PigsInSpace

How are you looking at these posted images?  I don't see what you see?  They look great to me.  Are you looking at them via a Browser or OS Preview?  OS Preview will NOT show the image correctly (as is).  Pending what Browser you use it may also not be showing you the image "as is" ... suggest you download the image and look at it in Photoshop at 100%

 

Like I said in other posts, AA is a filter, filters reduce image quality (overall) ... AA filter exists to compensate for reduced screen resolution on pixel based systems.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't see this, I would expect an enthusiast to know that a 3840 x 2160 31.5" monitor to be a far better solution than trying to blend/filter an image at ever higher AA settings on a 1920 x 1200 24" monitor.  You should know there just is no substitution for resolution

 

AA/AF settings don't impact VAS.

I see what you did there.

You expect an enthusiast what? When was that being discussed?

Now we are talking about a the need for a $3500 monitor with a PPI of almost 140 to compensate for what you can see on a $600 or less 1920x1200 96 PPI monitor using decent filtering?

We can't have an adult conversation, debate in an honest way without being offended? If I'm wrong I'm wrong, so what? Great!

And I could move on and sound the trumpet, and I would love to be wrong about FSX DX10, would really make me happy, DX10 brings so much more!

But back to your point, as I am still trying hard to understand.

After all if we are talking high quality add-ons, not trying to OOM, what size are the majority of the textures do you think we will want to display? Especially since we rarely get to seem them 1:1, what size? And what size monitor and resolution do we need? In FSX in most any given scene that might include a view of some 3d objects and terrain, how many pixels are fighting to get into the same space all at the same time on the screen do you think? They don't need filtering you say? It doesn't matter? 

Loving shimmering AG and 3D objects, and boiling terrain with pixels poping in and out do we? Or do we love that blurry smeared looking terrain again with shimmering AG?

Or I propose do we enjoy setting up your hardware to get out of it what we paid to get? If you like low quality graphics that your personal choice, but back on topic Apples to Apples there is a big difference in IQ here.

If this was some IQ test on Anandtech or Guru3D the IQ here being compared here of FSX DX10 vs DX9 I think the majority know it would be ripped apart, not even close. 

Shall we poll to see how many here run with a $3500 monitor of 140 PPI vs average 96PPI monitor or less? Shall we talk about things that really matter like the need to use decent AA and AF or not?

So I guess I'm not sure the relevance of your reply, are you saying that all this time the debates about good graphics IQ in DX 3D games are moot?

So all the image quality sections that are included in almost 100% of the hundreds of video card reviews are just there because it doesn't matter?

I think I will stand behind what I said: FSX DX10 filtering quality is still inferior to what was achieved in back in the days of FS2K, let alone what we enjoy right now in FSX on DX9.

If you want to flame me for that go ahead, its ok.

I don't understand the tone in here with a few, sorry but shall we also say that FSX in XP is the same as Win7?

Or that current AMD CPU's are clock for clock as strong as the latest Intel CPU's in FSX?

Is the default Cessna as good as the A2A version? If you did go over to the A2A and they uses 256x256 texture would that make you happy?

Is the air quality in Tokyo as good as the air in central Canada? Yugo as good as a Lexus or even a Chevy?

Again, really I hope everyone's health, your day your family all the really important things are all good and.. that your enjoying FSX in DX10 or DX9.

I will for the sake of discussion post pics as promised but will not include any text as I seem to be incapable of offending you dear fellow simmers.

Good day to you all.

So by your standards, Pigsinspace - Orbx should also be vilified - maybe hung, drawn and quartered for creating their "People-Flow" animations. Maybe throw in JustFlight too, for some of their offerings.

 

In fact there's no pic in DX9 OR DX10 that I've ever come across which doesn't have some form of graphical anomaly. This is a 2007 program, with issues in both DX9 and DX10, but it's one that has an enormous following in the "wanna-be" and "has-been" circle, and it's our hobby. Most of us are pretty happy with it.

