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

[sipos 0]

When I go into full screen mode framerates increase! What up with that??? I get half the framerates when not in full screen. this is using DX10. And ya, anti-aliasing is not working for me either, i thought it was earlier but it's not.

[PhilTaylor 45]

its always a good idea to check:1)both fullscreen and windowed2)both locked fps and unlimitedthis seems to vary by individual config and has no pattern that I have been able to discern, some settings just work better for some people.as I reported during SP1, its also a good idea to stay locked below 40 or so, there may be an issue with syncing with vsync when locked FPS get close to monitor refresh. we didnt see this enough to figure it out, but it does appear occasionally.

[Orlaam 310]

Well, once I get some time to actually install FSX, I hope to see how it works. I can only go by what so many have asserted so aggressively about top of the line systems having bad blurries. I've seen pics that are real awful so they exist, but I have no way of validating whether they are reducing the setting enough. I always had some minor blurries in FS9 but nothing so bad it was distracting. I'm pretty sure the high resolution stuff is too soon for the hardware IMO, at least with this engine. When I placed GE Pro in FS9, that's when the blurries became more obvious. I'm more concerned about activation errors as it sounds like no one has been able to fix them except possible reinstalls (I know MS has a KB for it, but it doesn't always work I guess), and I've never formatted a HDD for anything in the 13+ years of I've been computing except problems I created - Like killing DCOM in Windows 2000, LOL

[Cruachan 705]

Hi barnescm8039,Probably totally irrelevant, but I note you have 2 entries for your GPU:[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS.0]Mode=3360x1050x32Anisotropic=1AntiAlias=1AND,[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS.0.0]Mode=3360x1050x32Anisotropic=1AntiAlias=1You might try deleting the second set of entries.Mike

[Guest Lith1um]

Orlaam, that's why I love my copy of Acronis. ;)I installed acronis and created a bootable rescue cd media. Then I uninstalled acronis from my system and just use the cd to make and restore backups from there on out.The bootable cd allows you to boot from the cd and backup/restore your drive without being in windows, or even having windows installed. You can image your drive, kill your system to your hearts content, and restore from dos in a matter of minutes without the need to reactivate windows or FSX. It took 14 minutes to back up 64gb.I bought my download copy from compusa for just under $40.00 and it's been worth it's weight in gold. Works fine with XP or Vista.

[sipos 0]

Ya Phil. There seems to be allot of variables playing part here. I am getting awesome performace right now. Ealier I could barly fligh the sim with DX10 checked. I am planning on putting a short video up on Youtube tomarrow because Right now the sim is on fire!!!! and i need to show people it's possible to get performace. I hope we figure out what is going on.

[boshar 6]

>rFactor renders a few square miles, not 100's of visible>miles filled with autogen. Apples to oranges comparison.Sure the 3D engines have different purposes BUT... You can't deny that the rFactor engine was better adopted to the mainstream hardware at the time of release (30 fps) and that it scales impresively on newer hardware (200 - 300 fps). If FS would be developed to run at 30 fps on mainstream hardware at the time of release (all sliders midd level) and would scale in the same manner (2 year newer hardware slider midd level give 100 fps or sliders right with 30 fps) we would be in FS heaven.If you overload your 3D engine to the point it needs the best proccessor and the best graphics for 'just' 20 fps yo are doing something wrong.If you need to release performance patches because you are issuing way too many Draw and SetTexture calls you are doing something wrong. You should have seen that before release while you where performance profiling 3D engine>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.This doesn't help you much if the 3d engine scales as badly as it does in the FS series. I like to do a little collecting and I have the old DOS FS versions running in DOSBOX but more importantly I also have FS2000, FS2002 and FS2004 on my machine. FS2004 improves the most on the beter hardware FS2000 and FS2002 can stil be brought to their knees if you load up some add-ons and pull some sliders to the right.>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. With the exception of FS2004 FS has never scaled that good so the point is moot. You need good FPS on mainstream hardware (midd sliders) at the time of release. If you guesstimate misses the mark you have some redesigning to do before you release your game. If your basic 3d engine is nice, clean and scaleable that shouldn't be to much of a problem.>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.Acceleration is just the continuation of the whole FS-X saga:- Release to market- Performance problems and bugs- SP to improve performance and solve bugsREPEATSure along the way we gain a few FPS and some bugs are solved but the feeling we are left with is that the code is not very scaleable on future hardware.>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.You are setting up your own contest here and are fixing the rules so a sim light based on the Crysis engine can't possibly win. If somebody would develop a bush flying sim using a small part of the caribian with a mission structure some nice planes all in Crytec quality it would not win your little contest it could however sell as hotcakes and it might even win over scores of casual users.

[Guest EvilNando]

Hey Phil and how hard is to apply the closed hardware model of the console to the PC'sI mean why dont you guys build a PC at your studios and make it the target machinenow at the time of release all you have to do is point out the used hardware as a reference machine where you can 100% guarantee the results that you originally intended, if the customers chooses to install the software on another configuration well then in that case you cant provide 100% performance

[Guest stpierce]

If you're not running AA or AF, wouldn't this account for your increased performance. When I turn off both in DX9, the sim runs quite a bit faster/smoother also. BTW, I thought you posted that you had AA working with the older drivers, that is why I loaded them onto my system.

[peppy197 165]

Without FSX's AA and AF on, the sim is too jello-zigzag to enjoy under the preview DX10 mode. Without DX10 it uses AA/AF well without penalty. even if I'd increase fps, I like quality AND performance not just one.Without DX10 'on' the sim is fabulous with a quadcore: essentially no blurries, residential in focus, etc...Must be hard programming all these abstract things:what ever hapenned to the "BASIC" days??? circa 1984allen

[Mango 0]

>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.Thanks Phil, i pray that they don't forget the 64 bit crowd....Heiko

[GHarrall 494]

FS2000 ran great?I think a few 1000 people will disagree here!Glenn

[GHarrall 494]

Phil,What is the latest thoughts on AA/AF.....Is it better to use the in-game AA/AF or force it through the GPU drivers?Overall I prefer the look of the in-game controlled AA/AF and have not noticed any better performance by forcing it in the drivers.Thanks,Glenn

[Guest phenom]

I'm having similar issues with ACC + DX10 at KDTW. >>Request for nVidia:>>can we post some saved flights and fsx.cfg files that>showcase>>these issues?>>>>that will help with the investigations>>Also 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

[ahuimanu 50]

>>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?>>>>Just to chime in:Windows Vista Ultimate Core 2 X68004GB of RAM (PC-6400)Radeon HD 2900XT (with 1GB!!! of DDR4 RAM)Creative X-fi150GB Raptors in RAID0And I am getting the same issues that these nVidia guys are getting. Plus the pictoral above about the runway flashing is also what I am experiencing.