How many here are staying with FS9 for the for seeable future?

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I am until I can afford a core duel machine as I have learned that even upgrading from the X300 card to the GO 6800 won't even help frame rates as flight sim seems to be much more possessor intensive and not as much video card intensive which seems backwards to me.

[tommchowat]

I'm definitely staying with FS9 for a while. When I got my new Dell XPS M1710 (gorgeous) I immediately bought FSX and thought I'd be able to do what I always wanted, loads of traffic, clouds, complex panel addon plane, addon airports and virtual cockpit all the way with 25fps. Needless to say I didn't get that at all, so I just thought sod it, I'll go back to FS9... and bingo. I've got gorgeous scenery, gorgeous planes, 80% Ultimate Traffic, virtual cockpit flying and all at 25fps. And with the right addons, FS9 can look as good as anything out there. That's where I'm staying!

[jring2]

Currently I do about 80% of my flying in FS2004. My system is just too weak to handle all that FSX has going for it. Also, the add-ons I like the most, haven't made their way to FSX yet, though that process is happening.

I got FSX as a birthday present the day it hit the streets. It cost me a some bucks to upgrade the system with better memory and more video card in the hopes of making it usable. Still didn't cut it. With the additions, my system did great with FS9 though. I'm not one who can immeadiatly get the newest and the best. I figure I can buy a new rig next year. Until then I will fly FS9 with occasional VFR flights in the mountains in FSX. The freeware is still less quirky in the 2004 downloads and some of my favorite airplanes haven't been SP2 qualified in FSX yet.

Once FSX added it's service packs, my rig would handle FSX a bit better, but I still had to forgo some things (Like traffic)

One thing FSX did do for me. It caused me to discover things - add-ons and utilities that I had never discovered until I tried FSX. When all that eye candy kept me from the things I like about the flying, I have spent more time learning things on this forum and the FSX forum because of it. Trying to bring FS2004 closer to its eye candy counterpart. The low FPS in FSX made me search for ways to make FS2004 more visual appealing. I was amazed at what I found and the improvements that were made. Glad for them both but I will spend most of my time in FS2004 for a while or at least until I can get the better rig. And with all the add-ons (freeware and payware) there are to spruce up FS2004 - I am not all that sad about it! :)

[Kimber]

FOREVER!! READ MY LIPS!! FOREVER!!

[Smutley]

Got no intention yet of purchasing FSX, I'm quite happy with FS9 at the moment, along with the raft of add-ons I've got.
FS9 has got a lot of life left in it, well on my rig anyway. :)

[jonjoe]

same here, I am staying with 2004. my pc could handle fx wife even offerd to buy it , but as yet I see no reason to swap. 2004 gives me many hours of enjoyment and looks great too. plus i have all the addons i want in the way of planes and scenery, and there isplenty more out there if i want them .

[drobson]

I hardly ever fire up fs9 anymore. FSX is so far ahead of it that it's hard to go back.

Darrell

[toosmall]

Sticking with FS9 - it cost me around £2000 in software to get what I have now and with FSX charging the same price in the UK for a Service pack as they did for FSX know way am I lining anyones pockets to get to where I am now.

To change all I have to FSX would cost me as much again and as stated i am not re-lining anyone's pockets jut for a few extra features I can certainly live without.

FS9 for the foreseeable future.

Never say Never

[Zachiii]

I understand Vista 64-bit is not engineered into FSX, nor efficient use of dual and quad core CPUs.

FSX is Stone Age software compared to current gaming.

I'm in the holding pattern with FS9 waiting for a FS11 clearence. Hope I don't run out of gas.

[Sink Rate Sink Rate]

My machine isn't up to FSX so I'm sticking with FS9 a bit longer.

[GNacino]

I spend more time on FSX than I do on FS9. If you have FSX running right, there is no comparison. I have recorded a lot of flights on FS9 and I imported them to FSX. I have watched the same flights on both sims and FSX is super.

FS9 is great, but I remember when I though that FS95 was awesome. Try comparing that sim to FS9 or FSX. Point being is that if you enjoy whaterever sim you are using, so be it and why upset your apple cart.

I waited a year to get FSX, cause I didn't have the muscle to run it. When I did get it, Jan 07, it took a while to tweak it. I would always go back to FS9 to see which AC I wanted to import. There will come a time when I will delete it like I did with FS 95, FS 98, FS 2000 ( that one was a real stinker), and FS 2002. They were all great improvements, till you went to see if the pasture was greener on the other side. Heck, I bet that there are still some people using FS 4!

When I had FS9 only, I though that this would be the last time I bought a new sim cause I thought it was a very excellent sim and what more could you want. Things always get better and unfortunaltly, everytime a new one comes out it's not just the Fifty dollars or so for the new sim, it seems that you need a new pc as well.

George

George

[Captain America]

What's FS9?

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I spend more time on FSX than I do on FS9. If you have FSX running right, there is no comparison. I have recorded a lot of flights on FS9 and I imported them to FSX. I have watched the same flights on both sims and FSX is super.

FS9 is great, but I remember when I though that FS95 was awesome. Try comparing that sim to FS9 or FSX. Point being is that if you enjoy whaterever sim you are using, so be it and why upset your apple cart.

I waited a year to get FSX, cause I didn't have the muscle to run it. When I did get it, Jan 07, it took a while to tweak it. I would always go back to FS9 to see which AC I wanted to import. There will come a time when I will delete it like I did with FS 95, FS 98, FS 2000 ( that one was a real stinker), and FS 2002. They were all great improvements, till you went to see if the pasture was greener on the other side. Heck, I bet that there are still some people using FS 4!

When I had FS9 only, I though that this would be the last time I bought a new sim cause I thought it was a very excellent sim and what more could you want. Things always get better and unfortunaltly, everytime a new one comes out it's not just the Fifty dollars or so for the new sim, it seems that you need a new pc as well.

George

George

I would rather run FSX, but I have learned you need serious computing power to enjoy all of the benefits and still get good frame rates. The minimum requirements(part of why I bought thinking I could run it)are an absolute joke!
I love the G effects and the moving jetways and the Helicopter flys very well, but I can't even think of flying it until I can afford a duel core machine with a killer graphics card. I am pretty bummed that Microshaft really steepened the performance requirements shutting out many computer owners that have machines that are 3 years or older. I have so many add ons on FS9 that I would be basically be starting over in add ons again! I can't win this arms race. I wonder what flight sim 11 will be like. I have learned that this is an expensive hobby as you need the latest add on and it just snowballs until you realize you are into it for about 3 to 4 grand adding up computer hardware and add ons.

[TurboVolvo]

I started with FSX, bought a bunch of add-ons, but as the game got more complex (better Aircraft, detailed airports, traffic etc...) the game just started to move at a snails pace. And my machine can easily run all the latest shooters (like crysis) no problems at high graphics.

So I gave FS9 a shot, and I love it. I haven't touched FSX in weeks.
Luckly most of my add-ons came with both FS9 and FSX versions (or got help from some great customer service at payware sites)

So now, FS9 looks great, I fly all my aircraft and still manage to run at a steady 30FPS with everything maxed out.

I'd say FS9 is here to stay for a while.

[matsu]

FS9 will be on my system for a loooong time to come.
With all my sceneries, aircraft, panels, utilities products and all sliders to the right.
I don't think there is any FS out there that can replace this.

FS9 forever..........

Kin M.
(Klax)

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I like FS9 because it works! I wouldn't mind moving cars and jet ways, but FSX brings very capable machines to their knees. I have no idea what the programmers at MS were thinking but by trying to make it better they ruined it as it is slow.

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I hardly ever fire up fs9 anymore. FSX is so far ahead of it that it's hard to go back.

Darrell

I noticed you are from Montana, what part? I am from Helena, but have lived in SOCAL for many years.

[dikul]

Mainly stick with FS9, frame rates are better. One thing that I wish FSX would do is to allow me to cycle cockpit, virtual cockpit, tower and spot views as with FS9. I get really kranky when I have to go throught the view menu to get the 2D cockpit view and vice versa. I know it's only minor but ...

[Sgt Caribou]

2 cents time...have both FS9 & FSX and each runs well. I spend a fair amount of time toodling around at high altitudes, and for this FSX does offer the bonus of properly darkened skies, stars and earth's curvature. I also like touring around Arctic regions and appreciate having the world's globe modelled in FSX. The lack of adequate addons for FSX does relegate it to second place on this here rig, as one of the most enjoyable things (for me anyhow) is having comprehensive AI traffic - although it's easy to simply add FS9 aircraft into FSX, there are black parts on aircraft that have been untextured, missing glass textures, and enough differences in airports to render many addons useless (check out freeware scenery for Deciommanu and Diego Garcia as just a couple of examples). Last year I spent several months downloading and incorporating scenery and aircraft for FS9 after having done a round-the-world flight, in an effort to have authentic-type aircraft in the appropriate places (such as An-2's and Let-410's as GA types in Russia & China), as well as having airports properly populated, including military bases which are barren by default. Progress is often mentioned as an acceptable reason to ditch what has come before and embrace what's around the corner, but it does seem that in the 1 1/2 years that FSX has been around, the ends haven't yet justified the means - the lack of abundant addons seen in FS9 might be due not only to the 3-4 year lead FS9 has, but also (and more likely, mainly) to the complexity involved in creating these for FSX, as doing so may have become more of a work project than an enjoyable side hobby. Along with this comes the issue of performance; many cannot run AI traffic even if they wanted to without upgrading their systems comprehensively. The default scenery is a fair bit better but can be nearly matched by addons applied to FS9; the cloud detail (default) doesn't appear to be any improvement over FS9. The result (for me) is a sterile sim, devoid of the many features that made it's predecessor so enjoyable, that runs a few purposely-developed things very well if you have the equipment to run it. Of course, this is but one opinion, and everyone is entitled to express their own (hence the 2 cents intro). Verdict...sticking with FS9 until it becomes worthwhile to make a clean break, with no timeline set, whether it be with FSX or one of it's successors.

[Nic Jackson]

Will stick with FS9 for a while invested too much time & money in the sim to get rid of it just yet.
I'll wait until I get a Super computer before making a decision wether to move on to FSX or whatever comes after it.

[rhodges]

Not really "staying" as I fly FSX quite a bit as well. However, I do still regress to FS9 often for flights with complex weather, aircraft, and locations (and no quirks with flawless results and everything maxed out).

Regards:
RTH

[Hamilton Muller]

I am staying with 2004,a lot of addons (planes,scenery,etc) a lot of fun the way it is; so why to change?

Rgds,

Hamilton

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I have been flying with FS passengers and it adds a new dimension to the flight.

[NonCon]

I'll skip FSX (just like I did fs2k), since I prefer performance over pretty graphics. I fly above FL30 on all my flights, I wouldn't see all the nice ground stuff except while landing. I'd probably switch if fsx offered some additional aircraft systems/atc functionality over fs9 but it appears most of the effort was put into making everything look better which is great when you fly low and slow.

KJ

[angels355]

I have three units of fs9 now, want to buy more when the budget allows, also bought 3 of fs8, want more. My hardware is definitely below fsx standards right now. If I had had the hardware I would not have bought it for some time because I was really discouraged that MS put activation programming in flight simulator. I upgrade my hardware all the time and I don't like to have to go back to MS to ask that my flight sim be re-licensed after a hardware upgrade. And after paying for it being asked if I have installed it on more than two computers. (It's licensed for two computers.)

Other than that however when I get the hardware I will most likely get fsx.

But at the same time that fsx came out with draconian big brother activation programming, I got right on the bandwagon with linux and Macs too. I now have maybe seven to ten linux distros.

What will the future hold for fs11 regarding activation programming? I don't know however I hope that it is friendlier than fsx.

What really burns me up however is that pirates forced this on us. If we did not have crook pirates manufacturing pirate software we wouldn't be having this problem. On the other hand piracy has always existed all the way back to the 70's, and MS didn't have any trouble becoming possibly the largest most profitable corporation on the planet! They have 95% or so of the total world market for pcs, I can really see where they are worried about their market share.

On the other hand, some manufacturers might believe that having an extremely tight grip on their customers benefits them by increasing sales. Well in my case, I did purchase more units of fs8 after fsx came out with activation programming. I guess sales increased in that respect. Activation programming leads to more sales of fs8.

I understand the need for fighting piracy, but it just gives me the willies that our privacy is eroding faster and faster. Activation programming audits all your hardware, and if you make too many upgrades, ram, video cards, modem, slave drive, etc, not even touching the processor or mobo, even with such modest upgrades that can trigger the activation programming to shut down. It's an invasion of privacy if you ask me, not to mention a royal pain in the neck. I like Windows ME better! I now have 2 or 3 Win ME computers. In CA there was an aerospace company that had the gall to order their employees to have ID chips implanted in them under their skin on their arms I believe (Fox News 2007). This action was blocked by a judge. Here in the NW there's a shopping mall that issues special shopping bags with every purchase with a small chip embedded in every bag (KIRO tv), so that security can track each customer to every single store they go to in the mall. Why do they need to do that? Not to mention I've known malicious security people who watch shoplifters, they are not all nice/honest people. Fox News' Judge Andrew Nepalitano has a new book out called "A Nation of Sheep", where he says that we Americans just give up all our rights without thinking about it, like sheep. I think that activation programming is just like that, giving up our privacy, and paying a lot of money to do it. Because of this issue I was not going to get FSX at all. But I've lightened up and might get it as I'm a very big fan of the fs series.

But perhaps I should be more like Kimber? Because perhaps FS11 might even be worse? With even more draconian activation programming. It's too bad that MS won't clue us in on that topic, what's in store for fs11 and activation programming?

FS9 is my favorite flight sim so far that I own, but I've read a great deal about FSX. One of my fs9 disks is getting scratched up. Thanks ms! My fs2002 disks don't have that problem.

[clipper759]

FS9 for the forseeable future. M$ still doesn't get the FLIGHTsimulator part. Pretty pictures r great but in the end it's about the aircraft for me. I've been using payware aircraft since FS2K and will continue to. All I need from M$ is a world to operate in..leave the rest to third party designers who do a much better job.

[Biohazard]

I'll stay with FS9.

