Acceleration & DX10 Preview so far, not so good here.

[bonchie 2,305]

Phils been good about info, but I'm very disappointed with Aces today. A majority of people are obviously having abnormal problems with DX10. At least give us a "we are working on it" or "we'll try to help"...the silence stinks.

[aerdt 0]

This is not an explanation, but an apology, which I have addressed in another thread.Bottom line: There will be no DX10 "Full functionality" in FSX. At least not with the current state of SP2.Pat

[remilton 66]

I take the silence to indicate that this was totally unexpected and perhaps they are currently stumped.

[bonchie 2,305]

I already know what DX10 was supposed to do for FSX.I've seen Cell and Mango post 100's of shots on flightsimworld.com (as beta testers) with increased performance and everythign promised.This is a hardware problem, not them lieing about what was going to be included in SP2. I've seen visual proof that its all there. All we need is for Aces to issue a fix, or let us know whats causing us to not enjoy it the way it should be.

[aerdt 0]

That's all nice and dandy, but I don't see any difference at all with SP2/Acceleration, except a 20% performance decrease.This is a 100% clean rebuild of FSX with no other tweaks (yet).Pat

[Guest j0nx]

I saved a flight on dx10 and got 22fps in the same spot where i got 33fps in dx9 with the same settings. Something is definitely amiss. I also noticed just now that only 3 of my 8 addon planes work without issue. My Aerosoft Katana, FSD Seneca twin engine, all Eaglesoft planes, and my Carenado piper 180 all have translucent paint and virtual consoles. Yikes to dx10. I'm a bit concerned at this point since Microsoft developed this new dx10.

[Guest]

>I take the silence to indicate that this was totally>unexpected and perhaps they are currently stumped.Just like the blurry issue I guess. At least you guys can enjoy Acceleration in Dx9. I cannot even do that, and have to use RTM if I want to see any ground textures. I had a big smile on my face for Acceleration, now it has turned into a frown. I wasn't too worried about SP1 being defective, as I could uninstall it and it cost be nothing, however Acceleration being defective has cost me $30.

[aerdt 0]

Which ties into Phil Taylors blog post: "We are not promising runtime backwards compatibility in the current DX10 code path now or in the future." Oh joy, I really do NOT want to be an add-on developer right now. First of all they need to make their add-ons compatible for FSX, then for Vista, then for 64Bit, then for SP1, then for SP2/DX10.Sorry to say, but ...what a mess. Now FSX is not really compatible anymore with anything and with 4 different code paths."Hello developer, can I please have a 172 for FSX on Vista, 32-bit, with DX10?" Of course, that won't be compatible with DX9 anymore, so I need to purchase 2 editions that pretty much do the same (for me, the enduser).I do not want to paint a doomsday picture here, but I can see a lot of frustration, confusion and disappointment, at least until everything has been sorted out with a hopefully clean code break with FS11.FSX is now officially a lost cause for me when it comes to 3rd party addons, because I simply cannot keep track anymore.I give up and go back to my trusted FS9. At least there I have a working PMDG 737 right now.In the meantime, it will be FS9 and the upcoming X-Plane v9 for me. On the OS side, I have already transitioned my non-gaming computing to a Mac and eagerly await the release of Leopard tomorrow with the confidence that things just "work as intended".Pat

[LAdamson 240]

>FSX is now officially a lost cause for me when it comes to 3rd>party addons, because I simply cannot keep track anymore.>>I give up and go back to my trusted FS9. At least there I have>a working PMDG 737 right now.>>In the meantime, it will be FS9 and the upcoming X-Plane v9>for me. X-Plane----The sim where programming code really does change every month or so; and developers have no idea of what works from one week to the next!Yes, FS9 is trusty. Uglier and more static in overall feel, but trusty...:-hah L.Adamson -- FS9,FSX, and X-Plane 8.????/with global scenery

[brucewtb 249]

As a non FSX user (yet) and observer sitting on the sidelines I don't know whether to laugh or cry. After a recent hard drive upgrade I now have the disc space on my current AMD 3700+ PC to install FSX or alternatively the cash for an upgrade to a current generation machine but I am fast coming to the conclusion that the best course of action is to bypass FSX altogether, stick with FS9 and hope Aces sorts the whole mess out with FSXI. May still get the new PC though - should make FS9 really shine!Bruceb

[pastorpilot 0]

I hate to say it Bruceb, But you are probably right on track. Except for the software experts. I'm running FSX pretty well under DX-9 and SP-1... Things are pretty fluid. I really not wanting to tear everything up, but I spent $3K, installed Vista in hopes that DX-10 would be as "promised" (or perhaps "marketed") from the beginnning. Guess, now I own an entry level FS-11 machine. Using an E6700 and 8800GTX at about 3.6 ghz. FS-9 would scream on this machine.Have fun with FS-2004!Steve

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi Heiko, I haven't seen Acceleration, but what you say seems to make much more sense than the original statement. According to my sources, Ati's X2900 offerings should be better with the DX10 preview. If, get a X2900pro max IMHO, they're just as loud(!) as the XT ;-) cost ca 60% and a perf difference seems non detectable. I even prefer the pro. Pre 7.10 Catalyst drivers were no good, post 7.10 it's acceptable (for me). Some weird artefacts remain - i.e. reflective textures are 'blocky' from very particular angles - but these are minor issues now. I know it's there so I look somewhere else on the screen. :-) AIM, I wouldn't be surprised if the perf troubles are predominantly happening with Geforces. Mid-end cards like GF8500 or X2600 won't be good enough either AFAIK. If I missed a GF8600, pls excuse my ignorance. :-) It would also be on that 'try it if you like but don't expect too much' list. FWIW and YMMV of course. If somebody hasn't bought into mundo DX10 by now, IMHO, wait a couple of weeks and then DX10.0 hardware will be cheaper or DX10.1 will be available. Kind regards Jaap

[Guest tmilton]

>Just finished installing Acceleration rebooted and started>FSX. FSX works fine in DX9. Enabling the DX10 preview causes>a 20% performance decrease and I cannot seem to get ASF>or AA to work at all I'm experiencing the same problem here. My performance took a noticeable hit as well with DX10, this gave me quite a surprise. If someone has any idea of what's happening here, and how to proceed from here, the help would be appreciated.Thanks.

[Guest h9000]

So Acceleration does not solve the blurries problem in SP1? You confirm that?Anyone else has some feedback on blurries in Acceleration?This is just unbelievable. Photo-realistic scenes worked like a charm in RTM and were completely wrong in SP1. They said they would solve the problem in Acceleration. I am so disappointed.

[Geofa 108]

This post is the best I have seen on blurries. Give it a try:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...9&page=3#420753http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/