Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 89

Thread: Why FSX over FS9?

  1. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lnuss View Post
    What's been the view -- I'm unable to see what you are talking about. Perhaps your statement would be more meaningful if you gave us more concrete information (perhaps comparison pix or something).

    I got FSX when it first came out (and I still have it), and it was a decided improvement over FS9. Were you perhaps comparing FS9 as you had it with all your add-ons to FSX bare bones? Then, and only then, can I concede there was some degree of improvement, but then it would depend on the add-ons.

    Basically people saying FSX was worse than FS9 are beating a dead horse if they cannot show us a default to default comparison to prove it.

    If all you're saying is that you had performance problems initially when switching, then I can certainly understand that, since FSX prefers a more powerful system, but compare mid-level sliders and settings to mid-level sliders and settings (as an example) for the default features, textures, etc. of each in order to get a proper comparison. Don't give us an "apples-to-oranges" comparison.

    Been done years ago.

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

    I spend most of my time trying to bring fsx up to Fs9 standards but give up. Just not going to happen.
    The best B200 king air, 737NG, 741/742, 744, 748, DC-10 and who knows what else are on Fs9.

    My fsx grows cobwebs.

  2. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSMR View Post
    Been done years ago.

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

    I spend most of my time trying to bring fsx up to Fs9 standards but give up. Just not going to happen.
    The best B200 king air, 737NG, 741/742, 744, 748, DC-10 and who knows what else are on Fs9.

    My fsx grows cobwebs.
    All I can say is, this is just nonsense. I have been an FSX user since it first appeared 12 years ago, at which time I abandoned FS9 and never looked back. With add-ons such as UT, GEX, and others, FSX is so far superior to FS9 there really is no comparison. Horrible bland scenery? You must be joking (or trolling). Ridiculous.

  3. Default

    It was interesting to read the P3D and X-Plane bash fest over at the other site. Of course the other site doesn't like anything that does not demonstrate the site and membership as being "A happy bunch of coconuts!" so the threads were soon deleted.

    Of particular interest, were the complaints that applied to those sims but did not apply to FS9. There were quite a few. What came out there was the plain old truth from P3D and X-Plane users as they are all convinced they will never need these sims again. The new MSFS will be their future.

    FS9 holds it's own. As has been mentioned in this thread, you need to compare a FS9 run today against FSX, not one that you might have left 12 years ago, never touched since and use that for comparison.

    I won't add any more to the discussion but in 10 years from now, I still think there may be a good possibility I'll be using FS9. As for the new MSFS, I'll be fascinated to see how many, and how quickly, people run back to their old sims.
    Mark Daniels

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,901

    Default

    FS9 holds it's own. As has been mentioned in this thread, you need to compare a FS9 run today against FSX, not one that you might have left 12 years ago, never touched since and use that for comparison.
    Excuse me. What has changed in "today's" FS9, OTHER THAN the various ADD-ONS that are available? No one but NO ONE has explained that so that I can understand it. Those contending that FS9 is better merely make the statement, but have given NO evidence I have come across. And saying that FSX is dull, lifeless, whatever derogatory remark doesn't make it so. I, along with a number of others here, haven't seen it that way at all. SHOW ME!

    And if you are comparing FS9 with today's available add-ons, then you MUST use FSX with today's available add-ons as a point of comparison, or else you ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. Let's have a fair comparison, people.

    ======================

    I don't have a problem with folks telling me they like the FS9 WITH IT'S ADD-ONS better than FSX, but be honest.

    Larry N.

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

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lnuss View Post
    And if you are comparing FS9 with today's available add-ons, then you MUST use FSX with today's available add-ons as a point of comparison, or else you ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. Let's have a fair comparison, people.
    This is exactly what was given, a fair comparison. Re-read the thread, it's been clearly stated. If you want to summarize the thread in a couple of lines:

    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.

    Both sims are old, same generation. You can take the one with headaches and frustration but slightly better visuals or you can take the hassle free one and sacrifice a little on the visuals. Simply depends what you want.

    I happily sacrifice the little advantage FSX gives in visuals for the ability to just flight sim without restriction or hassle.
    Mark Daniels

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lnuss View Post
    Excuse me. What has changed in "today's" FS9, OTHER THAN the various ADD-ONS that are available?
    Apart from add-ons, what else makes FSX better than FS9??? There is virtually no difference.
    It's the add-ons that make both sims.

    You compare them with all their add-ons and then evaluate how they look and perform and pick the one that works best for you.

    Edit: To compare both, you need both with their settings maxed out. You can easily do this with FS9, most people can't with FSX.
    You don't have to turn FSX settings down a great deal before your visual advantage over FS9 is gone. There are many running FSX like this. They are putting up with all the FSX problems and don't realize their sim looks worse than a hassle free FS9 would on their system.
    Last edited by Skywatcher12; 10-21-2019 at 10:15 PM.
    Mark Daniels

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,901

    Default

    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 N.

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

  8. Default

    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
    Mark Daniels

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,901

    Default

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

    Larry N.

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

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lnuss View Post
    Sounds good. BTW, I prefer a VC...
    Haha...VC's do suck I'm afraid
    Mark Daniels

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why FS9 over FSX?
    By Mafoo in forum FS2004
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 01:57 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 01:14 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 11:41 AM
  4. Eaglesoft Aircraft in FS9 - Why Oh Why?
    By draky in forum FS2004
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-04-2003, 01:40 AM
  5. Why...Why...Why
    By mlavin80 in forum FS2002
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-17-2002, 01:37 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
  •