[knotts04]

I had been playing fsx for a while, then I went to fs2004 a couple months ago and have never fired up fsx since!! FS2004 has got all I need for a while. But in the mean time I'll be hoping for a good FS11 :)

-Chris

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I have three units of fs9 now, want to buy more when the budget allows, also bought 3 of fs8, want more. My hardware is definitely below fsx standards right now. If I had had the hardware I would not have bought it for some time because I was really discouraged that MS put activation programming in flight simulator. I upgrade my hardware all the time and I don't like to have to go back to MS to ask that my flight sim be re-licensed after a hardware upgrade. And after paying for it being asked if I have installed it on more than two computers. (It's licensed for two computers.)

Other than that however when I get the hardware I will most likely get fsx.

But at the same time that fsx came out with draconian big brother activation programming, I got right on the bandwagon with linux and Macs too. I now have maybe seven to ten linux distros.

What will the future hold for fs11 regarding activation programming? I don't know however I hope that it is friendlier than fsx.

What really burns me up however is that pirates forced this on us. If we did not have crook pirates manufacturing pirate software we wouldn't be having this problem. On the other hand piracy has always existed all the way back to the 70's, and MS didn't have any trouble becoming possibly the largest most profitable corporation on the planet! They have 95% or so of the total world market for pcs, I can really see where they are worried about their market share.

On the other hand, some manufacturers might believe that having an extremely tight grip on their customers benefits them by increasing sales. Well in my case, I did purchase more units of fs8 after fsx came out with activation programming. I guess sales increased in that respect. Activation programming leads to more sales of fs8.

I understand the need for fighting piracy, but it just gives me the willies that our privacy is eroding faster and faster. Activation programming audits all your hardware, and if you make too many upgrades, ram, video cards, modem, slave drive, etc, not even touching the processor or mobo, even with such modest upgrades that can trigger the activation programming to shut down. It's an invasion of privacy if you ask me, not to mention a royal pain in the neck. I like Windows ME better! I now have 2 or 3 Win ME computers. In CA there was an aerospace company that had the gall to order their employees to have ID chips implanted in them under their skin on their arms I believe (Fox News 2007). This action was blocked by a judge. Here in the NW there's a shopping mall that issues special shopping bags with every purchase with a small chip embedded in every bag (KIRO tv), so that security can track each customer to every single store they go to in the mall. Why do they need to do that? Not to mention I've known malicious security people who watch shoplifters, they are not all nice/honest people. Fox News' Judge Andrew Nepalitano has a new book out called "A Nation of Sheep", where he says that we Americans just give up all our rights without thinking about it, like sheep. I think that activation programming is just like that, giving up our privacy, and paying a lot of money to do it. Because of this issue I was not going to get FSX at all. But I've lightened up and might get it as I'm a very big fan of the fs series.

But perhaps I should be more like Kimber? Because perhaps FS11 might even be worse? With even more draconian activation programming. It's too bad that MS won't clue us in on that topic, what's in store for fs11 and activation programming?

FS9 is my favorite flight sim so far that I own, but I've read a great deal about FSX. One of my fs9 disks is getting scratched up. Thanks ms! My fs2002 disks don't have that problem.




You bring up many good points in you're post as for me FSX is a big disappointment as yeah it has great features, too bad I can't enjoy them. I fear FS11 will leave us further behind in the arms race.

[Rcca]

I'll be sticking with FS9.My rig has no problems with FPS.I just have the FSX Demo,I just doddle with the Demo only.
I have no paywares for FS9,but tons of addons,and loving them.Textures looks great.
Yey! maybe I 'll wait for FS11.or 12.
I read that Microsoft hired a lot more programers a FSxxxx??,also they are working on another Sim train 2009 be out.
Ron

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I'll be sticking with FS9.My rig has no problems with FPS.I just have the FSX Demo,I just doddle with the Demo only.
I have no paywares for FS9,but tons of addons,and loving them.Textures looks great.
Yey! maybe I 'll wait for FS11.or 12.
I read that Microsoft hired a lot more programers a FSxxxx??,also they are working on another Sim train 2009 be out.
Ron

If the current trend continues, I may not get another sim until FS 12 or even 14.

[darrenvox]

ya im staying with fs9 it just seems to run smoother.

Theres no reason to erase and modify your computer just to fit a frickin game in it..as i know it fs9 fits on any computer...still works for me!!

[kingnorris]

Like some have said, I to have both installed. Primarily fly FSX. But on days where I feel like flying my Falcon, Fedex dc-10, (Thanks Eric Cantu! Still a great bird!),or others that can't be run in FSX, I switch to FS9.
Kinda like if I had a Jaguar and a Porsche.....certain days I'd drive one over the other.

[Leo112]

Until I can run FSX with all sliders maxed out on the level that FS9 runs now (add-ons included), FS9 will be the sim of choice for me. I don't see any dramatic shift in performance for the next year or two concerning FSX (on new machines), so FS9 may be my sim of choice until FS11. That way when I buy a new computer with Vista preinstalled, FS11 will be built for that OS and run right out the box (heck 64bit may be the way I go at that point). I really see no reason to monkey around with FSX as so much is slated to change in FS11...

[LAPTOP GAMER]

Yeah I agree, FS9 will get several hundred more ours logged on it.

[jring2]

After I read a post in FSX about having to go from full to windowed and back in order to access a menu, it seemed so comical to MacGyver a 2008 piece of software so one could use it (and I find myself doing the same thing) that I went to the first 30 pages of the FS2004 forum to see how many crashes it had. There were all the normal complaints about “blurries” and “inaccurate coloring of the water” and “my hardware won’t handle it.” etc. etc. but I found no “my system keeps crashing” complaints. Now granted, I did NOT read every post. Just glanced at the subject and went into a few threads I thought might go that route. It was an interesting trip but it seemed the OS were more stable or the program more solid or the drivers better, because the “my system keeps crashing” complaints were non-existent in what I found. Though it was interesting to hear all the “I hate XP” posts and “I’ll never leave Windows 2000” I found no one who had to go back and forth from full to windowed mode to keep it running. Of course those were slower, gentler days.

Mind you, I’m not an FSX basher. I sort of like the program myself, but I think if you have to move from full screen to windowed, do your thing, set it back to full screen and proceed, you’ve lost some of the magic of pretending you're flying. I was amused at the lengths we’ll go to try to use something that only sort of works for us. I spend a bit of my time with FSX trying to get it to work better myself – but then I have a weak system.

As I already mentioned, I use FS9 more often than FSX – and especially when I feel like flying rather than tinkering with the program to get it to run better. I posted again to encourage the stroll down memory lane. Check out the first few months of this forum after the program hit the streets and the first few months of FSX after it hit the streets. Quite a difference. Now I know human nature and someone will feel driven to find some posts somewhere that mention system crashes in FS2004. I’ll save you the search and give you the fact that there probably are some. It simply seemed to have had less "issue" related posts and more “How to” posts.

I’ll fly the friendly skies of FS9 a while longer. :)

[angels355]

Though it was interesting to hear all the “I hate XP” posts and “I’ll never leave Windows 2000”

I know pro computer users who still adamantly cling to win98se (others switched adamantly to Linux or Macs), and feel betrayed by xp's big brother activation programming. Call them old fashioned, country bumpkins, provincial (some hippies), but our society is advancing faster and faster into a society where loss of privacy is taken for granted.

I'm hoping to eventually move up to win 2000. XP itself is very nice, but now I know that so is Linux and Macs, and they don't have activation programming.


I found no one who had to go back and forth from full to windowed mode to keep it running.

