Dx10 Vst Free Download

[Temika]

dx9to 11 is not really that hard, and forget dx10, you can use dx11 with feature level from 9 to 11. The most tricky thing will be the constant buffer management and update that replace the old constant register array. Everything is shader on dx11, no more fixed pipeline, but it is usually quite simple to patch that with a few handy shaders.

I did it. It's not hard but can take a lot more time than you might think. Consider all the changes and how they might impact your project: -us/library/windows/desktop/bb205073(v=vs.85).aspx. I would never do it near the end of a project...because then I would no longer be near the end of the project.

If you are still using the fixed function-pipeline, then maybe before upgrading to DX10+, you should probably start by using shaders. Removing the FFP might prove to be a huge project in and off itself, and if you combine it with changing the entire API surrounding it... I'd just break it off, if you first port your DX9-game to use shaders everywhere, upgrading to DX11 is a lot easier. There are some things that are still different that have been mentioned, but nothing quite as huge as FFP => Shaders.

by that you mean vertex declarations instead of fvf, and shaders. right? and no d3dx dependencies? i think all i use out of d3dx are the texture and mesh loading code. - and the skinned mesh api. but i have the skinned mesh api as stand alone source code - extracted from tiny.cpp, multi_anim.cpp and dxut.cpp. but wait- that doesn't include the controller api code in d3dx9.lib! : (

what about basic shaders? example code is readily available? aniso mip map w/ gourard, phong, alpha test or blend, and some two stage tex blending? i've had to do much of that stuff in software in the past, i'd hate to have to look it all up again.

that's also another concern, i may come to like shader coding too much, causing delays on work on the game. its been a long time since i could just get a long pointer to vidram and "party on the bitmap". going to shaders would give me that kind of power again - intoxicating at the very least. my problem is i'm trying to build games, but i also enjoy low level graphics programming. but i only need low level graphics code as required by the game. anything more is technically a waste of time. shader coding may be distractingly fun for me.

I have just made this transition. One thing to note is that in D3D11 there is no longer any functionality provided for the loading of mesh .x files as there is in D3D9. So if you are using such files then you will probably have to write your own mesh exporter/importer.

It was worth it to move to D3D11 because overall it runs a lot faster, at least for me. A good thing with D3D11 is that you can sample the depth buffer directly, so when doing deferred rendering there is no need to store a separate buffer for that.

depth of field seems to be the only post processing effect that's appropriate for a scene as seen by the human eye as opposed to a camera lens. IE the human eye doesn't have lens flare, etc. corona effects, but that's a little different. the problem with DOF is - how do you let the player control the focus distance? in real life its automatic, whatever you "look at", your brain automatically adjusts the eye muscles to focus the lens at that range. rolling the middle mouse wheel is all i can think of.

It also looks like i can keep the game mostly fixed function, and just use shaders where and as needed, the way i do now for skinned meshes. in fact i've already figured out what you have to save and restore when switching from fixed function to shaders and back again. I did that when I got skinned meshes working.

I run FSX:SE with DirectX 10 Preview enabled along with Steve's improved DX10 shaders. I like the roughly 5 fps increase I get and the look and effect on my stock aircraft and those I've purchased. Running like that of course eliminates using any of the FS9 aircraft that have been updated for FSX, but never had their textures converted to the new DDS file format.

So...I've been trying to convert 2 fan made editions of the Junkers 52, but I'm very frustrated by the process and are about to throw in the towel. I noticed with everyone of my stock FSX:SE aircraft and DX10 compatible ones I've purchased, they have textures in a 1024x1024 DTX5 format with a DDS file extension. I've tried the DXTBmp, Convimx and ImageTool (Prepar3D SDK 1.4 version) utilities to convert them, but have failed each time. Every time I get a little step forward in that any previously missing parts are now present, but aircraft always appear as if every single texture on them was sprayed with a fresh coat of grey primer. I've never seen any of the liveries display correctly. With one of the Junkers I was able to get a few textures that were initially in a 256x256 format to correctly display by converting them to DXT3 format, but those are only a few. I've also tried flipping the original bitmap image, flipping the bitmap image + alpha channel and have event tried creating a new alpha channel for textures where it seemed to be missing, but nothing works.

Meanwhile I've scoured the Internet for a good "How To" document, but have come up dry. I did find this this thread from the DX10 forum posted in 2012 , but it never really provides a solution for aircraft textures, or any it does haven't worked for me. I'm hoping someone here might know of a good, definitive document that can provide me with step -by- step procedures that actually work.

