FSX over DX9 vs DS10, difference?

[moggel 0]

Hi allI'm still on FSX over DirectX 9, using Windows XP but I'm planning to get a new pox this spring and upgrade to Vista to be able to enjoy FSX over DirectX 10. However, as I've seen more than a few posts on different forums claiming Vista is a pointless upgrade for an operating system, adding some to the user experience but taking alot away performance wise, I'm starting to reconsider my decision. Also, where I to believe the more conspiracy-oriented posters, Vista was primarily built for the media companies and organisations (RIAA etc.) and less for the und user. The steep pricing for the professional version is also a big negative in my book.So, the only real reason for me to go to Vista would be for DirectX 10. Again, more than a few posts claim it adds little over DirectX 9 really. Rumor has it that "Crysis", the game everyone is comparing other games to, was apparently stripped from alot of goodies in a, shall we say, artificial wayto show off DX10 over DX9 but, if I understand it correctly, these goodies can be put back by some tweaking of the config files, gaining more than a 100% FPS boost in the process.So, captains flying over DirectX 10, can you please give me an objective briefing on the matter? Is DirectX 10 adding so much to FSX it's worth getting a new, very strong, box able to run Vista? What's different?Cheers/Jonas

[sargeski 16]

Well my system is more than capable of running FSX in DX10 Preview. In fact, the entire system was built solely for running FSX in the highly touted DX10 environment. Many are using DX10. Many like me are not running in DX10 under Vista, because performance wise and graphically overall DX10 Preview cannot come close to DX9. DX10 Preview has issues plain and simple. Hence the phrase "Preview".DX10 is in its infant stages, all DX10 titles perform worse than their DX9 counterparts and the graphical quality is barely noticeable between the DX9 and DX10.DX10 does not add anything to FSX that would warrant getting a strong new system with Vista installed on it. I would strongly question anyone who says DX10 Preview within FSX is so great that it warrants building a new system to specifically run it because its just not true.Last but not least DX10 Preview is what it is in FSX. There will be no more service packs or updates from Microsoft for FSX.I have been using Vista since its release. It's new, it's different, and needs to be learned. However, it is the most stable Windows based OS I have yet to run. The internet is a great place for misinformation....especially regarding Vista.So, if you want to build a brand new rig, to get the most you can out of FSX, go for it. FSX is a great simulation. If you are building solely on the premise that DX10 Preview brings FSX to a whole new level....you will be sorely disappointed.

[Guest ziporama]

I run Vista 64, so I can't comment on the 32 bit version, but I will comment on Vista 64 based on my experience.I agree this is one of the better versions of Windows out there. I see three primary caveats: - Drivers are still problematic (video in particular).- You must have the hardware and memory to run it. - Security on Vista 64 is very tight, and it will not run unsigned drivers period, and drive home users crazy to some extent.Suggestions for making life better on Vista:- Running Vista 64 on old hardware makes little sense. First, new hardware probably has more "oomf" and will run the rather complex O/S better. Second from a driver availability/stability perspective, new is better. New hardware typically gets the drivers and the support, old hardware doesn't, probably because it's a matter of economics for the hardware manufacturer.- Get enough memory to run things well. FSX needs 2Gb for itself, then the O/S and the rest needs about 1Gb. From a hardware interleaving standpoint, it makes sense to get 4Gb, especially now that memory is an all time low (DDR2 that is). For an insight as to what the next gen games require, here's a nice summary article I found recently http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10436- Many tweak utilities simply do not work in Vista 64 due to security (example, ATI Tools). Code signing can be an expensive proposition, and kernel mode devices must be code signed.- Setup security so that it is still secure, but doesn't prompt you to run things as administrator all the time. This causes many issues from software install. You have it made if you have a network domain controller and login your Vista box as a domain admin - that overrides all issues, except for the driver signing bit.On the issue of DX10 vs DX9:On my system, FSX is about 30% faster in DX10 than it is on DX9 keeping all other settings equal. I'm in the process of benchmarking this in a more sophisticated way than just comparing an FPS here and there. Speed (as recently demonstrated with the ATI Catalyst drivers) is largely a function of the driver more so than the raw hardware. True, hardware is limiting, but a bad driver can truly make rendering speed terrible.DX10 on my system has two rendering issues. One is flickering on textures associated with taxiways on runways, and sometimes, taxiway markings. The other is point light sources disappearing. What's interesting to me is that beta Nvidia 169.28 has less of the issue, so I'm really thinking video driver here more than DX10 preview. ATI users have reported no such issue.I'm not counting rendering problem caused by the use of the FS9 SDK as a DX10 issue - there is an SDK available for FSX. Thus far, add-ons designed with the FSX SDK have no issues. True, this surprised the development community, just like hardware manufacturers were surprised when they discovered that all drivers had to be signed in Vista 64.In conclusion, FSX DX10 in Vista 64 can be a fantastic experience. The speed advantage is such that as long as I'm flying during the day and staying mostly inside the cockpit when I fly, I can deal with the issue, and I'm sure they will be resolved over time.