I go to great lengths to make a flight sim work, such as fs98, fs2000, and fly!2k, fly!II seems OK so far. It's extremely nice when fs2002 or fs2004 just work.

Of course those were slower, gentler days.

I have become frantically busy just about every day to keep up with modern society. The computer is a great tool, and I don't see how I got by without it, and I'd never go back. I still have much of the same type of work that needs to be done that I did in the past, which I would do instead using a typewriter which was a real challenge sometimes, but I think society has changed to a much more rapid demanding pace just like described by Alvin and Heidi Toffler. Here's an example, when job listings first came out on the internet, it was all geared so that you could apply online extremely fast. Now employers seemingly irked by that ease and efficiency had to make changes, so now you have to apply to one specific job listing, and in 30 days or when that job closes your resume gets erased. To even be reviewed you have to take a pre-employment online personality profile exam that can take an hour, and guess what, you have to do that for each and every job you apply to. If there are five jobs at the company that you can fill, at one company and many others are like this also, you have to go through the full application process, including writing out all addresses, all employers, references, school, each and every time you apply, then take that same exam again, for each and every job. So if you're extremely fast that could mean five to seven hours of nonstop time to apply to five jobs. And if you don't pass the personality profile exam, you're not even considered, then after 30 days your application is deleted. One supervisor was very interested in me, I had gone through the application process like 40 days before, then new jobs came in in her department and she was interested in me, but, no resume/application on file, no profile exam on file, it had all been deleted by automation after 30 days. I took their exams about seven times, and I'm not going to take it any more. I was considering offering to take it for a fee up front.

But many of these barriers are put in place to efficiently get rid of people, at one such company, my resume was outstanding but I was turned down flat over and over, strangely however, more and more young ladies with VERY large attributes were getting hired, who had no experience or education. And that company was continually advertising that they support higher education, but in actuality in practice I think they support something else entirely.

Similarly on Fox News they had a video in 2007 of an attorney caught on video instructing a software company(s) on how to get rid of American applicants, so that they can be freed up to hire imported foreign workers. He instructed that you simply send a note to the American applicants explaining that their resume was not good enough. Then go hire people who can barely speak English.

I think Alvin and Heidi Toffler have a lot of good things to say about how our society is changing. Considering how much money it costs to run fsx for example, I think it is completely outrageous and unnecessary for MS to have such an extremely tight grip on their customers. Did you know that even though Win 2000 does not have any activation programming, that you still have to install the WGA to get many downloads? That was a modern tight grip control added to an old program, I'm sure that they would have added activation programming along with it if they could. Do they consider the possibility that people might not find that acceptable and stop buying from them? Of course there is the sheep factor also, "A Nation of Sheep" by Andrew Napalitano, judge.

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I think it is completely outrageous and unnecessary for MS to have such an extremely tight grip on their customers. Did you know that even though Win 2000 does not have any activation programming, that you still have to install the WGA to get many downloads? That was a modern tight grip control added to an old program, I'm sure that they would have added activation programming along with it if they could. Do they consider the possibility that people might not find that acceptable and stop buying from them? Of course there is the sheep factor also, "A Nation of Sheep" by Andrew Napalitano, judge.


I agree Microshaft is making it harder and more expensive to enjoy this hobby and I wish there was a lot more competition in flight sims as I like many things about flight sim, but the price we pay is getting steep. I don't want to have to buy a new computer every time I get a new flight sim, that is ridiculous!

[angels355]

I agree Microshaft is making it harder and more expensive to enjoy this hobby and I wish there was a lot more competition in flight sims as I like many things about flight sim, but the price we pay is getting steep. I don't want to have to buy a new computer every time I get a new flight sim, that is ridiculous!

I think they should observe their advertised minimum hardware requirements. They didn't because is was cheaper/possibly more profitable not too. It should be possible to use a previous generation computer to run the latest flight sim. There are computer users with outstanding hardware specs that can't run fsx. If not, then you're more likely to to buy new products right? MS is the most successful commercial entity probably to date, it's all about the sales and money. My computers are extremely frugal.

Here's an example of healthy competition and the difference it makes. Starbucks offers $1 coffee in downtown Seattle. Why? They are in competition with McD, and many other companies, so they dropped their price to $1 for a cup of coffee to regain their ability compete. But out in the suburbs, coffee is still at least approx $1.5 plus tax, because they are not stressed to compete. Some elaborate drinks can cost nearly $5 US.

People get really emotional about these issues, but how loyal to MS customers and US workers has MS been? For purely "logical" reasons MS does what they do to "compete". But what kind of deal is that for MS customers, academically speaking? MS has no major competition so they say #### the customers let them pay $400 for the full package of Vista Ultimate. Thanks to a buddy of mine, I have the latest Sabyon Linux, I haven't tried it out yet, but it was free. Activation programming, what if I don't want such a product? Might be willing to pay a moderate/low price for a product without activation programming, but with activation programming invading my privacy, I think it's laughable that they would ask for money for such a product. What if I should choose a different product entirely?

Don't mean to get all emotional, just speaking academically, and acting practically. With some study and familiarization, in many areas alternative products can exceed expectations. For example chess. For windows you can get some weak products. For Linux however, the world's ultimate chess software awaits you.

Thanks for chatting.

[bugdozer]

I am sticking with FS9 as long as I have this computer, which to be honest is a pretty powerful machine with a hefty graphics card, as I can get lovely performance on maxed out FS9, much better than I can on even the FSX demo. The only things that attract me significantly to FSX are the way better water effects, the moving traffic and the improved aircraft detail. These are all things I can manage without and still enjoy my flights. When in a few years I get a new computer I will get a new flight sim to go with it - I was running FS98 up until 2005 as it was the best my computer could manage. If this machine got better performance out of FSX I would switch to it but also keep FS9 as I have many add on aircraft and things that only run in that version. By the time I get a new computer we will probably have FS12 available!

[Kimber]

We will never buy anything that requires online activation!!

I have said this a million time,, our FS computer does not
have internet capability!! Also, it does not have SP2!!

We like it that way!! It only does one thing!!

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/7899/neataiwx1.jpg

And it does it good!!

[Leo112]

I remember before FSX was officially announced I was planning at this point to be using FS9 only as a 'Golden Age' product (there was a release that changed the whole FS9 world to circa 1940). FSX was to have been my modern simulation of choice with all the new bells and whistles. Boy how times have changed, FS9 ended up being the primary mainstay...

[angels355]

Right on Kimber!

That looks awesome!

[ED_4]

I've spent too much time into my FS9 world from adding and editing the airports via AFCAD to tweeking the airplane addons I have using AirEd and the aircraft.cfg with just plain old notepad.

And that to me is a lot of time invested to just dump it due to a new existing FS version. I will only move there if and only if all of my addons will work with FSX. But since that isn't the case, I'll have a lot of years to go before I go there.

I mean if there are people out there still running FS2000, why should I succumb to the pressure of using FSX just because other people think it's the greatest, but it really isn't. Sorry FSX, but you will just have to wait a longer time.

[ThrottleUp]

Theres only one thing I like about FSX - autogen density. I dont have a gaming monster of a computer but I have no problem with very high slider settings for autogen. Makes the sim more immersive for me.

Not fun going back to FS9s world and it feels so...empty. You check to see if your sliders are maxed and they are...but its so empty!

