Why FSX over FS9?

FSX is the visually better sim at the expense of low FPS, crashes (OOM's) and stutters.

FS9 is "slightly" behind in visuals but does not suffer low FPS, crashes or stutters.

Mark, that is not what I've seen posted by some folks out there, and it's not what I disagree with. I won't have any argument with folks who say there's a performance problem with FSX that they don't have with FS9 -- that's not a surprise, since FSX is decidedly more demanding on the system. I won't have any argument with those who say they like FS9 with its add-ons better than FSX with the add-ons they have.

Simply depends what you want.

I agree with that. It does, indeed, depend on what each individual wants.

Where I have the problem is with posts like this in post #23:

Because default fsx looks horrible. Ive had comparisons of my Fs9 to fsx and it was no comparison. Fs9 was so far in front it was no contest. With all the new world textures available, fsx is a joke. And fsx version 2 - p3d - is no different. Same old lame washed out graphics with a lifeless feel.

This from post #24:

not sure people are comparing 2019 FS9 to 2019 FSX.

You can't think of FS9 in it's default state from 2003 nor loaded up with 2006 add-ons. FS9 today, certainly not only beats but smashes a default FSX visually. If you then try to pump up FSX with add-ons to beat FS9, then you run into FPS and VAS issues.

There have been no releases of either sim "today." They're still the same as they were way back when. Add-ons are different and more plentiful, but that's not the sim. There IS no 2019 FS9 or FSX.

This one from post #45:

If you haven't used FS2004 in the last 12 months, let alone in the last 6-7 years, you really can't compare because it's these latest add-ons released during this period that really lift FS2004 to a new level. As I mentioned in my earlier post, you can better FS2004 with FSX by using equivalent modern add-ons but not without cost to FPS and VAS with questionable visual gain.

At least it states add-ons are needed, but your add-ons and my add-ons are different, so your setup matches your preference and that's fine, but it has NOTHING to do with "used FS2004 in the last 12 months" -- that's just add-ons, not the sim.

This from post #71:

Fsx sux. P3d - which is fsx with a new name sux. Same horrible bland scenery.

And even this one from post #76:

Apart from add-ons, what else makes FSX better than FS9??? There is virtually no difference.

• FSX allows higher resolution scenery, for one thing.
  
• FSX has dynamic objects. e.g.: The ferries crossing the Puget Sound run on real schedules, birds and cars and more.
  
• FSX has a revamped multiplayer function with shared cockpit feature.
  
• FSX multiplayer does a better job of keeping formation aircraft together, with a good extrapolation of position, instead of jumping back and forth a bit as internet lag delays position updates, then catches up.
  
• FSX has miscellaneous enhancements such as more camera angles, views, user settings.
  

Whether these changes (and others) mean much to you is, of course, a personal choice. If not, and if performance is a problem for you, then staying with FS2004 might be good for you, but there definitely are differences.

Anyhow, for those who are saying they prefer FS2004/FS9 witgh the add-ons they have is not a problem. It's those who bash FSX for the wrong reasons (sure it's more demanding, but...).

But thanks for this statement:

FSX is the visually better sim at the expense of low FPS, crashes (OOM's) and stutters.

FS9 is "slightly" behind in visuals but does not suffer low FPS, crashes or stutters.

It's undoubtedly true for many, though it's never been true for me (or a good friend of mine, either), even on the 2005 machine I had at the release of FSX and even on my current 2010 machine.

Larry, appreciate your opinion. It's good to have different views on a topic like this and civil discussion. Ultimately, we all use what we want to use.

One other thing keeping myself to FS9 is that I only like using 2D panels. If I ever did use FSX, any aircraft with only a VC are of no interest so it tends to cut down the choices or attraction from an aircraft perspective considerably.

FSX or FS9, they are both good sims. Maybe call the thread a draw? lol

Sounds good. BTW, I prefer a VC...

Haha...VC's do suck I'm afraid

I have a TrackIR and with the VC I can lean forward or back or left or right, raise up or hunker down, tilt my head, look up or down, look left right or any combination of all of these, and all without use of my hands, just move my head and, perhaps, torso if needed. On downwind I can look back at a 45º for a moment when in the pattern, then back straight ahead, or any other direction, even pause the view (makes it as if TrackIR weren't there, letting you use arrow keys, etc.), NONE of which is possible in the so-called 2D view.

This makes it more like flying in a real aircraft. But it does take a little practice to make it second nature.

"2D" sucks... :pilot:

 

"2D" sucks... :pilot:

Ah, but I can use my "hat" switch to look left or right in the 2D cockpit (not that I ever do). What are the chances I get the last word?? I feel an irf coming on! I'll grab some TUMS:D

Just noticed my mistook in the other post. Don't know my IFR from IRF.

How about RFI...haven't used that term in about half a century! R&R with RFI (ready for issue) gear. Deck check 4.0 I just completed a MAF (maintenance action form).

I was I-Level, so our read "Bench check RFI IAW HSI". Ready For Issue, In Accordance With Handbook of Service Instructions. Usually preceded by "R&R'd (select part{s} name{s} here)".

Alternatively, we would put "BCM-7 IAW HSI". No good, off to Depot, usually for disposal. If we couldn't fix it, it was probably not fixable.

I can't recall how many thousands of parts got one of those statements written in the Corrective Action block of the MAF. More than lots! ;)

Egad, what a ton of scribbling I did. No computers in those days. At least if I had hunt-n-pecked the MAF it would have been legible. No wonder my handwriting is illegible now. I just got lazier and lazier...:p

Have fun, all!

Pat☺

How about RFI...haven't used that term in about half a century! R&R with RFI (ready for issue) gear.

RFI=Radio Frequency Interference :pilot:

IFR=I Follow [Roads|Rivers|Railroads] :confused:

IRF=Oof :cool:

FRI=Hot Grease Cooking

FIR=A type of tree

RIF=A Guitar Lick (needs another F??)/Reduction In Force :rolleyes:

I have a TrackIR and with the VC I can lean forward or back or left or right, raise up or hunker down, tilt my head, look up or down, look left right or any combination of all of these, and all without use of my hands, just move my head and, perhaps, torso if needed. On downwind I can look back at a 45º for a moment when in the pattern, then back straight ahead, or any other direction, even pause the view (makes it as if TrackIR weren't there, letting you use arrow keys, etc.), NONE of which is possible in the so-called 2D view.

 

This makes it more like flying in a real aircraft. But it does take a little practice to make it second nature.

 

"2D" sucks... :pilot:

Larry, we must continue this thread a little further imo. lol

Now, I sat at a friends house for hours with his P3D and TrackIR while he tried to convince me to switch from my 2D panels and FS9.

In real life, your eyes move with your head. When you sit there with eyes fixated on the screen in front of you while moving your head around, it just doesn't work for me.

To save time, regarding the 2D v VC debate, here is what I posted a while ago in another thread.

I like my view set to 100%. Less than this it is not what you would see if sitting in a cockpit looking out the window. It would be what you would see looking through the viewfinder of a camera and wide angle lens attached out a cockpit window.

If you set the view to 100% you will now only see a very small portion of the VC in front of you. In a VC, you have now lost all the peripheral vision you would have in a real life cockpit. In real life, it would be like holding up a toilet roll to your eye and sitting in the cockpit looking through that.

 

The best representation of a real cockpit is via a 2D panel imo. You can see a vast array of instruments in front of you, it simulates peripheral vision as you would have with the eye in a real cockpit and what you see outside is as real life. The ease of pushing buttons or flicking switches feels more realistic than scrolling around a VC.

 

A VC maybe gives a more realistic "general appearance" of a cockpit at maybe around 50% magnification. But at this magnification it doesn't represent a pilot's perspective. It looks like someone is filming inside the cockpit with a wide angle lens. The world outside is too far away and often the confines of a real cockpit are lost.

 

A 2D panel in aspects of operating, viewing instruments and representing what you would see out the real windows is most realistic imo. It best simulates the feel of flying a plane from a real cockpit. A VC simply feels and looks like you are playing a computer game not using a flight simulator.

FS2004 with 2D panels, that's how you flight sim, everything else is no good. :):pilot:

Larry, we must continue this thread a little further imo. lol

Apparently we must, Mark.

In real life, your eyes move with your head. When you sit there with eyes fixated on the screen in front of you while moving your head around, it just doesn't work for me.

In real life my eyes are NOT locked straight ahead with my head doing all the turning. They move in various ways, though coordinated with head movement. It takes a bit of getting used to, but most folks can soon adapt.

But in real life the scenery doesn't stay in one spot ahead of you, either, as it does in the sim, and you certainly don't see the panel stay straight ahead of you while looking in various directions, as if it were locked onto your head. And in real life you can see more in the cockpit than just an instrument panel. You can look up at an overhead panel (on aircraft so equipped), you can look down at the floor to check where the fuel lever is set, at the left side panel where throttles, trim, fuses and other things are located on various aircraft. Heck, in the Cub I used to have, you had to look up at each wing root to see the fuel gauges, to the right wing root for the master switch and lighting switches, at the left wing root to turn on or adjust the intercom, look at and reach down to the floor with your left hand to operate the flaps, and look at/reach to the left side of the cockpit to operate trim and carb heat.

Granted that I can't reach into the screen for each of those things, but with TrackIR in the VC I can at least look in those places and see appropriate views outside that help me know the aircraft attitude, even if I'm looking for more than a few seconds. AND, I rarely need to look at the panel since I fly by attitude and sound as much as anything, with an occasional quick glance at the panel if needed. This is true of both real life and of the sim.