You are treating image of DX10 - rabidly treating the image DX10 - as if we are claiming that has the very best graphical quality of all softwares everywhere! Well, it doesn't - and neither does DX9 OR P3D. All have their own problems, peculiarities - and good points, too.

 

It seems that you have some kind of personal agenda aginst those who prefer to use DX10, instead of conforming with your perception of what is "graphically good" in FSX.

Paul, nothing there, go back and read, I'm all for DX10.

But was this not a discussion of Apples to Apples? Some one states its the same, I pointed out fact, there was no negative response from me until someone said I was full of it and then I simply questioned if they actually knew what good filtering quality was and reiterated the facts. Is that wrong Paul? I am somehow a bad person or I have an agenda?

Some of us are enthusiast when it comes to quality graphics in games, I know of where I speak, and this FSX DX10 limit has always been a disappointment that's all.

Someone made the false claim that you can get the same AA settings as DX9, the fact is it is limited to what the best available was way back before FS2k, thats almost 15 years ago Paul, IQ has improved a bit since then bro. Many of us here have $300-$1000 Video cards, yet here we are stuck with the IQ of a GeForce2 or TI4600? Are you kidding me? This makes you happy?

Have DX10 FSX graphics been improved upon by the diligence and hard work of others? Yes and I stated such countless time and I will state it again, I am all for DX10, but if we are going to compare DX9 it should be done Apples to Apples. Would you not agree?

Lower the overhead and filter quality of DX9 settings to match the max of DX10 and OOMs decrease and FPS go up, nothing hard to understand about that, but shall we pretend that its the same at DX9 best average filtering setting? Does that make you and I fell better?

Look, I apologize to each and everyone in here, if I somewhere stepped over the line, really sorry guys....meant no offense and I really mean that.

ll you are doing is making a fool of yourself. DX10 AA screenshots in 3...2....1.

Thanks for posting these, helps to set the record straight.

Look at full size, jaggies everywhere, not even close to 1x2 SuperSampling + 4 X MultiSampling 1x2 of 8xS combined with 16X Anisotropic filtering, let alone 12xS or 16xS.

You can show the pics of the cpl all you want but the proof is in the game:

Look at the outboard profile of the Cessna, jaggies everywhere, and what happened to that fence? No, that is not good Alpha AA and there is no Gama correction AA.

2nd see how smeared and blurrie the terrain textures are? Not

Nice shots, but the low filtering IQ is exactly my only gripe, we are all on the same team, only I just stated the obvious and you backed up what I said.

Will post some pics when I get home this evening and you can decide.

Yeah, 2 years ago I upgraded to an i7 with a GTX 580, so I could have jaggies in FSX. 

Lots of variable come into play here, what driver the user has installed, is the Bios set correctly, memory timing, and of course Nvidia inspector. FSX cfg blah blah blah

 

You have a mind set for DX9, that's fine, your choice. I enjoy Dx10, and when Steve releases the fixer it will be even better.

 

But don't take my word for it, go to the DX10 forum, and ask Paul. 

 

Geez, i'm repeating myself.

Ask Paul?

Look, its obvious you don't know what you are talking about please don't muck the forums up with that nonsense.

No, there are no "variables" it doesn't matter what driver you used for that kind of AA as it has been available since even before NV 8800 GTS days, nothing to do with BIOS or memory timings nor any mods to the *.cfg what kind of BS is that?

These kind of IQ settings were being used back in FS2k times (more than 10 years ago), and that's the point lost on you and You want to continue with that?

Yes of course i do. maybe you don't know how to set it up correctly. Go to the DX10 forum, and you can learn how to do it.

Read post #5 http://forum.avsim.net/topic/420941-anti-aliasing/

Yeah, and apparently you must have never realized good AA in DX9? Thanks for making the point.

Like was said .... good filtering: you still can't get the minimum of DX9 8xS (1x2 SS + 4 MS) let alone 12xS or 16xS, nor any Transparency AA, let alone 16X Aniso, nor Gama CorrectionAA in DX10 FSX . <

Geez, repeating myself.

Sweetfx works fine in DX10.  Took me 5 mins to convert to DX10. I have good AA. You do know about this ?

http://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/dx10-scenery-fixer/

Even with just the current workaround I have no jaggies or crappy graphics. In fact if I go back to DX9 now it looks horrible.

But, to each his own.

Good AA? Do you know the difference?

I don't know about all those settings, I use 4XMS combined with 4XSGSS and it looks great. Some others use even higher settings, but I like the AA settings and the performance I'm getting with it.

I'm not an AA expert at all, so I've never used the settings you mention even in DX9.

 

You might want to check with Paul in the DX10 subsection, because I remember reading a post from Steve about some settings working differently on DX9 and 10.

Thanks Mark,

I am familiar with the AA in DX10, its less than I would have used back in FS2k days and its my only gripe.

It is the reason people need to be careful about certain performance claims as a benefit of DX10, as they be false.

I hope we can find away to go beyond these dumb limits, maybe when I upgrade to a higher rez display.. but until then I'll be sticking with DX9.

Cheers!

here is a small comparison:

 

Addons: fly tampa dubai/PMDG 777/ REX/ my traffic x/ FSX shade:

 

with DX10: on ground 14-19 fps/ in air 18-25 fps

without DX10: on ground 8-13 fps/ in air 12-18 fps

Its also worth mentioning that is not Apples to Apples, match the filtering in DX9 to what you are using in DX10 and low and behold DX9 is up there! Not saying DX10 is not worth it, only that if you really compare it Apples to Apples and lower the filter quality to the lower available filter quality settings of DX10, suddenly DX9 isn't OOMing, the frames are higher.

Just sayin, we do have to look at it that way as we can't just trade things off and pretend we didn't.

With the right settings you can get DX10 to look just as good as DX9, and on several aspects even better. Later this week (probably) the final DX10 fixer comes out what will be the milestone in the journey to getting to DX10 rather than DX10 'preview'.

 

But already without this application you should be able to get crisp graphics with DX10. It just requires different settings in FSX and NVidia Inspector. Please check out the How-to guide in the AVSim DX10 forum section to get there.

If that is really true than can you explain how to override the FSX-DX10 locked-out filter settings that many of us enjoy in DX9?

The added lines to the config are sure an upgrade over the forced 2xAA, but come on how about 8xS, 12xS and 16xS AA?

How about Alpha AA? Any form of it would be great.

AA Gama correction?

How about 16x Aniso?

The work on DX10 is great no doubt but not having to down grade the IQ on a 1920x1200 24" screen needs to be taken into account.

What should they acknowledge - that you have a problem?  I've used every product they make on 3 different machines and never seen the problem that you have.  I also don't recall other users complaining of this particular issue unless they were having couatl.exe problems.

 

DJ

So because YOU don't have a problem it means that it doesn't exist? By any chance do work for MS? In the windows updates department? LOL

Just IMHO but I don't get all angst against ORBX, they are a business and as such will sometimes behave in a way that wont encourage , yes and discourage business with others, that we don't like it is probably a balancing act for them but they still need to be competitive in a business like fashion, pleasing many but not all.

What I also don't get JV is why you sometimes pull this heavy handed threat, please take this the right way; with all due respect - please stay as far away from becoming PTango like, that's all.

Any good or decent Freeware or payware biz Jets out there?

Preferably with a decent VC...

That's what JV just said too.

 

He also confirms that Themachine's edits are the right way to get Orbx lights work with UTX  :smile:

 

Well done guys !

Ditto!

Yes well done and many thanks!

I guess you never really worked with FXAA...

I dont use the AA in FXAA, all I use is bloom and some other settings. (I am not near my FSX PC otherwise I would post my settings) That is the reason I think FXAA is great, very easy to set up and easy to try diffrent settings. I get the same effect as with ENB but never had a singel crash or blackscreen event.....and yes I do enjoy it....

I misunderstood your use, I apologize.