Apart from that...FS9 all the way! :) Its perhaps the best version of the sim for me and like others I have extensively tweaked it and spent a lot of money on payware mods.

Already on the MSDN blogs I see FSX developers start to talk about FS11 and that is what Im looking forward to.

[angels355]

Throttleup,

Could you give us a screen shot demonstrating this autogen density?

[ThrottleUp]

Could you give us a screen shot demonstrating this autogen density?

Yea will do that :) Just installed a new HD and Im in the process of reinstalling FS9 on it (and of course FSX which I had to uninstall earlier due to lack of space!)

Subscribed to this thread and will chuck some shots up for you. Autogens not a problem for me in FSX but clouds are :(.

One wisp and Im in stutter-land :(

[IronmanMLR]

I have FSX, but still prefer FS9 for the time being. I am still hoping to upgrade my present computer to take full advantage of FS9 let alone looking to upgrade it for FSX.

Mike

[velociriptor]

Interesting thread -

Like many who've posted here, I, too, am currently running both sims. In a nutshell, FSX is a place I visit and play around in; FS9 is where I live.

One (of several) reasons has to do with flying helos. It has been noted by at least one reviewer that helicopters are easier to fly in FSX. True - and if you're only an occasional sling-wing pilot then life for you is good.

I was also frustrated by helo behavior in FS9, but since so many fine freeware examples were available, I decided to take a kind of Zen approach to mastering these beasts.

Now, after time, intense practice and concentration, I'm fairly adept at hopping from rooftop to rooftop or dropping in to some tight spots among trees or buildings like an animated dragonfly.

I love running the twitchy little MD500E and the Hovercontrol 412 at speed through Bill Lyon's "Silverwings" barns, and if I crash (rarely now), I also appreciate the sobering reminder of a healthy explosion (Nick's Massive Crash final) to emphasize the pilot error before being sent back to square one.

What this means is that - even though there are some nice models available for FSX - they're not challenging and, with blimp-like behavior, much too easy to fly.

Also - Now that Shockwave's 3D lights are available for FS9, I'll be stayng "home" with ACoF for quite some time...

[bugdozer]

Ooh, didn't know about the 3D lights for FS9!
The autogen issue reminds me that I actually prefer the look of the FS9 trees at medium distance - the FSX trees seem to have a "sparkly" look about them in virtually every screenshot/video I have seen and also when I ran the FSX demo on my computer. Almost like they need better antialiasing or something.

[trainmanj]

I purchased and installed FSX shortly after its release. I didn't like the user interfaces and it quickly froze my machine. I'm just starting to buy upgrades for FS9, so I'm sticking with it for a while, yes I'm a late purchaser.

[RyanbATC]

Ooh, didn't know about the 3D lights for FS9!
The autogen issue reminds me that I actually prefer the look of the FS9 trees at medium distance - the FSX trees seem to have a "sparkly" look about them in virtually every screenshot/video I have seen and also when I ran the FSX demo on my computer. Almost like they need better antialiasing or something.

That's exactly what I think!!! I don't know what the dealio is, but the FS9 trees with AA and AF look far better

Anyway, OT a little, I use FSX more than FS9 but I use FS9 for LevelD 767 stuff

[ThrottleUp]

Throttleup,

Could you give us a screen shot demonstrating this autogen density?

As promised :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/ThrottleUp/FSXUL2.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/ThrottleUp/FSXUL1.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/ThrottleUp/FSXUL.png

[angels355]

Thanks for all the trouble throttleup. That sounds like it was quite a task to do all that.

I was preparing some screen shots to show the opposite end of the spectrum, fs9 run at low settings on my 700 mhz pIII w/ 768 mb's ram, and geforce 256, I thought this card had 32 mb's of vram and probably does, but some linux apps tell me that it has 16 mb's of non prefetch and 128 mb's of prefetch video memory, have to recall which that means. That could be good, maybe bad, but it does have an excellent video gpu one of the first for nvidia. I have a few screen shots but I'm going to have to edit a couple of them because they are 300 kb, have to cut them down to 195 kb to upload them. I think I'll slice off a bottom or side with Ubuntu 7.10/and Gimp so that there's no actual reduction in resolution.

I have one other fs9 that is slightly better by one major setting click upwards, then have another with OK performance, but probably on the low side haven't had time to check it much. (Purchased several units of fs9). But I'm going to show the screen shots from the 700 mhz computer as I think they are unique, I might have the slowest computer on the forum that can run fs9. It runs it with silky smooth fluidity, locked at 25 fps, it likes to run at the Low graphics setting, but has gone as high as the High setting plus traffic.

Any way your screen shots look great. I'll be back in a little while.

[ThrottleUp]

Thanks for all the trouble throttleup.

No worries mate, no trouble at all. Just fired up FSX and banged the PrintScreen button twice http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yea not long ago these screenshots would have been impossible. I had an ATI X300 that was struggling with FS9 even. So I binned it and got this 7600GT which really helped things along! But the real difference was adding another GB of RAM. What a difference! It really is the most cost-effective way of giving your PC a boost in performance.


I have a few screen shots but I'm going to have to edit a couple of them because they are 300 kb, have to cut them down to 195 kb to upload them. I think I'll slice off a bottom or side with Ubuntu 7.10/and Gimp so that there's no actual reduction in resolution.

You probably know all this but just in case you dont hee hee:

Grab the free Image Resizer! Just right-click on a picture/s, select resize and its all done very fast.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Install/2/WXP/EN-US/ImageResizerPowertoySetup.exe

Next get hold of IrfanView (also free) which IMHO is the most brilliantly simple way of processing pictures. Save them in a ton of formats and yes it can batch process too (just press 'B')!
http://www.irfanview.com/

[Kimber]

ThrottleUp;

May I have the location of your screen shot??

I would like to do a comparison shot with my
FS9 SilverWings!!

Thank you!!

[angels355]

Throttleup,

Okey dokey, got three screenies, the third one is being transferred as I write from the ubuntu computer to my 2nd internet computer. This is like those light bulb jokes, how many computers does it take to make a screenie, in this case I think four, but when done, those computers will be ready to take over the world for sure! ("How many MIT mechanical engineers does it take to screw in a light bulb? One, he holds the light bulb up and the world revolves around him/her!" Ha ha!)

Finished, here's three, I might have had a fourth w/ an award winning corsair and Honk Kong scenery, but I was in a rush and not sure where I put it. The SR-71 is climbing out of Area 51 (addon scenery, freeware), the XB-70A is high above Oahu (addon scenery, freeware), and the DC-10-30 JMC by Henry Lidster is flying out of EDDF, just stock scenery. These images are not meant to represent the ultimate in graphics, it is just to illustrate what a great flight sim fs9/fs2004 is, that I can get this good of performance on a 700 mhz pIII with a moderate video card, and 768 mb's of ram.

I have several computer builds possible, but have to see what equipment is working, potentially I could have builds w/ amd's from 1.4 ghz to maybe 2.4 or so ghz, maybe an Intel Celeron D at 2.9 ghz. While not core 2's or wolfdales, they do have the advantage of all having been free. Except the 1.4 ghz board and chip, that one set me back $4, but I think the board is blown out. I like to tinker, and get the most bang for my buck, and normally fly long hours but have been very busy with all these hardware repairs and upgrades.

