FSX or FS9

[breakingcustom]

Hey all, I recenly made the jump from FS9 a while ago and I'm starting to get used to FSX after doing a few tweaks. However, I feel that I'm not getting the full experience seeing as how I have no autogen and no traffic as well as most sliders down low. In this case, is going back to fs9 worth it?

[beana5]

Hi David,welcome, You could I guess.For many, FS9 is the currant Sim.Still the future is FSX,and thats here now.Many are becoming increasingly comfortable with FSX .Even tho ,it may not perform as we all would like to.Your currant rig may determine what FS you will use...for now.I continue to use both Sims.There is enjoyment in both.
"Have Fun" VIN!

[FITZY]

For the last few days I have been flying a variety of my favorite add-on aircraft in FS9 rather than struggle with FSX. They look good, fly smoothly and well over detailed terrain, and land fluidly at familiar airports with familiar AI traffic. Imagine that.

[ianq]

I agree, I worked with FSX for about a month, but in the end my hardware obviously isn't meant to support FSX such that I can enjoy it to any great extent, too much tweaking and stuttering to actually enjoy.

There is some nice eye candy in FSX, but from a flight perspective, no real change in how aircraft fly or weather is formed, ATC is no better than FS9's, FSX is an incremental upgrade versus major bling bling.

So I went back to FS9, and must say, it's a pleasure to be able to fly in and out of the major airports with ton's of traffic, full clouds, etc, without a single stutter or freeze.

I'll wait to hear what it is that actually can run FSX full blown, and consider an upgrade next year some time.

[kc10]

I have gone back to FS9, not because of any issues with FSX, but simply because FS9 is where my adon aircraft are flyable at the moment.
FSX was really nice to look at for a while, but at the end of the day, my addon planes are the reason I sim.
So I now have FS9 and FSX installed, and as each of my planes becomes FSX updated, I will move them over and fly them in FSX, simple as that. If the FR are too low, back to FS9, no prob. I'll just give FSX to someone I don't really like, lol.

Truthfully though, regarding performance, I would have no prob staying with FS9 if only ONE thing were fixed; the blurry terrain, which by the way, is more or less a problem depending on how demanding your addons are.

[ladamson]

>I have gone back to FS9, not because of any issues with FSX,
>but simply because FS9 is where my adon aircraft are flyable
>at the moment.
>FSX was really nice to look at for a while, but at the end of
>the day, my addon planes are the reason I sim.
>So I now have FS9 and FSX installed, and as each of my planes
>becomes FSX updated, I will move them over and fly them in
>FSX, simple as that. If the FR are too low, back to FS9, no
>prob. I'll just give FSX to someone I don't really like, lol.
>
Just in case you're interested,

The "new" RealAir Marchetti SF260, specifically for FSX, fly's better, spins better & looks better, and with no frame rate hit.

Ladamson

[skydancer1694e]

>Hey all, I recenly made the jump from FS9 a while ago and I'm
>starting to get used to FSX after doing a few tweaks. However,
>I feel that I'm not getting the full experience seeing as how
>I have no autogen and no traffic as well as most sliders down
>low. In this case, is going back to fs9 worth it?

I went back to FS9 for a number of reasons:

1. I am disappointed in the performance of FSX and I have a real robust gaming setup (i.e. 2+ ghrz processor, GForce 6800 with 256K of video ram, and 2 Gigs of memory). I practically have to configure everything to the mimimums just to make it to 9 FPS.

2. I thing the graphics took a step backward in FSX. I was running MegaCity with FS9 and the views in FS9 were always super realistic and I had FS9 configured to the max...and I was able to maintain 16 to 20 FPS easy at low altitudes and make 25 to 30 FPS at altitudes 5000 feet or greater. In FSX I can't get past 6 to 9 FPS at below 5000 feet. Above 5000 feet and I can make it to about 16 FPS.
I would have expected FSX to at least have the resolution that MegaCity has.

3. The graphics themselves lean toward more of a cartoon canvas than the realistic one afforded in FS9.

4. Adjusting the cockpit window in FSX no longer allows for sizing of the gauges from all four sides of the panel. Now it only allows adjusting from the left and right sides

I am really disappointed in FSX and I think Microsoft needs to do alot of work on the next major release of MFS. For now I have gone back to FS9 with all the Mega-Scenary. In one sentence FS2004 (FS9) beats FSX hands down.

What happened with this FSX team of prgrammers - did the FS9 design team get replaced with a bunch of amatures????;(

[ladamson]

>2. I thing the graphics took a step backward in FSX. I was
>running MegaCity with FS9 and the views in FS9 were always
>super realistic and I had FS9 configured to the max...and I
>was able to maintain 16 to 20 FPS easy at low altitudes and
>make 25 to 30 FPS at altitudes 5000 feet or greater. In FSX I
>can't get past 6 to 9 FPS at below 5000 feet. Above 5000 feet
>and I can make it to about 16 FPS.
>I would have expected FSX to at least have the resolution that
>MegaCity has.
>
>3. The graphics themselves lean toward more of a cartoon
>canvas than the realistic one afforded in FS9.
>

Just the opposite thoughts in my opinion. After spending a good amount of time with FSX, I now feel that FS9 is more on the cartoonish side, and of low resolution. FSX actually does have a much higher resolution for each pixel than FS9 is capable of.

I do run FSX with auto-gen off for most situations, as the city scape textures actually look better without it. And it's a great frame rate boost. My city/mountain flight runs at a smooth 25 fps. For busy and large airports, I'll switch to FS9, but I think that the climbout looks much better with FSX's sharp photo textures.

The following pics, are stock FSX with FSGenesis, and perhaps the new FSX version of the RealAir Marchetti. Other planes are the defaults.

[beana5]

I gotta say this for the first time I seen is the best ,indisputable demonstration of FSX. They say one picture is worth 100 words,in this case 1000 words is more like it.I see the pictures,and the "infamous frame rate count" in each.Each is totally acceptable. It may be time for the timid, and the nattering nabobs of negativism,to finally embrace FSX.Its the future,and its here now.Does not mean those of us who still enjoy FS9,should give that up and all that it offers.I still like driving Ole cars,fly Ole planes,hunt with black powder,and many other things. Its diffuclt to compare the old with the new.Each stands on its own.However this Show and Tell demo is great. "Stunning" Thanx for the great information. Its still Christmas ,so have a good one VIN

[jackhall]

Larry gets it. I get it. A bunch of other guys get it. FSX works well on a reasonable system with some proper tweaking.

FSX specific planes are piling up at a good rate, considering that the sim has only been out two months and the SDK update well less than that. My flights rarely drop below my 20 fps 'lock' rate. My scenery is quite good. The enjoyment factor is 99%.

FS9 is an excellent sim, today, fully gussied up with two plus years worth of add-ons and experience under its belt. FSX is better, out of the box, than FS9 was at the age of two months.

You can't run FSX with a 2.4 or whatever CPU with much satisfaction. A half gig of memory won't cut it. 128 Kb of video memory, especially shared mobo video, just won't work. But you don't need a brand new $3,500 computer either.

FS9 is great, and for those that fly that version, God bless. Just quit bashing Microsoft and FSX if your system won't handle it. Mine (P4 3.2, 4 GB ram, 512 Kb 9800 Nvidea card) is not super powerful or expensive. It handles FSX quite well. I've deleted FS9 and the hundreds of dollars of FS9 specific add-ons from my computer. I am now spending dollars on the FSX specific airplanes as they become available.

Just my opinion. Regards, Jack