Comparisons

[kerke 0]

A question related to FS9 and FSX: I have a decent (just decent) Dell machine with Vista Ultimate and FSX. FSX performance is not that good on my machine. QUESTION: Is it possible to install FS9 on (1) Vista Ultimate and (2) will FS9 replace or have any conflict with my FSX? Do I need to uninstall FSX before installing FS9?There are a few FS9 aircraft with no FSX counterparts (the 421C Golden Eagle comes to mind) that I'd like to fly. Besides, my machine specs should be quite good for FS9 performance.Thank youKerke

[BrzI 26]

They work fine side by side. The only problem I had was when I unintsalled FSX it also removed some FS9 registry settings. This was easily fixed by running AFCAD adn pointing to the FS9 executable. Aside from that I had to re-activate FS9 Active camera.That's it. And if you do not plan on removing either you will really have no problem.I would recommend setting the FS9.exe compatibility to XP SP2. Not sure if it will make a difference but it will not make anything worse either.

[B777ER 2,484]

I agree with Hornit...FS9 is the way to go for me as well until FS11 comes out. I take his perspective with a little more juice behind it than I do others as his RW job allows him to see it for real.;-)

[virtualstuff 754]

>A question related to FS9 and FSX: I have a decent (just>decent) Dell machine with Vista Ultimate and FSX. FSX>performance is not that good on my machine. QUESTION: Is it>possible to install FS9 on (1) Vista Ultimate and (2) will FS9>replace or have any conflict with my FSX? Do I need to>uninstall FSX before installing FS9?>>There are a few FS9 aircraft with no FSX counterparts (the>421C Golden Eagle comes to mind) that I'd like to fly.>Besides, my machine specs should be quite good for FS9>performance.>>Thank you>>Kerke>Actually running both on Vista Ultimate...However Vista need some tweaks and service adjustments and then with the latest updates it runs great and stable... (all necessary hot fixes are already downloaded via windows update when you run it now)You have to switch of some services that will drag the performance down on Vista... see the site of blackviper if you need an overview what to turn off...Despite all the tweaks sites on the net take this advice form a professional never turn of superfetch ;-)Just install FS9 outside the program files directory and you will be fine without any conflicts...Make sure to run in Win XP SP2 compatibility mode and runs as administrator or to make life simple just be the administrator :-lolMy performance is at least now the same as on Windows XP :-) Also Vista is very happy running with 4 gb in dual channel mode despite the 32 bit version can't address more then 3gb ;-)Merry Christmas and a happy New Year guys in whatever sim you may enjoy the passion of aviation I will do in both flying and development ;-) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[DC10 1]

actually I found it very hard to find out which screenshots of the pairs were from FSX - I honestly could not tell, until I looked at them for more than 30 seconds. So in that case I think there isn't much of an improvement in FSX shown from these screenshots..I mean, to be fair with FSX, there are improvements, but not much are evident from these screenshots. Which brings me to my second point - if from a visual perspective, the difference isn't particularly great - i find it very hard to justify a purchase of the new sim and the investment involved with a new PC system that is capable of running it smoothly - at least for the moment (my computer at the moment certainly would NOT be able to handle FSX). I would rather wait until a point in which I am confident that there are hardware and graphic cards available to run FSX smoothly 100% of the time (30 fps+), not to mention more add-ons.

[Guest Coneman]

I was very excited about the release of FSX, and tried very hard to like it when the demo came out. But the more screenshots I saw, the less I was inclined to use it. A show stopper for me was how they transitioned the textures. It looks like a case of measles. Also the airports seem to be more "pasted on" and not blending in as well as FS9. Overall, a lot of the terrain seems cartoonish. Granted, I think FSX looks marvelous up high, but that's not enough for me.

