FSDreamteam CYVR Vancouver is out!

[Talek 20]

DX10 doesn't have any issues at all, it works faaaar better than DX9, you can fly with 30 FPS over very dense sceneries, the thing that you can't do with DX9.

It needs some tweaks to work well, just like DX9

The only bad thing in DX10 is some products not working with it, like Aerosoft. And this is because of YOU, people like you who don't want to accept the reality, the futur, it's because of developpers who simply don't want to convert their textures to DX10 compatible.

Edited January 9, 2013 by firehawk44
Removed quote.

[tttocs 301]

DX10 doesn't have any issues at all, it works faaaar better than DX9

 

And then you go on to mention that it needs to be tweaked and doesn't work with all products.

 

?

 

Scott

[Talek 20]

DX9 needs also to be tweaked.

 

It does not work with all products, this is not an issue, this is normal, because textures are not converted to DX10.

[MarkW 1,491]

 

Next scenery we are considering Libreville, Gabon (the ICAO code name is a tell-tale), we might do a 2GB scenery and nobody will complain.

 

FOOL :rolleyes:

[B777ER 2,486]

 

DX10 doesn't have any issues at all, it works faaaar better than DX9, you can fly with 30 FPS over very dense sceneries, the thing that you can't do with DX9.

It needs some tweaks to work well, just like DX9

The only bad thing in DX10 is some products not working with it, like Aerosoft. And this is because of YOU, people like you who don't want to accept the reality, the futur, it's because of developpers who simply don't want to convert their textures to DX10 compatible.

 

Its certainly not because of me. Go away until you have something constructive to add.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

[Christopher Low 5,353]

DX10 doesn't have any issues at all, it works faaaar better than DX9, you can fly with 30 FPS over very dense sceneries, the thing that you can't do with DX9.

 

The only framerate improvements that I see in DX10 mode are because the same level of AA and AF is not being maintained. I run in DX9 mode with 8xS AA, 16xAF, and 4xSGSS. The latter is what stops most of the texture shimmering, but DX10 mode does not seem to be able to handle it. Addon Converter X works well, but there is one file in my ES Channel Islands scenery that it does not like. This causes FSX to crash when loading unless this is disabled. Not great if I fancy a flight around Alderney or Guernsey.

[Talek 20]

I was exaggerating when i said it's because of you, people are blaming DX10 without testing it, and this is not encouraging developpers to make their addons dx10 compatible.

 

Whatever, DX10 is the futur if you want or not, one day you will switch DX10, you will say thanks to people who fixed it and who are still fixing it.

 

The only framerate improvements that I see in DX10 mode are because the same level of AA and AF is not being maintained. I run in DX9 mode with 8xS AA, 16xAF, and 4xSGSS. The latter is what stops most of the texture shimmering, but DX10 mode does not seem to be able to handle it. Addon Converter X works well, but there is one file in my ES Channel Islands scenery that it does not like. This causes FSX to crash when loading unless this is disabled. Not great if I fancy a flight around Alderney or Guernsey.

 

Better framerates because of AA ? maybe but i don't think so, Phil Taylor said that DX10 in FSX SP2 gives 20% more FPS.

And in DX9, i don't see any big framerate improvement even with disabling all AA.

[6FingerSays 99]

Scarlett your kidding right ? ""Flytampa_kbos_DX10YourScrewed.bgl" in there. You could try removing it?"

 

Thanks Mark

 

Hmmm

[highways1 5]

This is exactly what I've said previously, couple of pages back. It's like pushing 5 people in 4-person car, or equivalent comparison.

 

I'm with this with Umberto. People simply don't or don't want to understand that FSX has a limit. I believe FSDT have optimized scenery as good as it gets to get it look great and perform great - why wouldn't they? When PMDG NGX was released, people were starting massively to get OOMs, but they RARELY pointed towards FSX. Only said ORBX is fault, or OOM at KJFK etc... but never said they are using NGX, one of the biggest VAS offenders there are. Load McPhat textures onto NGX, and you have even bigger offender. I never really saw anyone complaining about OOM really checking their VAS usage with various addons. I rarely have OOMs - why? Because I am vary about the VAS, I have my Process Explorer right beside FSX icon, and I often go in and check the usage. If I see that my usage is 3800mb at the beginning of the flight, I know I don't have to even bother trying to finish the flight, or... I simply reload the flight while in flight. That way I "unload" the initial scenery, allowing FSX to continue cleaner and I can land. It's all about knowing how you handle it.

 

That said, I stand by Umberto and say that their CYVR is nothing else but another PMDG NGX. Big, heavy scenery, and hard on VAS. But not much harder than other FSDT sceneries. I didn't compare it to other releases out there, but honestly, I don't care. And neither should you. What you should be vary of is what you load ALONG the FSDT scenery... which aircraft, how much VAS does that aircraft use etc.

 

Know your sim, and you won't have any problems.

 

This is a great point, just have a question to add on to this. Is there a reason that FSX cannot dump VAS along the flight route. For example as a stress test I maxed out everything shadows and set the mesh to 5m as advised. At CYVR in DX10 with HD I get 3.2 to 3.4 gb with the NGX and have no issues and this rate is fairly constant. This is with REX (1024 textures), UT2 100%, Vancouver V3, and PNW. However if I fly from KSFO with these settings, I climb from an initial number of 2.2-2.3 to 3.0-3.1 at TOD and then as the airport loads I go from 3.5 to 4 gb and get an OOM. Obviously if I dial back on something I can do it and departures are no trouble I'm just trying to understand if there's anyway to improve VAS in-flight independent of settings which obviously make a difference.

