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

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