Com-Central.net

Adrian_Wainer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jun 03, 2006 Posts: 255

It seems that current Directx 10 cards may not be able to take advantage of the proposed enhanced Directx 10 for FSX.

Quote
Mr Taylor,
Would you please comment on the truthfulness of the stories currently circulating that suggest the new DX10.1 version of DirectX won't work with DX10 hardware - such as the GeForce 8800 or the Radeon 2900 series of graphics cards? It is being suggested that the 10.1 revision will require completely new hardware for support, as well Vista SP1 and developer implementation.

Surely this cannot be true?

NC
UnQuote

Quote
I believe the point is subtler than that.

To get access to the 10.1 features ( which iirc is either finer-grained scheduling/interruptability and lower level virtual paging control for virtual texturing or both ) you will need 10.1 hw.

just like 9.0c runs on 9 hw but without access to the 2.0a or 2.0b shader models defined after 9.0, 10.1 will run on 10.0 hw. you just wont get access to the new features.

its physically impossible to add new features to a chip already on a board, but that doesnt mean the new runtime wont run at all. for that matter, the 9.0 runtime ran on 8.x hw, just with access to only the 1.x shader models.

Senior PM, Graphics and Terrain
Aces Studio, MGS
UnQuote

forums.avsim.net/dcboa...&mode=full

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

JG300-Stoopy

It seems that current Directx 10 cards may not be able to take advantage of the proposed enhanced Directx 10 for FSX.

I followed that discussion too (well, as long as I could while the discussion was interesting) and as Phil Taylor says, it's a subtle point - which can easily confuse or mislead folks when it's re-summarized in one simple sentence.

My take on it is this (and please feel free to correct me):

1. there is the upcoming DirectX version 10.0 for Vista, which is for Vista only and not Win XP.

2. In conjunction, there is DirectX version 10.0 hardware available now, which has been designed per the agreed-upon specifcations of DirectX 10.0 (working with the hardware vendors) and which must precede the software work, since other wise the DirectX 10 developers won't have DirectX 10 hardware to run their DX10 update on to make sure it works and all before they issue it with Vista SP1.

3. So when DirectX 10.0 ships in Vista SP1, it will have been vetted with the hardware and drivers currently available which have been designed for it - DirectX 10.0 hardware.

4. At some point in the future, they'll add more "stuff" to DirectX 10 and call it 10.1. Some of that stuff will be designed to rely on hardware improvements not available now (DirectX 10.1-compatible Video cards, etc).

5. Development of DirectX 10.1 'stuff' will follow the same logical path - hardware first, then software, for the same reason that DirectX 10.0 hardware had to precede DirectX 10.0 software.

6. So shortly after the DX10.1 hardware and drivers are out, the DIrectX 10.1 update - for Vista - will follow.

7. The DirectX 10.1 update for Vista will STILL continue to work like DX10.0 on DirectX 10.0 hardware. The DX10.1 update just won't be able to turn on or use the newer features that require the accomodating DX10.1 hardware changes, because that newer DX10.1 chipset 'stuff' isn't on the older hardware.

8. That 'stuff' includes "either finer-grained scheduling/interruptability and lower level virtual paging control for virtual texturing or both."

9. And as far as current flight sim development (read: FSX) there are *NO* plans to implement any of this 'stuff' into the FSX code anyway. So FSX itself (which is what the discussion is in directly related to) also will not use the new DX10.1 stuff' in the hardware, nor in the DX10.1 update, nor any combination thereof, anyway.

So any 'stuff' that's planned to be in DX10.1 and which requires hardware support, won't be turned on or used by FSX even if you held off and waited to get that DX10.1 card and DX10.1 update that has stuff that DX10.0, and FSX even with DX10.1, won't use. Maybe (surely) some other generation will use these features (for whatever they do and benefit they may or may not bring), like FSXI or XII or CFS4 or 5 or IL2:1947 or some other future product down the road.

Now, I believe I got that right since I did not see any solid, quotable information from the developer indicating otherwise.