[sargeski 16]

>FSX is about 30% faster in DX10 than it is on DX9 keeping all other settings equal.I think you need to qualify this statement a bit. Like maybe on "your system" or exactly what your settings are that are allowing a 30% performance increase.Using my exact settings under DX10 Preview from DX9 on my system(with bloom off), I can have as much as a 50% performance decrease under DX10 depending on area (30FPS DX9 to 15FPS DX10) just not acceptable. The only bonus is that Light Bloom can be enabled under DX10 Preview and it seems to have little to no effect on FPS.

[Geofa 108]

As for the driver issues-the main reason I have not moved from Vista 32 to Vista 64 is I know there is an issue with my elite radio stack.However, I have not had one driver issue on Vista 32-and I have lots of stuff-some of it quite unusual.I agree with your other points though. I certainly would not upgrade to Vista unless getting a new system-but with a new system I'd consider it a must.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[dbw1 443]

I read the above posts with great interest....I'm getting a new gaming laptop built in the next week or so:x7900 processor8800gtx 512 mb video4 gigs ram200 gig 7200 rpm hd1920x1200 displayO/S ?????? - current plan is to get xp pro and buy with it vista 64 bit business and switch it to vista at a future dateNot sure if dx10 at the moment is worth installing vista now plus as I might be considered "computer challenged". I now know my way around xp enough to do what I need to do and my knowledge level re vista is pretty low.The question is does this approach to the O/S make sense?I've got some hardware at home that runs xp fine and don't really want to go through the problems of getting things to run with vista. I remember going from windows 98 to xp. I think if the gains from dx10 are menimal at the moment it might make sense to go the way I am thinking.Any suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks.

[n4gix 4,947]

It seems a lot of people still don't quite grasp one, fundamental fact about the "DX10 Preview" delivered in the Acceleration Expansion Pack and/or the SP2 update:All ACES did with DX10 was convert the existing DX9 API calls to use the new DX10 API calls... IOW, not so much of a much here... ;)As a bonus, they added two "bits of eyecandy" that DX9 won't support in its API......once again, not so much of a much!It's also very clear (to me at least) that ACES never really intended for anyone to actually use FSX in "DX10 Preview mode" as a daily practice, given that it really doesn't offer anything earthshattering or spectacular over the DX9 mode. :)

[soaring_penguin 428]

I would recommend to go Vista immediately. Don't know why you would go Business, unless you need it to connect to work. There is no gain OS wise to go that route. You can have another version for much less money (but if you want the new glass look, you need minimal Vista Home Premium).Why I recommend Vista to someone who declares himself "computer challenged" ? Because of the build in security in Vista : spyware, virusses, and plain ignorance from the end user have much less chance to cause severe impact.And personnaly, I find Vista much user friendly then XP ever was.If you decide to go XP, I don't see a reason to upgrade to Vista later, the only reason from a gamers point of view to go Vista is DirectX 10, and today, there is no game that fully exploits the API.Just my 2 centsJan