The above, combined with a HOTAS so that I rarely have to take my hands off the stick and throttle, helps make the immersion more "real" to me. The various switches, etc. on the HOTAS are assigned to gear, flaps, view changes (if TrackIR is paused as it often is in spot view), trim, spoilers/dive brakes, prop and mixture controls and more are programmed to the HOTAS so that it's rare to need the keyboard.

So with TrackIR, VC and HOTAS I'm able to fly around with almost everything second nature, not having to think about it any more than I do in a real aircraft, for most things, thus the immersion is more complete.

But it does take a little time and practice to get things to that point, though for most folks it's not difficult.

FS9, FSX or P3D with TrackIR, VC (even shadows within the VC in P3D) and HOTAS is how you sim. "2D panel" is no good. :rolleyes:

it just doesn't work for me.

I had a friend with whom I flew multiplayer almost every weekend for over twenty years (we went back in real life flying twice that long) who couldn't seem to get used to it, either, so I know there are a few folks who have trouble with the adaptation. But he still used the VC quite a bit, though he also used the 2D. However he'd cobbled up a sort of HUD that sat at the bottom of the screen with a couple of "essentials" on it and flew with that a lot, too.

We did formation a lot, sometimes loose, sometimes tight (difficult when aircraft are sliding back and forth in relation to each other -- FSX solved that almost all the time), but we also just flew in the same vicinity, often low to the ground (sometimes skimming the treetops), and we sometimes shared a cockpit (try that in FS2004).

And we did all that while using the free/open source Mumble/Murmur to talk to each other (he was in Dallas, I'm in Denver) and share the experience. He was a real life pilot too, CFI, etc. with over 10,000 hours (real).

FS2004 has one big advantage, but we never went back after switching to FSX, because of its other advantages. That advantage is that we absolutely loved to land, switch aircraft and fly them for a while. We loved to change weather/time of day/night in the middle of a session. FSX had changed the multiplayer interface such that it was no longer possible, but the other advantages of FSX were too valuable to us to go back.

Apparently we must, Mark.

 

 

In real life my eyes are NOT locked straight ahead with my head doing all the turning. They move in various ways, though coordinated with head movement. It takes a bit of getting used to, but most folks can soon adapt.

 

But in real life the scenery doesn't stay in one spot ahead of you, either, as it does in the sim, and you certainly don't see the panel stay straight ahead of you while looking in various directions, as if it were locked onto your head. And in real life you can see more in the cockpit than just an instrument panel.

We will have to discuss ice cream flavors to maybe agree? Vanilla is good. Chocolate is bad.

Regarding what I quoted, yes, you move your head IRL but you also move your eyes. When you look at the overhead IRL, your eyes and head move up. When you do it with TrackIR, your eyes stay focused on the screen, they are always focused on the screen, you just move your head. Not exactly "as in IRL"

Take say the main panel as an example, IRL, it is there in front of you. Your eye moves to different areas you need to see. It's identical with a 2D panel, it's fixed and you move your eye to where you want to focus on. With a VC and TrackIR, you achieve this by moving your ahead around not your eyes, far less realistic imo.

Try looking at your overhead in a real aircraft as you do in FS. Your eyes stay glued to your screen in front of you when you look at the overhead in FS so IRL, you must keep them glued on the panel in front of you to replicate how you use FS. Now IRL turn your head to the overhead. Ahhh...you ain't going to see the overhead!

What you think of the new MSFS while we are going OT and no one is really complaining yet?

Imo, it is going to come out half game, half flight sim with ridiculous performance/running issues at least on average PC's.

The focus right now is on the masses, not just the simmers. That's why you have the pretty graphics and real world AI. The real world AI isn't going to be flexible in a flightsim for interacting with simulator aspects like ATC but it sure will be cool for the kid on his Xbox to say "Hey, that's exactly where the plane is in real life! WOW!"

I haven't changed my opinion since day 1. I don't think it will sell enough, they are not fully committing to flight simmers nor to the casual crowd. Sales will be below expectation and it'll get canned.

We will have to discuss ice cream flavors to maybe agree? Vanilla is good. Chocolate is bad.

Vanilla IS good, almost as good as Cherries Garcia... :cool:

What you think of the new MSFS while we are going OT and no one is really complaining yet?

Imo, it is going to come out half game, half flight sim with ridiculous performance/running issues at least on average PC's.

I don't know what to think yet. I'm purely in a wait and see mode, since it's pre-alpha and since few details are available about how it will really work. I do like the idea of MS getting back in the sim business if they'll do it "right." Maybe I'll actually have an opinion somewhere near this time next year.

Cheers...

Vanilla IS good, almost as good as Cherries Garcia... :cool:

89 posts to determine vanilla is good is a worthwhile thread. :pilot: