloom vs. DX9 withoutI think that's what should be interesting, right?Thanks a lot! Bigean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard the same, I hope the 20% drop of Vista is really history.Now really it depends how you look at it, and I try to figure out, if this is correct:If you played with Light Bloom and Water 2.x in DX9-> then you will see DX10 as a performance boost of ...20%...50% and small changes in visual appearance + VC shadowsIf you played without Light Bloom and without Water 2.x in DX9, cause it spoiled the fps-> only then you will see DX10 as a feature enhancement, because you can now switch those on and enjoy reflective water with white caps light bloom (whatever that is in FSX) and VC shadows. The fps will stay more or less the same.If you won't use bloom and water 2.x in neither DX9 nor DX10-> you shouldn't see much difference between DX9/10 in appearance and fps (apart from VC shadows). The remaining fixes in SP2 should affect DX9 the same as DX10.Let's see if that's a good description of the SP2 outcomeBigean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATI finally released the 7.10 catalyst drivers, so I can finally get dx10 working on my machine. I was having all sorts of trouble with my 2600XT until today. Bioshock, FSX, Company of Heroes, anything I tried in DX10 was crashing.Updated drivers came out and I'm perfect.I'm walking the sliders up to see exactly how high I can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bell,thanks for posting there. Only, seems they got it wrong. Too many requests at once, right. Still I'm missing none-bloom to DX10-bloom screenshots to compare what bloom really is in FSX ... maybe anyone else ;-)???Bigean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see specific FSX (non-addon) screen shots to see what the benefit is graphically and performance wise.I am waiting to upgrade to Vista and DX10 until there is solid evidence that it will be spectacular and run at solid 30 FPS, sliders maybe 20% moved to the right. AND NOT SPEND 40+ HOURS TWEAKING! OUT OF THE BOX DX-10, lets NAIL it!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking, DX10 is NOT a performance upgrade. If you get 2 or 3 fps increase by adding just DX10 then you'll be lucky. This small increase in fps is more due to the effeciency of driver interplay with the DX10-capable graphics card.So, if DX10 is not a performance upgrade, what is it? Again, strictly speaking, DX10 is a graphics upgrade for both users and developers. For the user, you'll see better graphics renditions, sharper images, and more life-like effects. For the developer, DX10 prepresents a step up in graphics capabilities that they can tap in order to add new visual elements to the various FSX environments.fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks FB!I am looking forward to LOTS of discussion regardig DX-10 on AVSIM!Take care!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil has stated, with SS's, that DX10 is offering a 20% increase over the SP2 DX9 version.This is supported by comparision SS's posted in that thread at flightsimworld, where the beta tester (Mango or Cell) had 10 full frames more using DX10. Using DX10 should net you 5-6 more frames on average coupled with the ability to use the higher effects like bloom, HDR, and water x2.

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