Sign in to follow this  
Manny

Why I still fly FS9

Recommended Posts

You know..FSX runs pretty decent on my system without too much compromizing and its got amazing ground textures and unbelievable water. And yet.. I keep going back to FS9 and flying them more often. And I realized why.Its the detailed airport and airport texture. Its all about landing. Even in real life flying..the best part about flying has always been landing for me. I just love having that runway in front of me and I have everthing set right. To bring the sucker in by the number and touching down brings tremendous joy in real flying as well as in the Sim.Good airport textures and scenery is what does that for the sim. I just flew between London city Airpot (London scenery), Gatwick (Gatwick Pro) and Heathrow (Hethrow Pro). Thats what does it for me.Ofcourse There is the Fly Tampa Seattle and Portland from Flight scenery and Aerosoft's Frankfurt.Its not even the addon aircrafts. I am sure, pretty soon we would have addon aircrafts in FSX and I have also moved some FS9 addon aircrafts to FSX. But that still does not do it. Its the airports and runway textures...for me.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>Its the detailed airport and airport texture. Its all about>landing. Even in real life flying..the best part about flying>has always been landing for me. I just love having that runway>in front of me and I have everthing set right. To bring the>sucker in by the number and touching down brings tremendous>joy in real flying as well as in the Sim.>I agree landing is a great part of the simulation, and especially with some better VC's.But I've got thousands of square miles of some spectacular scenery, that's easily within an eight hour day, there & back. Scenery such as Jackson Hole to the North, and the Grand Canyon to the South. And lot's of the Rocky Mountains, and red rock deserts in between. It's the scenery that's the best part of GA flying for me. And as to simming, I'll take it where I can get it. FS9, X-Plane, or FSX.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shot ILS RW 16L at KSEA last night using Real Time Wx, 1500 broken, 5000 overcast, visibility 2 miles in rain. Time was 18:00 local and, using Ultimate Traffic at 88%, I was #3 for landing 30 miles out. My Alaskan Flight 337 from Long Beach arrived safely 15 minutes late. Taxied to Gate 27, shut her down and had a beer. All this at frame rates no lower than 18 FPS.That's why I still fly FS9John M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did a flight in FS9 out of PDX last night with the Flightscenery Portland in the IRIS F-14; followed a 737 Southwest Airlines out on a missed approach into PDX... It was great and the FPS, 25-35 all the time! After having spent some time with FSX now, I do like it! Its just really limited and the performance issues ruin it for me.. Though at times it sure does give you the feeling of movement, especially in the Extra...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree its the airport textures and realism. For some reason its pretty lacking in fsx, which i find a bit surpurising that in an upgraded program you would except the same level of detail or better as the previous version. Oother then that I think its a pretty nice product graphicly speaking.Maybe flytampa will work on an FSX version of Seattle or a patch to make the FS9 program sync with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here even if FSX runs OK on my gear except over cities. I am fed up with tweaking, resizing, slider sliding etc, ... It's just too frustrating. Such a pity because FSX is so promising. So I am back flying FS9 with ALL the sliders to the right, Track IR Pro 4, massive amounts of AI and it's just great.Jean-Paul Asus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo E6600@3Ghz - Leadtek 7950 GT TDH 512 - 4 x 1GB Kingmax DDR2 667 CL5 RAM - 2 x 250GB Hitachi T7K250 SATA2 AHCI - Creative Audigy 2 Value - Antec Sonata 2 Case - 450W Antec SmartPower 2.0 PSU - Windows XP Pro SP2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing a lot of flying in Asia and Oz at the moment. I find here gives me resonable level detail airports (VHHH, VTBS etc) with great smoothness. 1) PMDG 7472) FS2CREW for PMDG7473) TRACKIR4 in Virtual Cockpit4) Updated RR soundset from PMDG(Honestly... try this recipe ^^ - you'll love it!)On 7 mile final to Hong Kong VHHH, landing checklist complete, in a low vis smoggy Asian dusk, the noise from the RR engines was a symphony. Over the little boats, approach lighting array, bang, throw out the reverse, vacate and taxi into a busy airport with life everywhere. Still can't be beaten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree as well. I bought Budapest 2007 from Aerosoft for FS9...wow, what nice scenery to land at after 8hrs flying time. Only thing I did not like was the 1/8th mile vis! Love the CATIII autoland of the LDS bird!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. I moved too quickly and got FSX as soon as it came out, big mistake. It runs dreadfully on my system. Minor things I cant stand: that it does not have fixed wing-views, that horrible "head-lag" effect when looking around, and over-the-top window reflections.The scenery on the whole as nothing on FS9 for me.However I do want to say this: once the 3rd-party developers work their magic and the FS gurus start uploading tweaks and scenery FSX is gonna be amazing! Just need a grumble about it hee hee. Ok back to FS9 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's the addon aircrafts that I like and the performance.Addons will take months to come out for FSX.Performance...It'll take me a couple of years to be able to buy what it takes to run X reasonably. I can run X at 20+ FPS but it doesn't mean much to me. I don't put my time into default planes, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manny,I am with you, FS9 with great airport texutres and scenery coupled with a good Level D 767 is too good to let go. Portland is so good I have been thinking of purchasing there Rhode Island product. Hethrow Pro use to give me a problem on fps but since I finally upgraded from a P4 2.4g to P4 3.4 have no problems. The one thing I would add is I love to start up at the gate and taxy to the rwy with FSHotSFX and all hear the sounds from AI.FSX will be on the back burner for quite awhile for me.Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree also. I bought FSX just after returning from a two week trip and was pleasantly surprised to find that it would run on my system: my experience with the demo had been that it ran very poorly.However, every time I fire up FSX I find myself disappointed; it is simply too game-like. I do not like the concept of "missions" and I am a little too old and jaded to be impressed by "rewards". I had always wanted to be a real pilot and FSX just doesn't give me that sort of experience. FS9 actually does meet my needs. So I guess that I am out the cost of FSX, but won't be purchasing any addons for it until something dramatically changes. On the other hand, I flew an Aero Commander from EGLC to EGCC this afternoon and had a very nice time doing it. I guess for me, why mess with FSX, when I can enjoy FS9 just like it is.Ed GreenKCLThttp://www.panelshop.com/Banners/DEV.jpg


