Again, the increased performance is welcomed, but where's the significant increase in graphical fidelity?
The improved lighting model that was promised (or at least much hyped) and the effects like God rays that would've come with it was completely discarded in favor of (arguably) gimmicks. DX10 looks marginally better than DX9, and only due to the slightly better looking water + VC shadows. Also, there is no improved lighting model w/DX10, only virtual cockpit (VC) shadows and more reflective water with a new wave animation.ĭX10 mode is severely disappointing compared to the concept screen. What you see is what you get (add-ons aside). As I've already mentioned: there are to be no more DX10 enhancements for FSX. Here's a comparison showing you what MS had hyped FSX w/DX10 to be and what it actually turned out to be.Ĭlick to expand.I'm well aware of what the DX10 mode brings to the table (as you'll note by reading my post). Abandoning backwards compatibility for add-ons was a great move too Usually this type of thing is limited to new releases, not service packs.įSX does look nice. Seems to me as though MS wanted to try their infamous "beta testers pay *us*" strategy on the FS franchise. Especially for selling SP2 as an expansion prior to the free release of SP2 and providing some BS excuse about "localization" causing the delay. No God-rays and no life-like water or improved scenery textures FTL.
Cockpit self-shadowing and marginally-improved water just doesn't cut it. The improved performance compared to the DX9 render path is appreciated, but the DX9 render path had atrocious performance to begin with. I don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive MS/ACES for the difference between the hype surrounding FSX DX10 mode prior to release and what it actually turned out to be.
Click to expand.There will be no more graphical enhancements for FSX.
0 kommentar(er)
