cobalt

The same horrible washed out cartoon graphics, terrible clouds and ooms was fixed?

P3D (fsx v3 )still suffers the same cartoon like textures, even worse clouds and ooms replaced by a stutter fest.

 

No thanks.

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.

You’re a little late to the party, Cobalt.

All this was discussed around the 2006-2008 time period.

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.

The same thing people complained about for years with FSX and why most of us saw the light and moved back up to FS9.

 

Occasionally I go back to FSX with updates not textures, orbs, rex etc. Look st it, say yuck and quickly load up fs9.: much better.

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?

Totally agree, each to their own. Should mention I have FSX, boxed and Steam and have had it installed since release. I choose FS9 over it. Nothing to do with system or anything else, FS9 is just better for me as I'm not prepared to deal with VAS. You can argue over add-ons but each has appealing add-ons you can't have in the other. Graphics, not a deal breaker at all in any type of game. I always go for gameplay and everything else over graphics.

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.

Fsx doesn’t come close to fs9 which is the last of the true flight simulators before it went ‘plastic’ to appeal to the gamer kids in their fake worlds. .

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

Out of curiosity, was that FS9 and FSX with or without Ultimate Terrain?

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 say otherwise and consider myself informed. lol

 

Graphics are the main difference between the two. Ground texturing is the main area. Aircraft, airports, physics, there isn't a huge deal of difference. In order to benefit from FSX graphically over FS9 you then need to deal with VAS. I don't think it's worth it and the better option for me is FS9.

You also need to run equivalent quality sims to evaluate. Don't compare a default FS9 to a pumped up FSX. If you really pump up FS9 with the right stuff, it slaughters a default FSX. FSX will only beat it when you pump it up to the same degree. Once you do this, you must then deal with VAS.

 

I shake my head sometimes when I see people having running problems with FSX be it VAS or FPS, see what their sim looks like and know they could have a graphically far superior FS9 with zero VAS or FPS issues. You can only lead a horse to water...

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.

MS peaked with FS2004. The balance between freeware and payware was wonderful. Yes FSX was fancier graphics but with careful addons FS2004 gives it a good run for its money looks wise.

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.

If you can fly the Cessna, and the 747, then it's not a 'game'. It's a simulation (of reality). If you CAN'T fly a Cessna, or a 747, then it's a 'game' (no resemblence to 'real'). How's that. Like they say: 'LIFE IS A TRAGEDY FOR THOSE THE 'FEEL' AND A COMEDY FOR THOSE THAT 'THINK' !! They also say: 'MONEY TALKS, BS WALKS'. It's ALL about a DOLLAR$. Dawh! What else is 'new' (or 'real')?

Chuck B

Napamule

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.

This is the first thing I said, it will be on Xbox. No idea if your 63 million is correct but if it is, how many users do you think are under 20 years old? How many under 30 years old? How many sub 30 year olds want to sit there learning a fully fledged flight sim with 500 pages of manual to simply make a plane go up and then come down without even blowing anything up??? lol

 

I just can't understand how people can believe MSFS will be a sim built for post 50 year olds who can afford a super duper PC capable of running all these things they are wishing for. They make up 1% of the gaming market across PC and Xbox.

 

MS would be insane to release a fully fledged flight sim in today's world imo. I don't think we will ever see one again to be honest. The industry has changed. I think what everyone will be getting is a reworked FSW.

 

Time just can't move fast enough! lol

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 ...

Haha, if you don't take all this seriously it's quite a lot of fun. I don't have a dinosaur but still can't see myself ever switching from FS9 because in 2021, it will STILL be the best flight sim.

I hope time goes fast so we can clear all this stuff up! lol

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!

Probably not worth mentioning but, musnt't you start AS16 before you open FSX?

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.

Increasingly, developers are bypassing FSX as a `dead` sim in favour of the 64-bit sims - X-Plane 11 and P3Dv4. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your world view but suggest you lose the blinkers:

 

Milviz have stopped development for FSX, their latest product is P3Dv4.5 only.

PMDG have ceased development for FSX/P3Dv1-v3

 

To name but two. Which might eventually be of interest to our OP, training for a real-world license...

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 ...

No problem.

FS9 does not need a thread on 'How to make FS9 More Interesting'..

It's great as it is..

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

Hi all, I must admit I was getting very bored with my simming. The usual point to point flying & navigation was starting to become tedious & I was loosing interest, especially as my prefered set of wings are the 'lows 'n slows'.

 

One day, in my internet browing, dont ask how I got there, I found The Ford Tri-Motor Project http://www.ford-tri-motor.net/

The late Garry Smith, (creator of many skins for our planes), created a whole bunch of sceneries for that particular era, with many textures as well, & Ive created a separate sim install just for his sceneries. There are some great projects that he has created, including India & China scenery, as well as a Black Hark project, with hidden runways. His philosophy is that simming should be a combination of Fun, Fact & Fiction. He also has created sloping runways.

 

So, what are we looking for within our hobby? Some look for realism, others, including me, find their fun is in immersion.

 

Yes, my rekindling of my simming interest was because of FS9!!

This really does not make this interest any lessor than that in FSX or any other sim.

 

Oh, by the way, we have built 2x simulators at our club.. an Avro Shackleton, & an MB326 twin seater, known here in South Africa as an Impala, a trainer used by our South African Air Force.

We know that the immersion factor works, when real pilots 'bump' in their seats, anticipating touch down. We using real controls & seats within real fusalage with the Impala, the Shack is 95% scale to fit on a trailer.

 

So, that all keeps our simming interest alive!!

 

P.S. Dont knock it, but we use FS9 for the sims, because we have the correct flight models & freeware scenery that FSX does not offer.

 

Regards from Cape Town, South Africa,

Robin

 

Yes, I know it's NOT FSX, but it rekindled my interest in simming.

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

I'd say that it peaked my interest when new aircraft came out or paintjobs or stuff...that's what gets me

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It piqued your interest.