Many thanks for the info Bjoern - I'll give TextureManager a try.

BTW The link to the PDF that you provided didn't work, but I was able to find the TextureManager archive and PDF easy enough on the Developer Utilities menu. :)

Well I gave TextureManager the college try, but no joy with it either. I should have probably mentioned that the interiors, dashes and pilots convert just fine. I'm impressed with a lot of what I see on that stuff4fs website and Texture Manager seems like a very good tool, so I might email the site owner about my experiments. I guess I could use the aircraft I've converted if I could be content with a lovely, uniform grey primer exterior - or never go to an outside camera view. ?

Back in my FSX/DX10 days I used FlightSimTools Addon Converter X - It does not convert the textures permanently but on the fly. When you finish your FSX session, the FS9 addon textures will still be in the DX9 format.

Thanks for the tip Jim. I was aware of the Converter X add-on, but I'd read it has some impact on performance. I'm already frame rate challenged (low 20's) in large urban areas with extensive coastlines and diverse topography (i.e. a major city I often fly from & to), so I didn't want to introduce anything that could lower those further.

I missed this part of your post earlier, but yes I have Steve's DX10 Fix installed. That's one of the reasons I want to keep the DirectX 10 Preview setting enabled - FSX:SE looks great and performs well. :)

There is actually no issue with texture formats in dx10 - the problem lies with issues in the fsx dx10 engine handling legacy models that are coded in fs8 format or scenery models coded in fs9 format. The model format changed in different releases for aircraft and scenery.

My free dx10 shader patches ( which is what I think you are using) are unable to correct for these errors and so fs8 aircraft models will still appear grey and untextured. Sometimes you can get the fsx dx10 engine to use a slightly different code path by removing the alpha channel from textures ( note that this is not necessary with the payware fixer). This leads to a myth that there are dx10 compatible texture formats. Doing this loses environment reflections and chrome effects.

The one exception to all this is that due to a second fsx bug any 8 bit textures get their alpha channel reversed in dx10. This format is relatively uncommon except in models that have heritage stretching back beyond fs7/8. . They may be used for small items like wheels, pilots etc that have been copied over from older models. This is what Bjoern is referring to. the pay ar fixer includes a tools to scan for these and convert them to a format that works.

...The one exception to all this is that due to a second fsx bug any 8 bit textures get their alpha channel reversed in dx10. This format is relatively uncommon except in models that have heritage stretching back beyond fs7/8. . They may be used for small items like wheels, pilots etc that have been copied over from older models. This is what Bjoern is referring to. the pay ar fixer includes a tools to scan for these and convert them to a format that works.

Ahah, well that probably explains why I can get the 256x256 textures to successfully convert, but none of the others. Those panels, pilots and interior textures in the Junkers 52 are probably legacy. I was under the impression it was a FSX DX10 issue and not universal to DirectX 10, I just don't understand the intricate details of the cause, or know of a way to fix it. It's all sounding like it's too much effort, while at the same time I'm not willing to chance further degrading performance with any real-time texture fixers; only running an i5 2500 quad @ 3.3 Ghz, with 8 GB DDR3 RAM and a Nvidia TX 680 w/2 GB.

At this point I'm going to finally throw in the towel with converting/adapting/massaging (whatever the correct term is) any aircraft textures. I'll either just fly aircraft fully compatible with FSX DX10 (all of the ones I've bought), or live with the lovely, smooth grey primer paint jobs. :)

Thanks for this review. I was thinking of trading in my Icom 7300 for the DX10 or the 710 I am happy with 7300. The new Yaesus have better receivers but the 7300 has many features which I like. I added a BHI noise filter and a $20 Resales peak audio fiter and that set-up works FB. I am a CW rag chewer and do a little digital and FT-8

You made me happier with my 7300.

Hi Richard, thanks for your review of the FTdx10. I almost hit the buy button last fall when it was under $1300 for a few weeks. I decided that another radio over $1,000 was a luxury. I have an FT-991A currently. Like you, I would have expected the radio to perform better. I did jump on a chance to buy a new, unpacked/unused FT-450AT from a SK ham estate in January for just over 1/3 the price of the FTdx10. Although, there are limitations with the FT-450AT, it does perform better than my quite used Alinco DX-SR8 which cost me $350 a few years ago. Your review helps me appreciate what I have now and my bank account is happier too. 73

3a8082e126