In the end it seems very much like a non-issue at least in terms of the product being discussed (FSX) - in that the thing being talked about (DX10.1) won't be used by the other thing being talked about (FSX). And on top of that, the new thing (DX10.1 Vista update) will run on the old thing (DX10.0 hardware) and the other thing (FSX) still won't care because it doesn't use the .1 stuff, just the .0 stuff.

Phil Taylor as been very clear and stated that the upcoming DX10 update for FSX is being written, and will remain, at the DX10.0 level.

But it certainly can be pared down and phrased without supporting detail to make it sound like a lot bigger deal than it is.

What do you think?

Shades

A friend of mine is professionally involved in software development and testing for a rather big software house.

A while ago I asked him why programmers / developers don't take account of older harderware / software to make things backwards compatable.

He gave me an interesting reply with a take which I hadn't considered previously:-

The I.T. world is evolving at such a rate now that product is released into the marketplace and, almost immediately, faults and bugs are being reported that there is no fix for.

Some are so bad that, when patches, upgrades, and newer versions are released, it is done in such a way as to force the user to upgrade the relevant soft/hardware to be able to use it properly.

This is sometimes the only way to stop bugs from propogating. And no design house is going to come out and say, "Erm, actually we screwed up on that last software release. You can use it but either it won't work properly or you'll need this other bit to get it to work."

But these gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.

We suspect that the spec is likely to be ill-received. Not only does it require brand new hardware, immediately creating a miniscule sub-set of DX10 owners, but it also requires Vista SP1, and also requires developer implementation.

With developers struggling to justify including DX10 features in their games (see the recent comments by John Carmack and Mark Rein), they're going to be about as likely to further limit their product's market as they are to start developing NES games again. This is especially true given the incredibly limited benefits 10.1 is bringing to the party.

Simply put - if you're a developer, why bother with 10.1? Answers on a postcard, please.

JG300-Stoopy

That's a very good and succinct summary. The general yawnfest of what's actually brought to the table by the added DX10.1 features was also mentioned in the avsim thread above and the same answer given - basically "not worth implementation"...and without implementation there's no reason to upgrade.

berlopez

I don't think I can benefit from this.
My Windoes Vista 32 system has a NVIDIA GeForce 7500 LE which If Iam corrects doesn 't support DX10 Crying or Very sad

Shades

- berlopez

I don't think I can benefit from this.
My Windoes Vista 32 system has a NVIDIA GeForce 7500 LE which If Iam corrects doesn 't support DX10

This means you probably will benefit.
Wink

berlopez

Please explain, Sometime ago I discussed this topic, perhaps at another forum and I was explained that the Nvidia 7 series didn't support DX10, as I am running right now, with a lot of extra planes specially liveries, my frames are satisfactory, I am locked at 23 and get 18-19-20 on outside view; Could you explain the benefits?

Tomorrow is my Birthday...I am not trying to catch up with Fled.

Shades

- berlopez

my frames are satisfactory

That's why.
There is some disatisfaction with DX10 and questions over its performance and potential.

HEY!
Happy Birthday.

You're about 82 years behind Fled, he still has a guy waving a red flag in front of his car when he goes shopping.

Uhu_Fledermaus

I heard that tree rat sob !

Shades

heheh

berlopez

Hey Shades: Thanks.

I think I'll wait till the final results of DX 10 before I install, though my GC doesn't support it. Also I am having issues with SC since FSX like Fs9 doesn't like on boards, I have a Realtek high definition Audio, up to date. The Connie and CG-46 have awful sound.A common problem with these type of cards.Read it at avsim.com /forums.
I'll see when I get round to it... Yes I am running Vista, I don't know if I should update when it comes out, my card a 7 series doesn't support it...
I installed SP2 and my frames are satisfactory. I'm set 20 in my FSX.cfg and get 20 when I check (Shift+Z) My sound card though is still giving me... Rolling Eyes

I have to press the "Q" key to make it change the sound; Otherwise it sounds like there is double sounds.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Archive Revive
Username:
This is an archived topic - your reply will not be appended here. Instead, a new topic will be generated in the active forum. The new topic will provide a reference link to this archived topic.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big