cobalt

I simply cannot relate to what you are describing. Cartoon-like textures? Bad clouds? OOms? Stutter-fests? I have an adequate (not even state-of-the-art) computer (see earlier post from me) and have had none of these problems -- far from it. I'm sorry that this has been your experience, and just have to wonder what kind of computer(s) you have tried to run FSX on. In any case, I see no purpose in continuing this back-and-forth so I am respectfully signing off. Over and out.

Indeed it was, and long since resolved. To me this is a non-issue and frankly boring, like debating whether my 2001 Honda Accord is a better car than a Mercedes XL. It isn't, and never will be, even if we Honda owners resort to irrelevant posts about plastic, gamers, and whatnot.

Most of the complaints when FSX was in its early years came from people trying to run it on computers whose CPUs and/or graphics cards were not up to the job. That changed over time, and now the average rig is capable of running it satisfactorily with proper choice of settings. The ratio of folks viewing the FSX vs. FS9 forums is pretty indicative of where things stand now. But, whatever works, is fine with me. Glad you're happy. In reference to your original post, I am neither a kid nor a "gamer", don't live in a fake world, and I have no idea what a "plastic" sim is. Would that be polyethylene, polystyrene, or some other variety?

Thanks for your post. FYI, I will mention that I have an Alienware computer that is more than a decade old, with an i7-2600 processor @ 3.40 CPU, and an NVIDIA GEX-1060 display adapter (3 GB), and have never had VAS issues. On this rig FSX runs smoothly with most sliders maxed (except traffic), and generally high FPS. I guess this would account for the fact that moving from FS9 to FSX was a no-brainer for me.

If this statement makes any sense, it escapes me. What in the world are you talking about?

Without. When FSX first appeared there was no Ultimate Terrain, as far as I know. UT improves the detail of terrain (coastlines, rivers,etc.) but does not affect the ground textures. (GEX does, of course). But my FS9-FSX comparison employed the brand-new FSX with no enhancements. With UT, GEX, and other add-ons available today, FSX is so far ahead of FS9 it's over the horizon.

I, too, consider myself well informed. I used FS9 for several years and was very happy with it. When FSX came out, I bought and installed it, but kept FS9 running so that I could do side-by side comparisons. Which I did -- I set up flights in FS9, ran them, and then ran the identical flights (same planes, location, weather, and settings) in FSX on the same computer. I did this repeatedly many times, over many days -- I was in no hurry. The end result is that I was blown away by FSX (default version, even!) and how far superior it was to FS9 in every respect. Among many other things, just the sense of realism in how things look was so far advanced in FSX over FS9 that there was no comparison. And this was just one aspect -- there were numerous other advances in FSX that demonstrated its clear superiority. After this, deleting FS9 was a no-brainer. I will add that I have a system that allows me to run FSX with most sliders maxed out and no FPS (or VAS) issues -- generally very smooth. I respect your arriving at a different conclusion, but I have to think most other flight simmers have long since arrived at the same place I did -- just seeing the far greater activity in FSX vs.FS9 forums indicates this. But the bottom line is, we are both happy and that's all that matters.

Simply not true. FS9 was great, and I enjoyed it for years, but FSX (even the default version, but especially with add-ons) is a FAR more advanced flight simulation program in so many ways. There is just no comparison. Except for those who have had difficulty running FSX on old computers that are not up to the task (and in 2019 that would be pretty old!) it is hard to imagine an informed FS user saying otherwise.

Agreed. FSX is a game for those who do not take flying seriously and just want to fool around with the program, and is a SIMULATION OF FLYING (the purpose for which it was designed years ago, and is the "S" in FSX) for those who do. Simple as that.

Two comments. First, I have used FSX for years for the purpose it was designed for, namely to simulate actual flight as closely as possible on a PC. If others want to call it a game, that's fine with me. I suppose practically any activity can be treated as a game, including flying a real plane (but I would not want to be a passenger in that plane, nor would ATC flight controllers want to have any such pilot in their airspace!) Second, I could not care less whether I am in the 1% or the 0.001% of the "gaming market". If there is any point in quoting statistics like this (even if they bear any relation to reality, which is doubtful), it escapes me. But then I am over 50, and my mind isn't that sharp any more ...

Ah, the diversity! We have people who think FSX is dead, and others who think FS9 is the greatest ever. As you say, it's all fun (provided you don't get bent out of shape by the "dead" comments and other nonsense). Personally I am an incurable FSX addict, and having a ball!

No, this is not necessary. AS16 can be started at any time, but of course it's only useful when FSX is running! In reference to the earlier quote below, AS16 and FSX are meant to work together, and AS16 will automatically find the location of your plane and create real-world weather there. If you are having problems, something is wrong with your installation of AS16.

I have been hearing that FSX is dead for years. All I can say is, for a corpse it seems to be doing remarkably well. (1) There are still plenty of developers generating new stuff for FSX, and (2) at any given time, the number of users logged on to FSX websites FAR exceeds the corresponding number for X-plane and other sims. Now, back to the grave ...

And neither does FSX -- same reason. Case closed.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood, but from my reading of your original post, it seems that what you have done is only possible in FS9. To quote: "... we use FS9 for the sims, because we have the correct flight models & freeware scenery that FSX does not offer." Therefore, wouldn't your story be more appropriate for a thread on "How to Make FS9 More Interesting"? Just asking.

Why is this posted here? Should be in the FS9 forum.

It piqued your interest.

Four projects I have completed in recent months: (1) a low-and-slow flight around the entire perimeter of the lower 48 states; (2) a tour of all 59 U.S. National Parks; (3) a float-plane trip across the U.S. and back, landing only on water; (4) a 12,000 mile nonstop flight from Norfolk VA to Ulan Bataar, Mongolia in a B747 that required in-air refueling.