[dbw1 443]

Hi fellows,Thanks very much for the input.The vista 64 bit business was suggested by the computer builder.....which version 64 bit would you suggest. I plan to keep this machine for as long as I can.Thanks again.Dave

[Geofa 108]

I don't know what version to suggest (I got ultimate) but I would suggest going here and downloading this guide to Vista.http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.htmlIt is simply written, incredible, and really tells you everything you need to know to get Vista the way you want and extract all it has to offer. http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[soaring_penguin 428]

Then I would get Home Premium 64 bit, that is if you are not going to use it for work.Have a look here for comparison : http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...ons/choose.mspxWhat you don't get, but get with Business : - Easier remote access for your business- Windows Fax and ScanWhat you do get with Home Premium but not with Business : - Mediacenter- Easily make DVDs- some games- Create high definition movies with Moviemaker(I do use the movie and DVD software occasionally myself, it is not high end, but it does what I need, and more important for me, the occasional user, it is easier to use then some of the other software on the market).According to Microsoft, you can get every version of Vista in 64bit, except Starter.Hope this helps.Jan

[Guest]

Don't forget that just upgrading to Vista won't give you DX10: you also need DX10 hardware! (Which you may have already, of course, but since that is not clear I thought I'd post this).I have Vista 32 bit and like it a lot (I even have UAC on, which a lot of people hate, but I think it's great!). Nothing wrong with it, as far as I am concerned. I also have a 8800GTX: I bought it all a year ago because I wanted to be ready for DX10!!! Well......DX10 sucks big time. Crysis is unplayable for me in DX10 and the FSX preview is not worth it at all. I haven't seen a DX10 game yet that is more playable than its DX9 counterpart. I fly with DX9 because DX10 gives me shimmering textures (airports), no progressive taxi, lower fps above cities and constant random very short freezes...So you could say I bought Vista and the 8800GTX for nothing, but that's not entirely true (although I AM disappointed with DX10): Vista and the 8800GTX are awesome in DX9 too, so... all in all I am still happy with my 1 year old computer since I can play every new game at (almost) the highest settings. Or at least high enough to make my eyes pop. Even though I expected a LOT more from DX10...

[PhilTaylor 45]

With "full features" on, DX10 is faster. Max settings, including Shadows, Water 2.max, and Bloom. 20-25% under those conditions is what I stated when I disclosed what features were in the preview.With "full features" off, yes then DX10 doesnt show much benefit, but you still shouldnt be seeing 50% slower so that sounds strange.

[moggel 0]

Thanks all, great input here. It does seem possible to gain a performance increase running DX10 even though Vista takes its toll on the hardware so, possibly, I'm still considering it.However, these pieces of information moved me to the shady side of the street:>Last but not least DX10 Preview is what it is in FSX. There>will be no more service packs or updates from Microsoft for>FSX.>It's also very clear (to me at least) that ACES never really >intended for anyone to actually use FSX in "DX10 Preview mode">as a daily practice, given that it really doesn't offer >anything earthshattering or spectacular over the DX9 mode. Maybe I'm more out of the loop than I though but does this mean FSX won't fully support DX10 after all? I'd like to remember Microsoft did point out the DX10 support as one of their sales points prior to the FSX release so I assumed the "preview" was a release prior to their "final" DX10 relase for FSX. What are the plans? Do we simply have to wait for "FSXI" (as I'm sure it won't be called ;-)) to utilize the new API? I did some quick exploring but I couldn't find much info on the net on this. Upgrading to the DX10 preview if it's shaky and not intended "as a daily practice" really doesn't sound like a good enough incentive to goto Vista.If anyone could fill me in on this and/or point me to where Microsoft states their plans I'd appreciate it.Thanks/Jonas