http://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/forum_images/fdc_beta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>However, every time I fire up FSX I find myself disappointed;>it is simply too game-like. Not with me. Just the opposite! I'll let it go at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>However, every time I fire up FSX I find myself disappointed;>it is simply too game-like. I do not like the concept of>"missions" and I am a little too old and jaded to be impressed>by "rewards". >>On the other hand, I flew an Aero Commander from EGLC to EGCC>this afternoon and had a very nice time doing it. I guess for>me, why mess with FSX, when I can enjoy FS9 just like it is.Ed:Although I'm still wholeheartedly flying FS9 90% of the time, I don't understand the above statements. The missions are *optional* (as are the rewards since they're part of the missions), not mandatory. Free Flight, as always, is still available.As far as flying the Commander in FS9 this afternoon, you obviously used FS9's "Create A Flight" (a.k.a., Free Flight) to set up your journey from EGLC to EGCC. You could have done the same in FSX as well (duh).So other than the non-mandatory mission/reward scheme, what is it about FSX that you find "gamey"? The only thing I miss is all the superior addons available for FS9 (and the better framerates on my no-longer-cutting-edge PC), but I'd hardly call the latest iteration gamey. At least no more so than any other version of FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 is a mature product with the addons. FSX will get there, but I don't think it's my cup of tea yet. FSX runs okay on my system, but I think I'll stick with FS9 for another six months or so, just like I did when FS9 came out. The out of the box stuff doesn't justify a switch yet.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this