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

[jackcnd 0]

>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?

[acmem 0]

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.

[Guest weeniemcween]

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.

[Aerodynamic 0]

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.

[n4gix 4,947]

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

[Guest weeniemcween]

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.

[Guest Lith1um]

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.

[Guest barnescm8039]

>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!

[bkircher 0]

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

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

oh, and I forgotXNA==DX9.No DX10 using XNA. And no separate Managed DX10. So thats a non-starter. And having been the PM on Managed DX9 which grew into XNA; the goal was within 5% of the native interfaces. There is some overhead there even if its small. And there were significant limitations besides the use of the DX APIs. Float performance wasnt great, conversions arent especially great unless you can avoid box/unbox of the types, and anything that isnt managed that you have to interface with has P-Invoke overhead. And thats just the top 3.It isnt as simple as it seems.

[acmem 0]

>Request for nVidia:>can we post some saved flights and fsx.cfg files that showcase>these issues?>>that will help with the investigationsBelow are some screens of what is happening with DX10 enabledhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179370.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179373.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179372.jpgAlso attached to this post is my FSX.cfg in text form.Thanks, I hope this can be fixed.Intel Core 2duo 6600 2.4GHz, 3Gig Ram, Windows Vista Ultimate, 8800 GTX with Forceware 163.69

[Guest Lith1um]

Consoles vs PC's is apples vs. oranges.Consoles never render areas anywhere near the size of flight sims, instead they stick tightly to their performance budget and thus have no need for image quality sliders. They render tiny little pre rendered scenes that feature a high level of complexity. Even the 360 would choke on a contemporary flight sim, no matter how well it is designed.But FSX can run on a vast number of system configurations and unlike a console, computer hardware performance advances as time passes. For these reasons the dev's have added check boxes and sliders to allow people to find the sweet spot for their current system configuration. But for some people, the only way to run sliders is full right with all boxes checked and the program must be broken if they cant.Then there is the DX10 argument. Both ATI and nVidia are still on their first gen DX10 cards. Cards that were designed and released prior to the finalization and release of DX10.For some people the cup will always be half empty. Others will enjoy what's on the table.

[Orlaam 309]

Phil, I commend you for hanging in here despite the problems people are having. It's refreshing to see a developer from a company like MS communicating with us despite all the negativity. Most would remain silent and not show any concern for the problems. I haven't installed FSX because I just built my system this last weekend, but I admit to being hesitant with all the activation issues and blurry terrain. I certainly hope that you will address those two areas or at least comment on what you might know regarding these bugs, even if they're outside the scope of your job at ACES. If you know that MS is working on the activation issue, which I think they are, and if you guys are looking into the blurry terrain, that would really easy a lot of tension around here. You're taking a beating on this forum and possibly others, so all I can say is thanks for not disappearing.

[Guest Lith1um]

Actually, the blurries have been explained by ACES numerous times.Basically it's caused by running settings so high that cpu time is stolen from the terrain engine. Reducing a few settings, or setting a low and locked frame rate will reduce or remove the blurries.For more info see "Focusing on the blurries" on the following page, http://www.fsinsider.com/tips/Pages/default.aspxPhil posted a 41 page dissertation on the subject, in .pdf form, found on that page.More info regarding FSX terrain generation can be found here, http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspxTerrain generation requires allot of memory bandwidth and has a large memory footprint.