When I was thinking about FSX, I had originally thought about using the 1.4 ghz AMD, as the minimum hardware specs said that it could handle it. But hanging around the FSX forum to get a better understanding of FSX, plus help out some of my buddies whenever I can, I've learned that, FSX really needs maximum processing power. I figure I'll have to make bucks, maybe get a Wolfdale or Nehalem processor and a big video card. Have to wait for the budget however.

I should note that my FS9's have worked absolutely flawlessly, nothing ever goes wrong with them, nothing at all, extremely reliable and high performing. My FS2002 (fs8) are also fantastic, I have some 98se/me nvidia driver issues, but other than that, fs8 works fantastically on old equipment, also very reliable.

Thanks very much again. And what is the location you're flying at?

I've heard good things about those 7900 cards. I nearly got a radion 9800 pro 128 mb vram and tv card this week. Thought I better get an hdtv card instead as next year no analogue tv!

Thanks for the links to the image resizing and editing programs, those might come in handy. The Ubuntu/Gimp program is great, gives me a lot of control over the image. On my previous install of 98se on the other computer it had some added photo editing capability with paint, but after editing the photos they looked really awful because they kept downgrading the image. In the case of the xb70 photo I couldn't find the original file, just had the cropped photo that was only 63 kb, I tried putting it through the gimp editor to see if it could do anything off the bat, and found that simply saving it again through gimp and selecting 100% jpeg quality, I was able to boost the image to 178 kb. I had to cut the images however in order to keep the file sizes below 195 kb, while still keeping the resolution up. Perhaps you'll see the difference. It's OK for a 700 mhz computer.

I wonder, would you be able to recreate a screenie over Oahu like the one I have, just curious how Oahu would look from high altitude. I fly there all the time. Especially in Winter, the weather over here in the NW is absolutely awful every year, and dark too, so I often dream of Hawaii!

[Kofi]

Interesting thread here.....Especially since there are individuals in our community that still fly FS98 & FS2002....:)

[ThrottleUp]

May I have the location of your screen shot?? I would like to do a comparison shot with my FS9 SilverWings!!

Those FSX screenshots were taken just outside Bangkok Intl' Airport, Thailand (VTBS/BKK)! Only about say 1-2nm out from the airport. Thats where the autogen is densests hee hee. Now I need to tweak the .cfg to show more autogen in the distance but I will have to drop the slider a bit or I'll get 1FPS!


I wonder, would you be able to recreate a screenie over Oahu like the one I have

I shall do that and post the shot on here. FS9 or FSX? :)

[vanmulken]

What I like about FSX is it's unlimited capability to generate random failures and encounter problems of any kind! Let's face it: As real as it gets? Each and every plane would be grounded if it's software was as good as this set of programs. After more than a year I still seem to have this choice: To fly in FS9 or constantly repair FSx. Very soon now I will do a fresh install, if that's no cure, I will most happily uninstall!

Bruno

[Kimber]

This is Bangkok;

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2273/denss5.jpg

This is Bangor Maine,, since we are doing "B"s!!

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9086/dem2tc3.jpg

SilverWings is set in the 60's so things are not as crowded as now!!

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1340/settingsfl9.jpg

I could turn my card down a bit and get a few more FPS, but I can
live with this!!

[Paxx]

Here is FSX over Oahu at approx. the same spot Angels was taken.

http://synapse.sytes.net/images/fsx.jpg

I think it is interesting that you can see the curvature of the earth in this shot.

[ThrottleUp]

Cool shots Kimber. Your FPS is 121 http://www.clicksmilies.com/auswahl/sprachlos020.gif.

Suddenly my 20FPS Bangkok shots seem very lame http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-068.gif

BTW are you flying a Bell 47? http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Kimber]

Yes, that's the Bell 47, my favorite chopper!!

It gets a bit carried away in clear blue sky!!

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/539/fsscr016avv1.jpg

[ThrottleUp]

It gets a bit carried away in clear blue sky!!

http://www.clicksmilies.com/auswahl/lachen001.gif

They use those things for crop spraying as well dont they. You should rig yours up with some spray booms and clatter around flying under wires scaring all the field mice http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/cool/cool-smiley-012.gif.

Its cool watching them, specially at the end of the run whey they kick a pedal and spin that thing around for another pass!

Now you switched to a Galeb (?)

[angels355]

Interesting thread here.....Especially since there are individuals in our community that still fly FS98 & FS2002....:)

Hi Kofi,

Yep, that's me too, I fly fs98 through fs9 regularly, and fly!2k and fly!II also.

[angels355]

Those FSX screenshots were taken just outside Bangkok Intl' Airport, Thailand (VTBS/BKK)! Only about say 1-2nm out from the airport. Thats where the autogen is densests hee hee. Now I need to tweak the .cfg to show more autogen in the distance but I will have to drop the slider a bit or I'll get 1FPS!



I shall do that and post the shot on here. FS9 or FSX? :)

Hi Throttleup,

Thanks for your enthusiasm. Do the screen shot in FSX!

EDIT: OOPS! Turning the page I see that Paxx already did the Oahu photo. That looks incredible!. The Oahu freeware addon in my shot is just incredible, but it's amazing how similar the two are, I was actually not expecting the fsx default Oahu to be that nice. Nice curvature of the earth also.

I've flown a lot of hours in fly!2k, my first sim, if I limit the visibility and reduce the haze to zero, I learned that the Earth is in actuality a flat square floating in space. I like that sim any way, sentimental.

I saw a screen shot of downtown Seattle in fsx, it was amazing, I could see the individual sky scrapers where I used to work!

I am tempted to become Borg.

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I purchased and installed FSX shortly after its release. I didn't like the user interfaces and it quickly froze my machine. I'm just starting to buy upgrades for FS9, so I'm sticking with it for a while, yes I'm a late purchaser.

I think I will buy a new sim when FS 12 comes out.

[angels355]

Kofi,

Thought I would throw in an fs98 screen shot. These are a couple of my favorite addons pictured together, Tarawa Island, and Bonriki International Airport below, and the SR-71 "Maj Snot Rocket" sr71snot.zip . I actually like the way it flies, especially landing it without flaps (sr71 doesn't have flaps). This screen shot was actually accidental! I was doing a low flyby over the runway of Bonriki at 1600 knots (doesn't everyone?), pressed "pause", then thought I was pressing "print screen" to take the screen shot, accidentally pressed "p" instead and absolutely zipped passed the runway, I guess that happens at 1600 knots...:D....recovered and was going to turn around for for another run when I decided to just press pause and take a look at where I was, thought it looked OK, so printed it. The original screenie is bigger and 3 gb's, had to reduce and cut it a little.

I prepared a couple more fs9 screen shots, these were again all done with my 700 mhz pIII which I think is maybe the slowest fs9 computer on this forum, which gets silky smooth frame rates. I've been very happy with it. My 933 mhz pIII w/ 128 mb vram fx5200 and 512 rdram ram made a noticeable improvement, but thought it would be better to illustrate what's possible with the lowest performing computer and fs9 if it is set up right. I'm going to see if a 2.9 ghz celeron d is working, and see where that leads.

