Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Thread: Why FSX over FS9?

  1. #1

    Default Why FSX over FS9?

    After many years of using FS9 and after many years since trying FSX, I have again loaded FSX.
    Why do people use it? I really don't understand?

    If you compare the sims head to head with equal content, airports look almost the same, other textures are not that different.
    FSX runs terribly. There are VAS and FPS issues galore. My system is better than what many FSX users run so if I'm getting these results, I can only imagine what some others are getting on lesser systems.
    If you put in high resolution textures, yes, the textures are sharper in FSX than FS9 but your FPS dies and your VAS goes through the roof.

    I'm struggling to find any real reasons to use FSX. There are a few planes that are only for FSX that I would like to fly or maybe an airport or two. In saying this, there are planes and airports I have in FS9 that are not available for FSX.

    I don't want to sound like I'm bashing FSX, I'm simply truly surprised why people have flocked to it in such great numbers. P3D would be the same.

    It's a sim that is torturous to run, the enjoyment factor disintegrates and it looks almost the same as FS9.

    I'll be happy if anyone can open my eyes to something I am missing?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    5 NM NE of EDXF
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    I may be missing something here, because I have never had FS9.

    FSX Acceleration is my game (sorry, should say simulation, certainly not a game) and my setup runs great. I am, however, leaning more and more towards P3D, which I also have, there aren't just that many freeware add-ons for it yet.

    Jorgen

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nv, USA.
    Posts
    4,405
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If you don’t get it, then stay with FS9.

    I asked this exact question way back when FSX was just released. After getting a pc capable of running FSX I made the switch and never looked back.
    Dell XPS X8300 Intel core i7-2600(3.4 GHZ,8 MB Cache) 8 GB memory 1.5 TB HDD 2 GB Nvidia 1050 ti graphics card Windows 7

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    17,093

    Default

    Why do we have to have threads/topics "this sim" vs "That sim"? Everyone likes the sim they have chosen. Wait till next year and there will be another one to praise/loathe!
    Mr Zippy Sent from my keyboard using "Whackamole", NudgeAKey + 2 Fingers

    Emachines T3418 AMD 3400+ processor 2GHZ/256KB L2 Cashe 2Gig Ram 160Gig HDD NVidia GEForce 6100 GPU Running WinXP Home Can't believe it still works! Running FSX Standard with SP1 and SP2

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrzippy View Post
    Why do we have to have threads/topics "this sim" vs "That sim"? Everyone likes the sim they have chosen. Wait till next year and there will be another one to praise/loathe!
    Sorry, not intending to start a "this sim v that sim" battle. I'm just mystified after again trying FSX.

    @kingnorris, my system can max out most modern games out there. i7 8700k, tonnes of ram and excellent GPU.
    I am going back to FS9. I just can't see the benefits of running FSX.

  6. #6

    Default

    Ever thought about the support and 3rd party add-ons potential (especially payware)? And the graphics, too. And its newer, relatively. Can't think of much else. I, too, was a keen FS2004 user and then just made the switch. If FSX is proving a challenge to get to behave well, then opt for FSX SE, or better still go for a further development of FSX: P3D V4.
    Asus P8Z77-V Premium Mobo w\32GB MSATA Caching SSD On-Board | i7-3770K CPU | 16GB DDR3 1600 | FSX Gold on 1TB boot SSD | P3Dv4 on 512MB SSD | 1TB+2TB WD HDDs | 2 Asus GTX660 2GB Ti Cu cards w\SLI | Win7 Pro 64 | REX Full Catalogue | ORBX FTX Full Catalogue | Saitek Flight Control Pro w\Dual Throttle Quadrants+Pedals | 24"+2x19" HP Monitors | 1000W PSU


  7. Default

    I could not part with all the POSKY aircraft I installed and the "Century of Flight" aircraft.

    ORBX scenery and advanced modeled aircraft is not available for FS9.

    You don't have to choose one or the other...for Pete's sake's keep them BOTH!

    Hell, I also have FS2000 Professional Edition installed.
    Gigabyte GA-X99 Gaming G1, i7-5960X, Noctua NH-D14, Crucial Ballistix Elite 64gb 2666, Nvidia GTX Titan X, Creative ZxR, WD Black SN750 NVMe 250Gb and 1Tb, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM, PC Power & Cooling 1200w, Cosmos C700M, Logitech M570/K800 Wireless Trackball/Keyboard, Windows 7 64 Ultimate

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,876

    Default

    FSX runs terribly. There are VAS and FPS issues galore. My system is better than what many FSX users run so if I'm getting these results, I can only imagine what some others are getting on lesser systems.
    FSX runs better on my I7 machine that I bought new in 2010 than your description implies that you see on your newer and supposedly more powerful system. And I have lots of ORBX and other stuff.

