Simviation Forums

So,maybe FSX runs better with DX10 preview enabled?
Or DX10 still has only problems and bugs?
Personaly I have noticed only some bugs and no extra FPS or image quality.

Also, if you think there aren't many FSX addons, only a small percentage of those aircraft will work in DX10

Theorically, DX10 shoud run much better than DX9.
The reason behind that is some new processes and computations that are supposed to run on new hardware architectures, all typical from DX10.

BUT the actual driver quality of the actual hardware is still not top of the notch, and additionnally DX10 is only available in Vista which is, if not configured properly by expert users, much more ressource hungry than XP.

For that reason, a huge part of the Vista/DX10 users are having lower perfs that the usual XP/DX9 users.

However, something you can already see on any system, is the light bloom that consumes less FPS in DX10 than in DX9, because DX10 is more efficient for this kind of graphical effect. Just an example.

would it worth it ,all the money expend it ,to a software invented for a hardware that haven't even invented?

Does DX10 makes a huge difference from a DX9c ,I think NOT

and VISTA is a failure too,I don't care what some people here saids, every one who buy a PC having VISTA they get mad and a moth after they change into Xp...I have done that many times ,If they are lucky because these new equipments brings only drivers for VISTA which is for me  a monopoly,and they have to Die with this O/S  

unknown, you just throw a match in a gasoline tank..

Alex

Thanks for info!I think the DX10 will be much better in the future,but for now-DX9 is the optimal choice for FSX. Plus I won't change my XP Gamer Edition to Vista!

They are going to SKIP DX10 to DX11 ,and VISTA will be replace too...

VISTA is the Husband of Windows Me..  another Failure

I think it depends on your hardware and configuration. I've got Vista Home Premium 64 bit, and i've never had a computer run so smootly before...

Same here, Got Vista on two machines.  I went back to XP for just 24 hours before discarding it and going back to Vista/FSX.  Just because it doesn`t work for some does not mean its like that for everyone.  I got an airfield called Denham (down South, UK) and its brilliant.  But some of the buildings only show in DX10 for some reason, go figure!  Think I`ll stay with my choices Alrot......

Reider

I installed Vista Home Premium and an 8800GTX in order to use DX10 functionality.   To me the DX10 preview in SP2 does not offer a sufficient improvement on DX9 to be worth the performance penalty.

I am in two minds about Vista, and at one stage thought of regressing to XP.

But once I got rid of the excess security stuff, turned off aero, and with SP1 I find it a smooth system.  NickN, acknowledged with our humble thanks in another thread believes Vista is too buggy, and too much of a CPU hog.  But as I improve my hardware I have less and less problems and at the moment a good smooth experience with FSX.

Hey Alrot:  listen caballero Vista to me is not a failure.  It works and it is smooth.  Whether it is a commercial failure is an issue for MS to decide, but from very soon only Vista will be OEM and fully supported.  Given the turnover in the personal market, the boom in laptops, and in convergent devices, it will only take a short time for the personal market to be dominated by Vista.

At the commercial end, I know corporations still running on very old Windows platforms, who haven't moved to XP, and won't, because they squeeze all they can from their investment.  That will never change.  Corporations always leapfrog OS versions because of the expense and trouble in changing.

It is only us Poor Bloody Gamers who change twice a year!

There is an interesting video abot DX9 and DX10: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ouJ3pYhu43c&feature=related

[quote]So,maybe FSX runs better with DX10 preview enabled?
Or DX10 still has only problems and bugs?
Personaly I have noticed only some bugs and no extra FPS or image quality.

I don't wanna be the enemy here ,its just an opinion ,there are many people who thinks the same way I do , of course I respect your opinion and you may be right and I can be wrong or viceversa ..

History will talk for it self  :)

Alex

There is an interesting video abot DX9 and DX10: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ouJ3pYhu43c&feature=related

given it is true FSX-SP2(DX10) is less than we wanted to deliver, the video is still more than a little unfair. the guidance I gave in my post about SP2 indicated that with bloom and water 2.hi on there would be a perforamnce difference. at no point in this video does it show performance numbers for that combination and instead shows no bloom and water 2.lo . the shots of the cockpit shadowing are so brief to not allow a proper impression of that feature either.

There is an interesting video abot DX9 and DX10: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ouJ3pYhu43c&feature=related

given it is true FSX-SP2(DX10) is less than we wanted to deliver, the video is still more than a little unfair. the guidance I gave in my post about SP2 indicated that with bloom and water 2.hi on there would be a perforamnce difference. at no point in this video does it show performance numbers for that combination and instead shows no bloom and water 2.lo . the shots of the cockpit shadowing are so brief to not allow a proper impression of that feature either.

Of course,it's best to just try it yourself