Jump to content

Why FSX over FS9?


Max50

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

CLX - SET Gaming Desktop - Intel Core i9 10850K - 32GB DDR4 3000GHz Memory - GeForce RTX 3060 Ti - 960GB SSD + 4TB HDD - Windows 11 Home
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!:confused:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, Nvidia GTX Titan X, Creative ZxR, Ableconn PEXM2-130, WD Black SN750 250Gb & 2Tb NVMe/Gold 10Tb HDD, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM, PC Power & Cooling 1200w, Cosmos C700M, Noctua iPPC 140mm x6, Logitech M570/K800, WinX64 7 Ultimate/10 Pro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

If you cant appreciate the benefits of running a sim released in 2006 with one that was released in 2003 and made wrong assumptions about the way hardware development was going than I'm afraid we can't help.

 

I use P3D, my version of which was released in 2018 and optimised for todays' hardware and makes FS9 look and run like a childs toy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like some aspects of both sims. I like the historic flights on FS9, as well as some of the planes, ie the Wright brothers flyer that you don't have on FSX. David Grindell (I hope I got his name right) is converting a lot of the FS9 planes so that they will run on FSX. Ford Tri Motor, Jenny, Spirit of St.

Louis, to name a few. I like the graphics better on FSX. If you have to reinstall either sim, FS9 is

easier to do so. FSX was a real bear for me to reinstall. I has to talk to somebody in India or somewhere over seas to help with the installation. Like one of the guys said previously, fly the one you like. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max50, thanks for starting a civil discussion on the merits of different sims. I am flying FS9, but I am sometimes tempted to start again with FSX or P3D, or, I am told X-plane is very good. So it always useful to get other people's opinions. As things stand, I think I'll wait and see what MS come up with, but it will have to be very impressive if it is to replace 15 years of add-on aircraft and scenery!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is whats cool about them all, its a hobby that gives you enjoyment. I have enjoyed all of MS FS's from my old copy of FS98 and on. I have FSX Dlx boxed with both SP1 & 2. I also have FSX-SE, X-Plane 9 all installed. I find myself flying FSX boxed mostly and enjoy it. So as it goes your love for FS9 is a great thing and works for your enjoyment.

Have fun and Happy :pilot: Flyin'

 

(KJAX & KORF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought FSX:SE the day it first came out. I was curious to see what all the excitement was about FSX in general, and SE in particular, and I figured that for $5.00, I couldn't go wrong. If I didn't like it, for whatever reason, I could get rid of it, with a minimal loss of cash. The cost of a hamburger, let's say.

I haven't looked back yet. My big fun "thing" in it is doing Naval Ops of various sorts. Carrier landings under different conditions, the various fast movers the Navy has/is using, etc. I even got roped into the project of improving, updating, and adding to, a very popular and well designed F/A-18. I am having a ball with it.

Best for me are the moving carriers, as well as the helicopter/VTOL sling loads I can pick up and set down, hopefully gently, some place. The deck of a moving destroyer, an airport, an oil rig, heck, a logging camp someplace deep in a virgin forest someplace, whatever.

 

So far I have had a total of ONE, single, solitary OOM CTD. I'm happy with my choice. I could probably go to P3D, but with my very limited income, that's not happening any time soon. So says my beautiful, loving wife, so thus it shall be. A $5.00 sim is a lot different than a $50.00 some-odd one. At least in my little world...

 

There's my 2 cents worth...

In my opinion, and yes, I know what those are worth, use the one you enjoy. After all, isn't that the whole point? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or argue that this is better than that, in any way. Just throwing my thoughts out there to see what sticks. After all, I get so few any more...

 

Have fun, all!

Pat☺

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Had a thought...then there was the smell of something burning, and sparks, and then a big fire, and then the lights went out! I guess I better not do that again!

Sgt, USMC, 10 years proud service, Inactive reserve now :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run both because I have both. Nothing wrong with either one IMHO.I have a I7, 16 Gigs ram with a 8gig video card so I could run P3D 4. I seem to always stray back to FSX or FS9.

To think back in the days with Sublogic FS running on my C64 and halfway thru the flight to MVY......Loading...Loading....Loading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought FSX:SE the day it first came out. I was curious to see what all the excitement was about FSX in general, and SE in particular, and I figured that for $5.00, I couldn't go wrong. If I didn't like it, for whatever reason, I could get rid of it, with a minimal loss of cash. The cost of a hamburger, let's say.

I haven't looked back yet.