[kerke 0]

>Just install FS9 outside the program files directory and you>will be fine without any conflicts...A couple of questions for the FSim experts:[1] What happens if I install FS9 under "C:Program Files..."? I am running Windows Vista Ultimate (as Administrator) and my current FSX is installed on "C:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesMicrosoft Flight Simulator X...". I'm just curious and trying to understand why should I installed FS9 anywhere other than under the installer default location.[2] Is there a fail-safe instructions manual anywhere for installing and running both FSX and FS9 on the same Vista machine?[3] Are there different versions of FS2004 the same way there are of FSX? The stores I've gone to only carry only one version of FS2004 and they all sell it for around $20. Should I get that or should I look for a Professional version of FS2004? I had FS2004 years ago but I lost my computer and software and now I don't remember how FS9 was shipped. Thank you all for sharing your ideas and have a happy holiday,Kerke

[Guest sidideas]

Hello! I was just browsing through the forums looking for FSX related threads, and this time i just could not hold back. This is getting kinda emotional!! and you do not have to agree with me...i'm going to pour out my view on Flight simulator X.FSX is not worth what it is...you can argue about the matter but that is the plain truth. Maybe you are a sim fanatic and you're thinking 'Arrgh, i love FSX'. Then again, most probably you are the kind of person who would buy a new copy of the "nth" flight simulator series no matter what...but that is besides the point. It doesn't matter what super PC you build/purchase, FSX is not up to the standards of today (look at other titles released in other game categories i.e. Crysis, World in Conflict e.t.c). Some might even argue that you cannot compare FS to action, adventure games and such. But remember, you are running these other so-called games on your same new rig and they look undeniably ridiculously 'cool'.You cannot 'force' users to beef up their systems for minor 'cheap' improvements..it just doesn't cut it. To gloss over 3D techniques in use today like 'Light-related' and real-time soft Shadows/shading is a very *VERY* bad idea albeit a deadly one. Have you ever imagined what FSX would look like provided they would have just re-written the light algorithm part of the FS engine? Shadows and light play a MAJOR role in our sense of perception and the MS guys STILL don't seem to get it...How about my aircraft's shadow running through the clouds with me? What if the beacon lights illuminated all objects around me at night (or dark moody enviroments), especially metallic ones? Exciting? What if the landing lights also had that "rainbow ring glow" around them if you looked directly at my aircraft from outside? That instead of the white triangle we have today? This is Flight "S-I-M-U-L-A-T-O-R", remember?I usually scrutinize new iterations of FS very carefully. After perusing numerous forums and watching(YouTube) FSX videos, decided i was not going to purchase FSX. Flight Simulator is about simulating "flying" not "Ouu" and Aargh" of eye-candy slideshows. I see no improvements.From a high-level view, of course, there has been a couple of great ideas thrown into the box e.g(Tower controller feature), cinematic views. But this does not warranty a user to go out and build/purchase a 4GB RAM, Dual/Quad processor, ATI/Geforce 8 Series Video card. Just consider the money/energy put into that, and what you get back...Flight simulator is a huge project, and i have always thought that they should prioritize what should be improved by thinking from the end users point of view, and not just adding features. If you were given a camcorder today to record real flights and compare to Flight Simulator, what would stick out the most?

[airlinejets 709]

This happens every time MS comes out with a new version of their Flightsim. I think most people don't realize the potential of this new version. The real downside is that you will need to get a new computer to run this sim to it's full potential.To get a glimpse of what's on the horizon, you only need to look at these;http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/http://www.flightterrain.com/FS9 was great, but I needed a new puter anyways...:)Michel T

[Guest hmswarspite]

Am I the only one tiring of this argument? I don't understand this need to "prove" one version superior to the other. If you like FS9 - great. If you like FSX great. If you like playing Super Mario Brothers, great. Go forth. Have fun. That's what is all about. But I for one am really tired folks bashing one sim or another in these threads, frankly, it seems, just so they can show how smart they are or how cleverly disdainful they can be. Out. Colin in PDX

[BrzI 26]