BTW, was just reminded of an interesting WWII trivia fact I thought I would pass along as I upload the F4U Corsair. Do you know why the P51D and some other WWII fighters toward the end of the war were strangely, polished bright aluminum with all kinds of really loud stripes and checkers? If you go back a year or two maybe three, you'll see the P51B and others painted in drab green, and camouflage colors. Guess why? The polished bright, flamboyantly colored, loud, P51D's, were like that because that was the expression of the flight crews in time of war, of having taken command of the skies, a triumphant declaration of air superiority!

Notice this f4u Corsair w/ yellow stripes over Hong Kong, it won an award and you can get it for fs9 in the Developer's Award section. Hong Kong was also nice addon freeware. The F/A-18E is one of my favorites. The Lear 60 is by JBAI with sun setting, I modified this to have the power to cruise where it's supposed to at FL510 at Mach .81 . The 747-123 with shuttle on top was fun to fly, I snapped this screen shot while flying a long flight. The real NASA 747-123 pilot who transports the shuttle from Edwards to Florida said in an interview that it wasn't hard at all piggy backing the shuttle, it takes a little more time to take off perhaps a little more power, but not that much difference or difficulty flying it.

FS9 is an absolutely fantastic flight sim. There is nothing to complain about! The 4th disk in the cdrom is a pain in the neck and you have to be careful with it, however, it is a fantastic flight simulator. If you don't have it, I would definitely recommend it. If you have FSX and get frustrated, having FS9 to also fly is a great idea. FS9 is basically error free, has very high frame rates for a given setting, and the addons for it are fantastic. The default 747 flight dynamics model in FSX is more accurate than fs9, however the latest POSKY 747's that you can fly in FS9 I believe are even more accurate. You just can't go wrong with FS9, whether you have FSX or not.

[Kofi]

Hi Kofi,

Yep, that's me too, I fly fs98 through fs9 regularly, and fly!2k and fly!II also.

Hey.....
There are still some folks flying CFS-1 too. The way I see it, doesn't matter what you fly - just so long as you're having fun...:)

[Kimber]

Sometimes I pan to look out the window and am in awe of the
sheer beauty of the sim!!

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1755/fsscr018on8.jpg

[angels355]

Kimber,

You're right, it's beautiful, several of the previous screen shots were from very long flights, 2000 to 5000 NM's, and while the sun was going down etc I noticed how great it looked so snapped a photo as if I were a camera bug out on a long road trip. The shots just happened while on long flights. Sometimes it's good to just look at the scenery and smell the kerosene. (Kerosene not included.)

One thing that is difficult with the equipment I have now is the scenery from very high altitude. Would you be able to do a screen shot from 95,000 feet in the vicinity of KEDW?

One nice thing about fsx is that it has a ceiling of around 350 to 400,000 feet? Not sure what the actual ceiling is, but the payware addon X-15 is capable of around 350,000 feet in fsx.

[Kimber]

Well, this ain't no good selling point!!

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4351/999999rd8.jpg

[LAPTOP GAMER]

Hey.....
There are still some folks flying CFS-1 too. The way I see it, doesn't matter what you fly - just so long as you're having fun...:)

Good point.

[angels355]

Thanks Kimber, it looks kinda cool on your computer any way. I'll try to do the same on one of mine, and maybe someone w/ fsx could do the same shot over CA KEDW. My hardware has been so modest, when I started in 2004 I think, I had been looking forward to sweeping vistas at high altitude but found that such was not the case at least w/ my computers. But that didn't deter me, just kept on flying. I have to get back to regular flying, I'm up to about 17,000 hrs on mostly 747's, I'm trying to reach 20,000 and 500 flights around the world (completed 380 flights around the world so far) (been a lifelong endurance athlete, I enjoy that. BTW, I've seen people's lives dramatically improved by starting slow and progressing slow, when they join an athletic club and get good instruction on it, and or swimming, bicycling, walking (running for those who it doesn't bother or injure). Always check with a Doctor first. But that's about the biggest gift I could ever give anyone is to start them exercising, after DR approval). Guess what, one of my buddies sent me some ddr ram ( :) ), and it turns out that's all that was needed to fire up my 2.53 ghz celeron d computer! That can run something. But it has onboard video (imagine yuckie face) and only old pci, so I'll just see what I can do with it. I have several other boards that I can now test to see if they are working, and some of them are OK performance wise if they work. I'll check in later!

[angels355]

Kimber,

This is my slightly better fs9 computer, 933 mhz pIII, 512 mb rdram, 128 mb vram, 98se, departing KEDW in the starship Enterprise. The graphics are set on Medium High. The hardware for this set me back a lot of $$, computer $0 from dumpster, tore dress slacks jumping into dumpster asap after job interview, video card $0, gift. Using licensed win98se that doesn't require activation: priceless!

You can't see KEDW down below, but it's there at the bottom of that vapor trail. This was originally a 2.3 mb bitmap, did a save as jpeg that reduced it down to I think 128 kb, I think I may have lost some resolution in the process, but I don't think it's too bad.

Any one have the same shot at FL980 or even better at FL3500 or FL4000 in fsx?

God speed Jimmy Doohan.

[Paxx]

Here is KEDW in FSX.

Lear @ 40,000+
http://synapse.sytes.net/images/kedw.jpg


SR-Lear @ 95,000+
http://synapse.sytes.net/images/kedw1.jpg

Space Lear @ 400,000+ (Edwards is the light brown spot @ bottom-center )
http://synapse.sytes.net/images/kedw2.jpg

[Ocala]

FS9 forever !

[Leo112]

Too bad FSX doesn't run decent enough to run it a 95,000ft. Actually it should run great at that altitude, it's coming in for a landing that's the problem.

I'm happy with FS9 until MS rediscovers how to make programs and OS's run decently again. As fast as computers are these days there's no excuse for performance problems to the degree that MS's latest incarnations are causing.

FS9 until MS get's it right again... ;)

[Paxx]

Too bad FSX doesn't run decent enough to run it a 95,000ft. Actually it should run great at that altitude, it's coming in for a landing that's the problem.

To be fair to MS, I also had Photoshop up with 8 other screenshots in the background and my Anti-Virus kicked in while I was slewing too altitude (was shooting for FL1000, and no I don't turn off all the background processes), so I popped the screen shot then tabbed out to shut down the anti-virus and make the jpeg for posting. My normal fps at altitude is 30-70 fps. Landing FPS in LAX is about 15-20. /shrug

p.s - I flew COF for four years, loved it. I fly FSX now, love it.

Fly What You Love.

[angels355]

Paxx,

Thanks very much for going to so much trouble. That Learjet is quite versatile!


I tried very hard to angle the camera to see if I could see the Pacific from 99,999 feet above KEDW, but no go, see Klingon ship. All I could see were the mountains, I was tempted to fly warp speed to KLAX, but then I would be going outside the KEDW idea. The Klingon ship flies better than the Enterprise. Did you know that Worf (Michael Dorn) in real life is a jet pilot? He has flown for many years, likes older biz jets, and last time I heard him interviewed (History Channel: "Boys Toys") he was trying to get a few old fighter jets.


Here are some more screen shots from fs9, these are all taken from my slightly better fs9 computer (933 mhz pIII, 512 mb rdram, 128 mb vram, 98se), the graphical setting is at "Medium High". Some have some very nice Oahu freeware addon scenery, others show the default scenery. In one the Lear 60 looks very nice turning toward La Guardia, but while the plane looks nice (Jbai Lear 60 v2) the default scenery is so so. I have two F4 Phantom photos, one departing KLAX I believe, and default scenery so far, the other is a very nice shot departing Oahu as the sun is going down. Another is a POSKY 747 overflying Oahu.