 

My experience was exactly the opposite. I was happy with FS9 but bought FSX when it became available, and did extensive side-by-side comparisons of the two programs in which identical situations (aircraft, locations, weather, etc.) were directly compared. It was clear that FSX is not just better, but far superior in every way, than FS9. The FSX scenery in particular, especially on or near the ground, blew me away and still does -- and this is the default! With add-ons such as Ultimate Terrain, even more so. Same with performance of the aircraft, smoothness, and everything else. Why some folks still think FS9 is better is an enduring mystery to me, but at any rate that's my story. I, too, have never looked back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience was exactly the opposite. I was happy with FS9 but bought FSX when it became available, and did extensive side-by-side comparisons of the two programs in which identical situations (aircraft, locations, weather, etc.) were directly compared. It was clear that FSX is not just better, but far superior in every way, than FS9. The FSX scenery in particular, especially on or near the ground, blew me away and still does -- and this is the default! With add-ons such as Ultimate Terrain, even more so. Same with performance of the aircraft, smoothness, and everything else. Why some folks still think FS9 is better is an enduring mystery to me, but at any rate that's my story. I, too, have never looked back.

 

My apologies! I misinterpreted Phantom Tweak's post (could old age be an excuse?). Looks like we are very much in agreement about FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had FS98, FS2002 and then FS2004. I bought FSX Gold (Acceleration) and had to wait a year ($) to get an i7 PC. In that year I determined that I was going to master (?) FSX Accel even if it took 400 four hour sessions. I now believe MS put it out there to test our mettle. We showed them! I get 30 fps, love the carriers (F18), the improved models, etc. But I still have ACOF which only yesterday found out was not 9.1 so I dnld it and get 60 fps. So the MS 'junk' sims will test your nerves and make you spend $ to get a better pc. Why did I not stay with FS9? Ah? That's right! It's crazy! So I wonder just what 'TYPE' of insanity this is, and if me being 'crazy' helped (hehe). MS coming out with FS2020 isn't going to bother me too much as I ain't giving MS anything- not ONE MORE stinking copper PENNY!!!!

Chuck B

Napamule

i7 2600K @ 3.4 Ghz (Turbo-Boost to 3.877 Ghz), Asus P8H67 Pro, Super Talent 8 Gb DDR3/1333 Dual Channel, XFX Radeon R7-360B 2Gb DDR5, Corsair 650 W PSU, Dell 23 in (2048x1152), Windows7 Pro 64 bit, MS Sidewinder Precision 2 Joy, Logitech K-360 wireless KB & Mouse, Targus PAUK10U USB Keypad for Throttle (F1 to F4)/Spoiler/Tailhook/Wing Fold/Pitch Trim/Parking Brake/Snap to 2D Panel/View Change. Installed on 250 Gb (D:). FS9 and FSX Acceleration (locked at 30 FPS).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I stuck with FS2004 for many reasons, the main one being that it just works, and I can spend more time simming than tweaking.

As I'm not into the Boeings & Bus's, there are far more low's and slow's for FS2004 than any other sim.

Some of the wonderful addons we have are from Milton Shupe & team, the Bill Lyons commection and many others, that are not available for other sims.

Scenery, that's not available for other sims. My home country is South Africa, so I'm using freeware Aeroworx scenery, together with suitable aircraft, Avro Shackleton, Albatros, Impala, as well as SAAF paints for Ventura's and others.

 

Another big feature with FS2004 is that I can have multiple installs to reduce loading time and scenery conflicts. I have 8 themed installs, ranging from Golden Wings, Alaska, a Space install, a Vintage install, a Heritage install, a Ford Tri-Motor install using all of the Late Garry Smiths aircraft, paints and scenery, including sloping runways and ramps, as well as an install for our sim club, so we all have the same scenery and aircraft. So, it's all about immersion.

 

Thanks to all those developers who still support FS2004.

Oh, and of course, us FS2004'ers don't have to keep on upgrading our hardware to get good simming results.. We are using a 4 year old Celeron, 4gb ram, integrated graphics, to get over 30fps in our built up Avro Shackleton, Harvard and MB326 simulators.

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why some folks still think FS9 is better is an enduring mystery to me, but at any rate that's my story. I, too, have never looked back.

 

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.

 

Microsoft stuffed up big time with fsx and LM bought a dud product to flog. And had taken 2067 updates to make it almost reasonable to consider. Almost.

 

Fs9 was truly the last of the great flight simulators. Maybe FS2020 will be acceptable. But I can’t see it with the fake gamer crowd to appeal to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the new world textures available, fsx is a joke.

 

I think there are a couple of things to add here. Certainly the overall look of the sim can be changed much more in FS9 than it can in FSX. That makes a big difference if you flight sim long term and wish to keep it's visual variety and appeal fresh.

 

The other thing I noticed from the comments, 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.

 

Finally, as you turn FSX settings down from full as it appears nearly everyone has to do, you are closing the gap difference between FSX and FS9 drastically.

 

There are many reasons to use FS9 even today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FS2004 was probably my favorite version with its historical aspect. I had really hoped/liked FSX when it came out but like many was disappointed in the performance so I moved on. But with my PC today I can easily run FS2004 or FSX maxed (have both installed). Now FSX has the edge. I can easily port over items from FS2004 into FSX and there is still new scenery available for FSX. Now I can enjoy FSX as it was probably originally intended.

 

Clutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...