>Am I the only one tiring of this argument? >>I don't understand this need to "prove" one version superior>to the other. >>If you like FS9 - great. If you like FSX great. If you like>playing Super Mario Brothers, great. Go forth. Have fun.>That's what is all about. >>But I for one am really tired folks bashing one sim or another>in these threads, frankly, it seems, just so they can show how>smart they are or how cleverly disdainful they can be. >>Out. >>Colin in PDXHi Colin, I think you miss the point. Most people here would eagerly switch to another (newer) FS version if they saw something that would make them think : " Hey, that is very new and super cool ".Unfortunately, FSX looks just new and not overly cool. When you compound that with the money that some of us spent to get FS9 to where it is now it simply is not worth the investment (not to mention new hardware).Yes, time will make this argument go away. In a year, most of us will have new hardware. We will not have purchased any 3rd party add-ons and would have the itch to spend again.My baseline argument is this : Stop developing software for the sake of making money. This applies to OS (Vista vs XP), Office Suites (2003 vs 2007), 3+3 versions of Age of Empires etc. Microsoft is the developer that comes to mind but that is just because they are the biggest so that behaviour is expected. The whole industry (and our culture) is guilty of this.I work in IT and I honestly think that new software is almost being produced for it's own sake - not because it really brings something new. Yes, that keeps people employed but how far do we go ?Hope you get my gist :-)

[Erauflyboy88 0]

I've been a flight simmer for about 7 years and I've always browsed and read through the forum but never did I felt the need to comment on a thread; that is till now. I've witnessed the come and go of every sim since 2000 and never have I heard so much negative feedback on the latest version of Flight Simulator. I too have been trying real hard to like and enjoy FSX but even in my super PC (with 4GB RAM, 3.2GHz Quad Core processor, 768MB Nvidia 8800 GTX Graphics) it lags, therefore failing to deliver what I think I should be getting based on my PC and the cash I spent on FSX. FS9 on the other hand runs as smooth as a baby's butt cheeks while its maxed to the gods. lol! A lot of people have told me that FSX runs just as well as FS9 with lower display settings. To me that sounds oxymoronic! lol, Why would I want to run FSX with settings to make it look like FS9 when I could just run FS9 with my addons and even still get better performance? :D I am an Embry-Riddle pilot and student, therefore I am around many flight simmers and fellow pilots, and the majority say they are unhappy with FSX. It's tough to get adapted to a newer game that give you less performance when you're already used to smoothness. As virtual pilots we need an equal balance of performance, quality, and realism. My personal opinion is that Microsoft is not paying much attention to the feedback of the Flight Sim community because if they were, we wouldn't have so many complaints and discussion about which one is better. I expected FSX to make me not want to look back at its predecessor (FS9), but I found it doing the exact opposite. It is true that FSX brought a lot amazing features such as the ATC ability, traffic on the roads, great water reflections, etc... but all is pointless if you can barely run it because it nearly crashes your system. Like someone else mentioned, "We don't want a slide show we want a realistic simulator." The buildings, houses, and roads don't seem to be any drastically different either. I highly think that Microsoft ignored the hardcore flight simmer's needs and wants hence why the majority of us are unpleased. Now to those that like FSX, then I am glad it did it for you, and that your money was well spent. But based on what I've read since FSX came out, it didn't it do it for most of us.

[tf51d 284]

>I've been a flight simmer for about 7 years and I've always>browsed and read through the forum but never did I felt the>need to comment on a thread; that is till now. I've witnessed>the come and go of every sim since 2000 and never have I heard>so much negative feedback on the latest version of Flight>Simulator. I too have been trying real hard to like and enjoy>FSX but even in my super PC (with 4GB RAM, 3.2GHz Quad Core>processor, 768MB Nvidia 8800 GTX Graphics) it lags, therefore>failing to deliver what I think I should be getting based on>my PC and the cash I spent on FSX. FS9 on the other hand runs>as smooth as a baby's butt cheeks while its maxed to the gods.>lol! A lot of people have told me that FSX runs just as well>as FS9 with lower display settings. To me that sounds>oxymoronic! lol, Why would I want to run FSX with settings to>make it look like FS9 when I could just run FS9 with my addons>and even still get better performance? :D Whoa there! Now your spreading misinformation, At the sparsest settings in FSX, it's more detailed than a maxed out FS9. On my "Super Computer" (Specs below) I get mid 20's FPS with every aircraft except the more complex aircraft like LDS, PMDG and Captain Sim, and those I could get around 18-20 around JFK, New York City, and much higher everywhere else I fly. This is with most sliders to the right, except Autogen set to dense Water at 2xLow, aircraft shadows, No Ground shadows though or bloom or lens flare, weather settings maxed with ASX weather. and 100% Airline traffic with a large mix of WOAI and UT traffic. I also now use UTUSAX and GEX. I also got similar results with just slightly lower frames obviously on my previous system which I lost in a lightning strike. That was a E6700 stock, 2GB mem and ATI X1950XTX crossfires. So if your system is lagging with your specs, which are higher than mine, I suggest you look more towards your configuration rather than blaming FSX. That being said, people who do have lesser performing systems then we're lucky to have may have trouble with FSX at these settings, but they should be able to get a reasonable performance just by reducing some settings which will still be more detailed than FS9, except maybe with photo real scenery. You can see examples of the performance I get on my youtube videos below. http://youtube.com/profile?user=tf51d(No music videos)EDIT: Only the last 3 757 videos was done on my current system, the rest was on the E6700 at 2.66Ghz!

[Erauflyboy88 0]

>Whoa there! Now your spreading misinformation, At the sparsest>settings in FSX, it's more detailed than a maxed out FS9. On>my "Super Computer" (Specs below) I get mid 20's FPS with>every aircraft except the more complex aircraft like LDS,>PMDG and Captain Sim, and those I could get around 18-20>around JFK, New York City, and much higher everywhere else I>fly. This is with most sliders to the right, except Autogen>set to dense Water at 2xLow, aircraft shadows, No Ground>shadows though or bloom or lens flare, weather settings maxed>with ASX weather. and 100% Airline traffic with a large mix of>WOAI and UT traffic. I also now use UTUSAX and GEX. I also got>similar results with just slightly lower frames obviously on>my previous system which I lost in a lightning strike. That>was a E6700 stock, 2GB mem and ATI X1950XTX crossfires. So if>your system is lagging with your specs, which are higher than>mine, I suggest you look more towards your configuration>rather than blaming FSX. That being said, people who do have>lesser performing systems then we're lucky to have may have>trouble with FSX at these settings, but they should be able to>get a reasonable performance just by reducing some settings>which will still be more detailed than FS9, except maybe with>photo real scenery. You can see examples of the performance I>get on my youtube videos below. >>http://youtube.com/profile?user=tf51d>>(No music videos)>>EDIT: Only the last 3 757 videos was done on my current>system, the rest was on the E6700 at 2.66Ghz!>Like I said if FSX did it for you, well I am happy your money was well spent. 20fps is not enough for me when I am used to 35-60 on FS9 maxed to the gods. Now I can pull 20+ fps in a heart beat in my "super computer," however I am not satisfied. And you very well said it, the NICE add-ons and autogen decrease your frame-rates and that you don't have autogen (which to me is a VERY important key to realism) all the way. Now if that tickles you in the right way, then awesome! :-) but it just doesn't do it for me. I also think you missed the point, my purpose was not to inform you about my system and how FSX ran on it, it was to express my opinion on how FSX is not what I expected it to be. Besides, based on the money I've spent on FS9 and the way it runs on my system I feel happy an joyous. The places I fly to have superior sceneries that are far better than FSX. Once again point is, FSX is not what most expected. I wasn't misinforming anyone because from the beginning I said "I think" meaning it was my opinion. By the way nice videos.

[victorwest2 0]

Sorry but I really fail to see what the purpose of threads like this is unless to use up some of the Avsim bandwidth - and I would have said that even if the screenshots were to show that FSX is much better than FS9. It's over a year since FSX came outWe all know that some people love itWe all know that some people don't.Why oh why do we have to have threads keep popping up written by people who think they are saying something new (either pro or anti FSX)? It bores me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.PS: If I see another post (non in this thread thank goodness) which uses the word "a really excited user" I'm going to scream! This is a forum not a school.