[aceridgey 330]

Wrong. Very wrong.

OOM is absolute, it will hapen [simply put] when FSX attempts to load anything over 4GB of VAS.

FPS don't fluctuate as OOM approaches. Never. FSX simply crashes.

 

Alex, in my opinion, after reading many of your posts here, you obviously have no idea how things work in FSX, and should really step back a bit and read much about the OOM and how it happens and why. After hundreds of tests I did on this topic, back in the days of g3d.dll errors and OOMs, before FSUIPC fix was out, we were testing with many sceneries that were OOMing just when overflying them, we got a good feeling how OOM happens. And trust me, there is no performance fluctuation. Only a crash.

 

Ok Word Not Allowed,

 

When fps go from 30fps locked to 15 what is that caused by?

[6FingerSays 99]

Ok Word Not Allowed,

 

When fps go from 30fps locked to 15 what is that caused by?

 

More scenery coming into view and it is loading? OR your system is simply crippling, but that has nothing to do with the OOM, as stated before

[aceridgey 330]

More scenery coming into view and it is loading? OR your system is simply crippling, but that has nothing to do with the OOM, as stated before

 

Hi Word Not Allowed

[HighTowers 1,434]

Are you kidding? This shows exactly that you don't understand how things work in FSX. Either you do understand or choose to ignore it, just so you can push the blame towards developer. Seriously unserious.

 

Umberto has only stated that in order to run those multiple addons, you might *WANT* to go DX10, to have *MORE* space. It is not THE solution. It is just a helper. It is the fact that most of simmers want to run this and that addons, and FSX simply doesn't have space for all. Simply doesn't. This is why we are seeing OOMs.

DX10 is a helper to go a step further, and nothing more. Umberto suggested you might go that route, to give FSX more space to run the addons, but if you choose to stay with DX9, that is YOUR choice, but you must know then what you are confronting.

 

Also what Umberto previously said, that if they should make a product which is working with any previously released addon - LOL. Contradiction in itself.

 

Seriously guys, I really thought there are more people here who understand the behinds of FSX, and not only point fingers at the developer of the latest and greatest.

 

 

I fully get it. FSX was actually advanced in its time of release, we just didnt have the hardware to properly run it. Now that we have it, capably hardware wise, we are bumped up and chained with FSX limitations to 32bit. Its not going to get anybetter than this. Its the wall.

 

Frankly, its the best looking scenery, and I appreciate your work Umberto. Who here expects crappy looking scenery. Im pretty sure there no one here who expects to see PMDG to put out something that is crappy looking. In fact we expect that it will be better than the NGX. Digressing from the NGX standard or even going below would be unacceptable not to just us as the consumer but to PMDG as a company. What company do you know doesnt want to improve on their existing product?

 

That said, the next PMDG aircrafts, along with FSlabs and Majestic, which are all very high quality aircraft are going to punish this whole situation again. There is no way they will be less memory eaters than the NGX. So we will revisit this again and say I cant fly the B777 into KLAX or KJFK. I cant speak for PMDG, but its just logical with higher in depth systems, higher quality textures, and higher quality everything else, comes more MB. Think pictures and video even if optimized.

 

Word Not Allowed are you using DX10? I think its time I revisit and have a go at DX10. Its not a solution, but seems like a band aid fix to the stop a little bleeding of OOMs to allow a little bit of "healing". If it gives that little extra breathing room and the majority of things are addressed as per Steves fixes, than this is the way to go. Its forward progress. I have to let go of the old and embrace the new, which calls for making adjustments. Instead of fooling around with DX9, its time to fool around with DX10. Thats what we have within the limits of our favorite simulator until such time we are ready to embrace a whole new platform or LM gives us something to the contrary.

 

All in the name of my humble opinion of working with Flight simulator for 25 years. (Holy crapy! 25 years of PC flight simulator)

[aceridgey 330]

Without knowing your sim, I can't really get you a clear answer to that, obviously. But what I do in such situations: I uncheck every scenery in FSX, except default and the one I am testing, and go from there.

 

Scarlett is right, more scenery, autogen... whatever is crippling your system.

 

 

I am using your guide Word Not Allowed, and my pc specs are very high.

[Jim Young 2,356]

I find it interesting that the highly respected dev's at Fly Tampa have stated on their forum that dx10 is fraught with issues and recommend to stay away from it. Many current products do not work correctly or display correctly in dx10.

 

The FlyTampa developers were right. When DX10 was first released back in 2007 with SP2/Acceleration, it did have many issues which even the FSX developers could not resolve (like runway flickering). However, with Steve's Shader10 fix, most of those issues (in my case all) have been resolved and they are no longer a problem. Steve continues to work on making DX10 even better. DX10 Preview is still a "preview" and not fully developed for FSX so developers cannot make a claim their products are fully compatible with DirectX. It's a legal thingy. I'm happy the FSDT developers of CYVR are on the bandwagon for DX10 but, again, they cannot claim their product is completely DX10 compatible as there are a lot more features involved with the DX10 technology. The FSX developers just did not have time to fully code FSX so it would be completely DX10 compatible and they were hoping they could do so sometime in the future. Personally, I'll be happy if someday another FSX fully developed for DX12 comes along but right now that future looks dim.

 

Best regards,

Jim