    However I've been running P3D V2.4 also, for the last several years, and I get better performance with it than with FSX.

    There are VAS and FPS issues galore.
    With FSX I've never seen VAS issues that I could identify as such, and yes, if you're around big cities there are FPS issues, especially if you try to run everything maxed, but in more rural areas (where ORBX really shines) I typically can get FPS in the mid-20s with mid-settings for display. And this is quite sufficient for me to have a smooth animation in most cases, down low with mostly light aircraft (I almost never fly the airliners, and only occasionally a trainer or fighter jet). Also, note that some aircraft are very demanding in their drain on the system, while others are much lighter, so I'll often choose a lighter load that still looks good and (with a friend's mods) flies very well indeed.

    my system can max out most modern games out there.
    That's apples and oranges. Any of the MS FS descendents are doing a LOT more processing than the "games" people play, and FSX (and FS9, for that matter) was built before using the graphics card to any extent was incorporated. P3D DOES use the graphics card extensively, even in the earlier versions, so performance is considerably improved.

    Bottom line, though, is use whatever you want, and don't worry about other folks' choices -- your own choice is good for you.

    Larry N.

    As Skylab would say:
    Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max50 View Post
    After many years of using FS9 and after many years since trying FSX, I have again loaded FSX.
    Why do people use it? I really don't understand?

    If you compare the sims head to head with equal content, airports look almost the same, other textures are not that different.
    FSX runs terribly. There are VAS and FPS issues galore. My system is better than what many FSX users run so if I'm getting these results, I can only imagine what some others are getting on lesser systems.
    If you put in high resolution textures, yes, the textures are sharper in FSX than FS9 but your FPS dies and your VAS goes through the roof.

    I'm struggling to find any real reasons to use FSX. There are a few planes that are only for FSX that I would like to fly or maybe an airport or two. In saying this, there are planes and airports I have in FS9 that are not available for FSX.

    I don't want to sound like I'm bashing FSX, I'm simply truly surprised why people have flocked to it in such great numbers. P3D would be the same.

    It's a sim that is torturous to run, the enjoyment factor disintegrates and it looks almost the same as FS9.

    I'll be happy if anyone can open my eyes to something I am missing?

    Never could figure it out either. I’ve recently gone back to FSX from FS9, with Orbx textures, airports etc, Rex and other texture related stuff, and hate it. Not the performance (reasonable) or VAS ( zero,issues).

    It just looks terrible. I’ve been trying to get as many Fs9 textures - sky, cloud, ground, water, - Into fsx as I could and it just doesn’t look the same. fsx version 2 - p3d - doesn’t look any better.

    And you’re right, I have some airports that can install into both, and all look better in Fs9. The colours and contrast in Fs9 were much better. More a real earth feel. MS stuffed up majorly with fsx and LM bought the same dud system with P3d.

    I moved onto FS9 and never looked back.

  10. Default

    I was not going to post in this thread, but I'm bored so I'll just state my peace and probably unsubscribe if the comments become asinine.

    I started off in FS2004 and I still have its backup on multiple hard drives and on a 50 GB Blu-ray disk. Then I saw lots of eye candy with FSX on YouTube and saw what the PMDG 737NGX was capable of in FSX and ORBX, etc. Then there's the moving cars which adds to the realism. So I migrated to FSX.

    The VAS issues can be combated and I have a link about that in my signature. I have myself encountered an OOM issue flying into NY and I fixed that by using the Scenery Config Tool and disabled a large amount of my add-ons to fly into NY with my NY add-on installed which sucked the life out of memory.

    As to FSX being slow, that depends on your CPU in large part. Both FS2004 and FSX are CPU orientated games and are single threaded to boot. I lock my FPS to 25 in the options and for a good 95% of the time in FSX my frames stay at 25. They will tend to drop if I fly into Mexico City, NY or an FSDreamteam airport. But by in large my frames are pretty decent and 25 is all you need. You should never just crank the slider all the way to the right. I can and have done that for testing, but it was not needed at all. And by doing that you're putting extra strain on the already taxed CPU. Then one should not just crank all the other options up as well and expect great performance. I use moderate settings and so far I'm a happy flyer with little to no error.

    My forum project. Click me
    OOM errors? Read this.
    Pick an Amazon wish list, help a child out
    From RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV, look for the orange glow of a SAM.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why FS9 over FSX?
    By Mafoo in forum FS2004
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 12:57 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 12:14 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 10:41 AM
  4. Eaglesoft Aircraft in FS9 - Why Oh Why?
    By draky in forum FS2004
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-04-2003, 12:40 AM
  5. Why...Why...Why
    By mlavin80 in forum FS2002
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-17-2002, 12:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •