Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Comparing DX9(+acc) to DX10(+acc)

Recommended Posts

This pic has DX9 (left side)compared to DX10 (right side) of the exact same situation.#There is a nice but only slightly darker shadowing of the VC, #the clouds show up less (same in spot view)#fps drastic: DX10 has 50% less #very jerky in flight DX10, more than just microstuters, more like microshiftinghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179340.jpgdaytime comparisons are similar in shadowing differences.allenE6600 quadcore + 4G/ 8600GTS/ Vista32

Share this post


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

I don't think I'm going to jump on the DX10 bandwagon just yet. This huge leap forward in technology is just too much for me. I can't handle the intense graphics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres some kind of problem. I'm hopeing the silence of Aces means they are working on a fix as we sit here.Its obvious this blindsided them. The X-pack under DX9 is still great though. THe new sceneries and planes are very well done. The missions are great also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand on how, phil taylor says that there will be a 20% performace increase coming with sp2, and then when it is released, people are saying that there is a 50% decrease in performace. Granted the downloadable version will be better, but still, it seems that the ACES team no matter what they do, cant get anything right with FSX SP1 or 2.People with better than this computer: 2.4 Ghz Intel Core Duo, with 1GB of RAM, and a GeForce 8800 GTX (quoted from phils web blog) they are even complaing that fsx is now even worse.I personally dont have Acc, but all i have heard is bad things so far, but what i am reading, it seems that SP2 is a step backwards rather than fowards, like the origional FSX.I hope that this is fixed in the next FS. Other wise, their 25 year classic may be in jepordy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. I and others have tried different drviers, settings, fresh installs, etc.Don't stress yourself out trying to fix it. Phil has to comment eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really a joke. This is long overdue, but surely now it is time to outsource the graphics engine for FS11, because this thing is just unplayable. Otherwise it will only continue to get slower and s-l-o-w-e-r. Cryengine and Windlight would seem like good choices for FS11. There is also the Unreal Engine. Then there are open source engines such as Irrlicht. There are many choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not turned off to 'acceleration', just the state of DX10 with my systemI still enjoy FSX much more than FS9 and am staying there, whithout the little checkmark in the preview DX10 box though....allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that will happen, just because of the fact that MS has never used a 3rd party engine in their games and only proprietary home-grown solutions.I believe the same FS engine is the one that is going to be re-used by MS Trainsim. This is definitely slowing down the development and progress of any upcoming versions, because, let face it, the devs at Aces are not engine coders and have already missed plenty of opportunities to adapt to newer technologies (multicore, DX9, DX10).FSX has introduced a shader technology in 2006 that has been available since mid-2004 (DX9.0c)- and that implementation has not even been done effectively by all means and omits many, many technologies where Aces has not even scratched the surface of the possibilities, unlike other popular engines (ie. volumetric lighting, reflections, bump mapping, transparent effects, shadows).The DX10 API has been available since Nov 30th, 2006 and while other developers have already come out in mid-2007 with excellent DX10 games that take almost full advantage of the new technology, Aces, an MS affiliate that supposedly sits at the core and is supposed to be a DX10 showcase, continues to limp behind. What an embarrassment in my eyes.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are researching this with nVidia.There is a case, where if AA is off and the bloom and water is not 2.hi that on a multicore box FSX-DX10 could perform worse. We believe a driver update from nVidia will put FSX-DX10 back on top of FSX-DX9 in terms of performance even in the case with lesser settings. ETA on that driver TBD.And the AA/AF issue not working is being looked at. With that said, I cannot control or promise a timeframe here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Request for nVidia:can we post some saved flights and fsx.cfg files that showcase these issues?that will help with the investigations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree that was probably wishful thinking and they will never license a 3rd party engine. If they were smart they would have been developing a new XNA based graphics engine. Then there is the potential to run it on both PC and Xbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya this is getting really out of hand. it is really unnecessary that a update needs a update to make the new update work better.seriously if the aces team does not reach out for help with programing the game in the next fs, their product could be in harms way with the people. Take this for ex. I like racing simulation, so i use the game Rfactor. Its great!!! Love it! On my old 2.8ghz p4 1gig ddr ram, nvidia gforce 6600, 320hd i got on a good track around 30fps, now with my new rig: amd 4600 2.4ghz x2, 4gigs of ram, nvidia 8800gts 640mb ddr3, 320hd(to me this is a really good system) i have topped the fps around 200-250!!! Sure, this has nothing to do with game updates, but it shows that a well designed game will run flawlessly on a good machien. Why cant fs be like that? bad programing. Even if it were to take years for a new engine, the aces team knows that they have people that will wait for it. but right now they are deffinatly behind the 8ball.Aces needs to STOP developing thier games on quad core, 8 core machiens, because they know that the majority of the people dont know that much about computers to put that into their machien, and also dont have the money to do so. Just because they can, doesnt mean that we can.That was kind of the nice thing about FS2000, just about every one had the same machien specs, even the developers, and guess what, what? the game ran great!!really hope for dramatic changes for fs11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philtaylor: My AA and AF works fine and my frame rate in dx10 is horrible so it's not a combo of having AA turned off that gives poor performance. I can't turn water to 2high or bloom on without taking major frame rate hits as well. I was reading on voodooextreme.com a few weeks ago that said that this patch was supposed to allow me to run with both of those options maxed out with little impact to framerate unlike in dx9. I get more of a framerate hit in dx10 when i max them out than i do in dx9! The self shadowing thing also causes major lag and stuttering when it is enabled. I can understand the addon incompatibilities i guess although it is odd that some addons work fine whereas others have serious translucency issues, probably related to poor code on their part, but i cant really see why i would get such a drastically lower framerate when running dx10 with absolutely no more visual eye candy than what i already get in dx9. The dx10 patch as far as i can see, at least on my pc, just takes frames away and breaks my addons without giving me any noticeable graphic enhancements. Something is wrong for sure and i hope it gets sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just take the SP2 now. Aces claims that WHQL-certified drivers (mind me, drivers "certified" by Microsoft) are somehow breaking the DX10 "Preview" and other a reporting broken AA/AF.How that can slip past a comprehensive beta test is beyond me. To quote Grey's Anatomy: Seriously.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>We are researching this with nVidia.>...>With that said, I cannot control or promise a timeframe here.Phil: What video card and driver did MS use to test DX10?The 8800 series with multi core boxes is the most widely installed combo. I would have thought that would be the standard used to judge performance or at least one that the majority of beta testers would have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow thanks a lot!I have been hacking at this exact problem for hours! I uninstalled and reinstalled FSX, SP1, Accelerate with no provail. Also tried every setting with my video card and FSX.At least I know it is not just me. I will post some pics, and my config ASAP.Thanks.Core 2 Duo, 8800GTX, 3 Gigs ram, Windwos Vista Ultimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people need to chill out and not jump the gun. It's probably a driver issue, happens all the time with Nvidia and with plenty of games-old and new-when new technology and code is introduced, not just fsx. Also big selling graphics focused games tend to get more attention and often have driver releases specifically catered to them, but even then there are problems.For example,Oblivion no antialiasing with HDR problem vistaBioshock antialiasing problem in vistaRainbow Six Vegas same deal in both xp then vistaStalker worse than expected performanceHalf Life 2 fog bugResume from sleep and alt-enter stallingNo sli or buggyTo name a few major onesThen there's the issue in vista with not being able to operate basic advertised card features (s-video, spanning, desktop color, software overclock) which are slowly being unlocked.Just look at the release notes for any forceware release and there will be a list of fixed and later to be fixed bugs.Otherwise, relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, BKircher. I think it's ridiculous that more updates are required for add-ons already updated for FSX. I don't think many developers are going to step up to that plate ready to swing.So now we have to use already existing technology (DX 9) with Service Pack 2, with no performance increase, so we can use payware we spent good money on. Additionally, DX 10 currently offers nothing special with FSX - not that I noticed when flying around in the few aircraft (default) that would actually work properly. I have seen DX 10 benefits in other games that run like butter off a hot biscuit on my system. And as far as Acceleration goes, I'll pass on the "challenging" carrier landings and "exciting" air racing.I seriously think we've reached a peak in flight sim programming, and someone needs to come up with something revolutionary to help this franchise. It's out of hand now. DX 10 is about as sharp as Dan Fouts in a commentating booth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Then there are open source engines such as Irrlicht.>There are many choices. There is also exit, stage left...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority or maybe even all those add ons weren't really updated for fsx but merely made compatible, less work port overs. That means, for instance no recompiled models and/or no dds textures, not complying to the fsx sdk in other ways like coding animations. On the other hand, you have planes like the realair sf260 and scout package, the shockwave p-40, the aerosoft beaver which seem to be doing fine. But I do agree that fs11 needs something groundbreaking like a new engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rFactor renders a few square miles, not 100's of visible miles filled with autogen. Apples to oranges comparison.A 2.4ghz 4600 is not a fast processor when compared to a core 2 duo of equal clock speeds, let alone a 3ghz core2duo. AMD is currently in the budget realm. Even their upcoming, unreleased Phenom processors are roughly equal in performance to a high end C2D. When ACES began designing FSX, processor speeds were regularly increasing with no signs of the trend slowing down. Shortly afterwords clock speeds reached a plateau and stopped increasing, instead AMD and Intel were forced to go the route of multiple cores. This paradigm shift occurred midway during the development of FSX, something beyond a software developers control. Progress stagnated around 3ghz, but we would have been around 5ghz now had the trend continued. As stated, aircraft such as the RealAir SF260 which comply with the FSX SDK have no problems in SP2 or acceleration. I flew the SF260 for an hour tonight in DX10 mode, no glitches. In my eyes the only thing getting out of hand is people beating a dead horse into the ground in every thread they visit, usually with a perspective that just doesn't quite jive with reality. I find it even more ridiculous that some of those people don't even own acceleration, yet they feel as though they are qualified to judge it based on the comments of others.As for creating a flight sim that looks anywhere near as good as FSX, with as much world detail and view distance, using a FPS engine such as crysis..... I'll believe it when I see it done. And it ain't ever gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Request for nVidia:>can we post some saved flights and fsx.cfg files that showcase>these issues?>>that will help with the investigationsPhil -Please see attached. I cannot get AA to work and have severe frame rate issue like the rest of the posters. I am running 158.24 but I was running 163.69 but had severe issues with glass cockpit gauges going crazy after installing ACC.I get the no AA and 50% FPS hit when on DX10. When I turn on light bloom it goes to 1 FPS.Intel Quad 6600Vista x64Dual leaktek 8800 GTS SLI4 GB 800 Mhz OCZThanks for your help on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i know that rfactor on renders a small area, but still it has good game engine design. even with my low end system, i could run the game at 90% high settings and not have any fs drop. and yes i do know its different with fsx, but it shows that with a good engine the game will run well. i said with my old system i got around 30fps and on fsx with the old one it was around 5fps in phx and 30 when crusing. with medium settingsanything is possible. esp when u see gaming consoles, take the xbox 360 for ex, it is around 400 bucks, all of the games that it runs have no fps issue what so ever, that is the case for all gaming consloes. i dont see how a 400 dollar machien can out perform a 2,000-3,000 dollar machien. as mentioned earlier they should look into XNA based graphics engine. then it will be possible for a huge graphics update and performace update.so i think anything is possible with the amount of work u want ur product to reflect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its easier than you think for a 400 dollar game machine to appear to outperform a 3000 dollar PC. Its really 3 reasons:1)guaranteed config, meaning a simpler target for the devs,2)closed platform meaning each and every title gets extra help from the publishing team ( Sony, MS, and Nintendo all offer a lot of help to console title devs; PC devs even at MS dont see that let me tell you ) that is expert in that single config hw. Plus the tools are just better, the XDK tools are quite a bit better than the PC DX SDK tools.3)BOM control and single layer of distribution, by which the Bill-Of-Materials for the XBox360 goes from the Fab to MS to you. And we take a loss on each and every 360. You can probably build that 3k PC for 1500 or less by hand piecing it together; the wholesalers who you bought those pieces from probably paid 750 or less; and there is probably still a layer between them and the Fab; thats 375.See, its not that hard for it to happen; all of these add up.

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