FSX looks very nice. If I get it, it might take a while to get the hardware.


I edited these photos w/ Ubuntu 7.10 and Gimp, what I'd do is take the 2.3 to 3 mb bitmap image, convert it to a jpeg, then start at 100% jpeg quality (sometimes 600 kb in size) and keep reducing it until it is at or below 195 kb, the limit here on this forum. I just edited my previous Enterprise photo also, increasing the file size from 128 kb to about 195 kb. These don't fully reflect the images I actually see on the screen which are much better, but it's close enough for those size images. Before that, the photos from my 700 mhz computer I tried to convey more what I actually see on the screen and so kept the jpeq quality at 100%, then cropped the images down so that you could get an idea of what I'm actually seeing on the screen. In other words my old pIII's have excellent performance quality with fs9, especially for the price, bang/$$. Except for the xb-70a photo over Oahu, there wasn't much I could do for that photo, I couldn't find immediately the original screen shot file, I started out with 63 kb, then w/ Gimp increased the file size to 177 kb. Looks nice on my destop any way. Had to reduce the jpeg quality of the klingon ship one more time, missed it by .1 kb.


I'm glad you like fsx.

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I have been trying to understand why FSX is such a dog, if this is the trend, then it will doom Flight sim as people are going to get tired of buying a new computer just to run flight sim.

[angels355]

I have been trying to understand why FSX is such a dog, if this is the trend, then it will doom Flight sim as people are going to get tired of buying a new computer just to run flight sim.

I don't think that flight simmers can be considered completely rational people when it comes to making wise/prudent choices when purchasing a computer. One of my friends insists that he wants to spend $11K for his next game computer, not including the full hydraulic, multi-computer controlled, full motion airliner cockpit, plus projection monitors for the outside scenery....

In an MSN PC World article today or yesterday there was a story about the future of gaming, and the future of pc's. We'll have 3d lifelike computer people help us shop in a virtual world that is very realistic. In 10 years computers will be "self aware". I think mine are already, and are trying to take over the world!! In about 10 to 15 years we'll have real holodecks like in Star Trek, and desktops I believe they said will have hundreds of processors. In around 20 to 25 years desktops will start fading out, and just about everything in our lives will be computerized. Also we'll have computers that process using light.

[LAPTOP GAMER]

I don't think that flight simmers can be considered completely rational people when it comes to making wise/prudent choices when purchasing a computer. One of my friends insists that he wants to spend $11K for his next game computer, not including the full hydraulic, multi-computer controlled, full motion airliner cockpit, plus projection monitors for the outside scenery....

In an MSN PC World article today or yesterday there was a story about the future of gaming, and the future of pc's. We'll have 3d lifelike computer people help us shop in a virtual world that is very realistic. In 10 years computers will be "self aware". I think mine are already, and are trying to take over the world!! In about 10 to 15 years we'll have real holodecks like in Star Trek, and desktops I believe they said will have hundreds of processors. In around 20 to 25 years desktops will start fading out, and just about everything in our lives will be computerized. Also we'll have computers that process using light.

I agree with you and part of me wants to take a breather wile I bulild my sim fund and see what comes out in 10 years.

[myocardia]

I have been trying to understand why FSX is such a dog, if this is the trend, then it will doom Flight sim as people are going to get tired of buying a new computer just to run flight sim.

People have been saying that on this very site since the day that FS98 came out, and possibly before, but I didn't discover this site until then. As long as PC's keep getting faster (and exponentially cheaper, I might add), it's probably never going to happen.

[bushp04]

Mainly stick with FS9, frame rates are better. One thing that I wish FSX would do is to allow me to cycle cockpit, virtual cockpit, tower and spot views as with FS9. I get really kranky when I have to go throught the view menu to get the 2D cockpit view and vice versa. I know it's only minor but ...

Are you telling us that FSX will NOT allow the use of a joystick top-hat button to cycle cockpit, virtual cockpit, tower and spot views???

That is NOT "only a minor" to me....that would be a deal breaker for me, no matter what simulator it is, FSX, X-Plane or what have you.

You were kidding, weren't you?!:eek:

Anyway, FS9 still does it for me, unless my research on X-Plane can shoulder it out.

[rotorrx]

FS9. That is all.

[angels355]

Are you telling us that FSX will NOT allow the use of a joystick top-hat button to cycle cockpit, virtual cockpit, tower and spot views???

That is NOT "only a minor" to me....that would be a deal breaker for me, no matter what simulator it is, FSX, X-Plane or what have you.

You were kidding, weren't you?!:eek:

Anyway, FS9 still does it for me, unless my research on X-Plane can shoulder it out.

I don't think that is a problem, I've seen demos of the TrackIR program and software which is like a top-hat button on steroids. You can stand up sit on the floor, zoom in and look closer, pan rapidly in any direction, here are some demo videos:

Here is a good trackir video explaining how it works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-wRIa9GDg

This one is good also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AO0F...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AO0F5sLdVM&feature=related)

I've been considering it. Any way, if they can do this, then there must be a way to do the top-hat.

I can't say for sure however as I haven't run FSX yet. Due to the wonders of internet purchasing, I have purchased between 3 and 5 units of FSX Gold Ed, I'm waiting to see what shows up or what's happening. I use the top-hat on FS9 also.

Regarding X-Plane, I tried a demo of it, God bless them for their efforts, but to me there is no comparison. I'm getting FSX because I want the very latest, and latest PMDG 747, and would also like the better scenery graphics. I have roughly four or five units of FS9, and have three installed, I run it on computers ranging from 700 mhz Pentium3 maxed out, to 1.1 ghz P3, to 2.8 ghz socket 478 P4, and I just rebuilt a 2.8, 3.2 and 3.4 ghz HT socket 775 P4's which would like to have FS9 running on them. According to the EULA, I am licensed for about 8 to 10 or more installations of FS9, and I'll be installing them as soon as I get the time. That's the great thing about FS9, it's timeless, runs well on OLD HARDWARE, and is designed extremely well.

Here's probably the most important thing to know about FSX, it requires a powerful computer. In my opinion, to enjoy it you'll need a really fast computer. If your hardware is old, then FS9 is the way to go. For FSX, I haven't decided what to build first. Have a plain vanilla Intel mobo that can run the Intell Q9550, however it is limited to 4 gb's of ram. Been trying to sell that new mobo (never plugged in) but no one wants it for the outrageous sum I'm asking! If I can put it together extremely cheaply I might do that. Next, guess I hope to build an i7 system, friend has 16 gb's of ram!! That's a lot of ram, haven't checked how expensive it is to keep up with the Call of Duty neighbors.

Any way, the top hat issue is not a problem, I'm certain it can be done, or you can get the TrackIr program. The biggest obstacle is the absolute need for a powerful computer. And video card, like an nvidia 250 or better. Basically all FSX computers that I can imagine are 64 bit, it helps a great deal to have 64 bit Windows because you can use more ram, I've heard many use 6 gb ram, 32 bit XP, Vista, and Win 7 only use 3.3 gb. Good luck.