....hahaha, see nobody even reacts....maybe we are invisible.... :-))

 

McDan out

Re - FXAA tool

Or maybe everyone knows is not good for FS, that type of AA make details blury, Hud, gauges, realy bad visuals for the sim, moved on from that long ago.

But if your running that low on power and can't take the hit of decent AA, then by all means enjoy.

Yes, sorry I should have said GEX.

 

I'm guessing the nice lighting might stay since GEX might not have files to overwrite them with?

Noel, I'm totaly confused as to what you are asking, please rephrase the question.

Thanks.

Again, you can't overide DX10 with Inspector nor with the NVCPL so you are using FSX hardcoded 2xAA.

The last time I was stuck with that poor of filter IQ was back in FS98.

A modern powerful $1000 Titan Video card, for at 2xAA is pointless.

Landclass!

[Main]

ProcSpeed=9176

 

Your proc speed seems very low if this is what your number is when you generated your .cfg. My old C2D registered at 11131 and my unclocked 2700K registers at 16343. Are you sure your overclocked? That number seems awfully low unless you never generated a new .cfg after overclocking. No need to change it tough since it doesn't do anything except generate a performance counter so to speak when you first install FSX based on your system information.

This means squat these days (most of the time), as this is usually based on non turbo mode just after installing and during first startup not your underload clock and certainly not based in weak vs strong CPU family.

As for Bufferpools, tweak away and then ask why terrain textures load slower and slower, or worse corruption of video memory, meh.

In most places besides the flat desert, scenery shadows are more of a hit than aircraft shadows.

As requested my 3DMark

 

Ice Storm:  164,946

Cloud Gate:  26,161

Fire Strike: 9,079 ... which is the overall score (better than 91% of all results.

 

Note, this is with no overclocks at all ... no mobo ... no video and no memory.

 

When I'm done messing around with all overclocks I'll redo the test and make a comparison.

Holy Smokes CT, pulling that off with no MB, VC and no memory! You just hold the CPU in your hand?

Hah! I know what you said though, it just sounded funny.

Glad its working out, looking forward to your final tweaks!

Cheers!

DX10 is more efficient and will use up less VAS along with overall performance improvements.  It also looks better, especially in setting sun situations, cockpit shadows, and more.

 

 

I have to wonder how true that really is.

NV inspector cant override like it does for DX9.

comparing VAS in both versions with identical filter settings rarely happens, (unless you have added new lines to the cfg) and even then you wont get 8xsAA 16xAniso and alpha AA.

KIAD is decent and ceretainly far better than the default, but nothing remarkable

Are you talking about KIAD HD? Are you kidding?

I'm a bit concerned.

With all due respect, why don't you take your "concern" over to the ORBX forum and ask for help there, or at least be kind enough to start your own post instead of hijacking this one.

Thanks  :Peace:

Thank you for taking the time, again nice shots.

Turns out if I have UTX USA enabled in any way, FTXG Vector Road lights are dead. Hmmm... Well see

Yeah, thats seems to conflict with what others including myself have seen, I'm using FTXG with UTX and can switch between the two no problem.

Thanks for posting the comparison shots cvearl.  I think both the UTX and vector lights look good, but can't really say one looks better than the other. If you do a google search on city lights from an airplane I would say the UTX version looks more like the images you see. I don't have FTXG, but I've read that vector lights have less impact on FPS than the UTX lights. If the impact is significant, the vector lights would be fine for me.

 

One thing I can say, at 6 pages on this thread, I tihnk we are all starting to stretch the "truth" a little... :biggrin:

 

Ted 

The problem with that is that those are very different (warm+saturated) in comparison to what you Really see looking out yourself if you flew around at night it simple to tell the difference.

What the camera "sees" in Auto or in most manually set shots is an effort to grab enough light from the little thats out there, the white balance, the ISO and slower shutter speed will result in images that are very different from reality.

Ok here are some comparisons... FTXG+UTX (The lights are UTX not ORBX created), FTXG with Vector Lights and ORBX PNW. All the same shot.

There you go, nice shots and thanks for posting.

Though it looks like this does not iclude the new FTXG patch, is that correct?