Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jack C

the deminishing fs9 products

Recommended Posts

Well again, in my opinion, and after seing scenery like flightscenery's Portland (which is completely amazing scenery and MAYBE drops my fps about 3 fps down to 31) shows there can be plenty of life left in FS9. If dev's kept on pumping out addons like this why would we need to go to fsx? i woul like to se reasons what fsx offers that fs9 doesn't. Fly by wire? PMDG seems to simulate that very well already. Scenery? Nope. If you think so, I guees you need to see my FS9 running. Smoothness? lol. i bet FS9 has at LEAST a year and a half left of life. Thats plenty of time for dev's consifering MSFS pumps out a new version approx every 2yrs (usually).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hello>The problem that the folks over in the FSX forum cannot grasp>is that the fastest hardware available today is Dual core>which FSX cannot utilize, it wont do FSX any good no matter>what hardware you throw at it, today or next year.>Next up from AMD and Intel is quad core then after that even>more cores on a single die.>>None of which will make any difference to FSX. >>FS11 if we ever see it, will have to be written for multiple>cores as you will not even be able to buy a single core>proccesor by then>Its hard enough to find one now.>>FSX was a legacy App the day it was released.>Exactly! How can you "look to the future" by embracing the past?What are these guys smoking? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bobsk8

I think if you are runing FS9 with no add-ons, no complex aircraft, then FSX seems pretty good even if the frame rates are bad. If you have a tweaked FS9 with lots of add-ons, FSX is dismal at best ( at least the one I tried on a friends brand new super computer). So for the average gamer with a brand new PC, they might think FSX is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it. We JUST got FS9 running absolutley awesome. Lets us enjoy it for at least a year instead of temptng everyone to convert to FSX because that is where all the addons are but then we have to invest 3-4K for a new machine. Are the dev's TRYING to get us all divorced! lol. its sooo true though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think if you are runing FS9 with no add-ons, no complex>aircraft, then FSX seems pretty good even if the frame rates>are bad. If you have a tweaked FS9 with lots of add-ons, FSX>is dismal at best ( at least the one I tried on a friends>brand new super computer). So for the average gamer with a>brand new PC, they might think FSX is OK.> Not here. I've got FSX looking far better than I could have ever expected with some very smooth frame rates that usually run 20-25 fps, yet it's ultra smooth, and best of all, stutterless.I've have, and still use FS9 with addons galore; and owned every previous version of MSFS, and most of the rest. It's not as if I'm experimenting as a first time flight simmer, as I'm about 20 years or so past that.Since FSX does run so smooth, and with much higher resolution mountain textures and city scapes (I use FSGenesis mesh), I find myself less pleased with FS9 as each day goes by. And I do constantly go back and forth for comparisons. I'm very aware that FSX will be frame sensitive as addons are added to it. Therefor, I'll keep FS9 on the hard drive for situations and addons where FS9 can have a fps advantage. At this point, there is no doubt in my mind, that FS9 is the best for heavy duty commercial airliner simulating, or crowded airport enviroments. I'm more of a Mountain West flying simmer, but not into bush flight that much. Business jets around the Rockies is quite appealing.As to addons, I want to see new models for FSX, such as those from RealAir, Dreamfleet, Coranado, as well as others. Numerous addons such as these could be frame rate friendly in FS9, and I expect the same with FSX.In the meantime, as my desire for FS9 flying dulls with every flight session, I doubt I'll be buying anymore addons for FS9. I have tons of them to re-load on the newer CPU, if I ever get around to it. But since FSX is more appealing, it probably won't happen.L.Adamson -- not a mindless FSX owner, as suggested in another reply in this thread. Just an SEL, plane owner, and one who enjoys great scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread.I just got back from Best Buy and spotted two shelves full of FSX (both versions), for $49 & $69 respectively. I have a gut feeling that these will be hitting the bargain bin within 6 months. I unfortunately don't have the hardware to run FSX in any respectable manner so I'll be passing on it for at least another year. By then, the machines that can run it in an "ok" manner will have come down in price and "maybe" I'll take the plunge both hardware and software-wise.As for FS9, I'm STILL discovering some new and fun things in it. I've been messing with AFCAD and "updating" some of my favorite airports as well having a blast creating my own AI flights with TTools. (It's my understanding that neither of these two programs works correctly in FSX...)After putting on my Carmack the Magnificient hat, I honestly think that FSX, while having some amazing features, will be the FS2000 of the FS200X series. What I mean by that is that FS2000 was unfortunately disappointing but was followed up by two very good editions (FS2002 & FS2004). I'm willing to bet that FS11 will be an updated FSX with the ability to utilize multi-core technology. That alone will make it run faster on more PC's, at the time of it's release. Throw in hopefully improved ATC features and flightsimmers everywhere will be singing, "Happy Days Are Here Again!"... ;)


Alexander Alonso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thats just it. We JUST got FS9 running absolutley awesome.>Lets us enjoy it for at least a year instead of temptng>everyone to convert to FSX because that is where all the>addons are but then we have to invest 3-4K for a new machine.>Are the dev's TRYING to get us all divorced! lol. its sooo>true thoughI most definitely agree Jack. One of the painful benefits of the information age is that negative feedback can get back to the source, earlier. The developers of this product should have been able to see the writing on the wall for multicore early enough in the development cycle to make a better choice. Just think if FSX had been built around quadcore or better? I know some have mentioned the 4D graphical world of FS does not lend itself to multicore processing so perhaps it's a moot point. But if it's not, then the developers really missed the boat bad.


Noel

System:  9900K@5.0gHz@1.23v all cores, MSI MPG Z390M GAMING EDGE AC, Noctua NH-D15S w/ steady supply of 40-60F ambient air intake, Corsair Vengeance 32Gb LPX 3200mHz DDR4, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 2, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM 850W PSU, Win10 Pro, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Edge Sync for near zero Frametime Variance achieving ultra-fluid animation at lower frame rates.

Aircraft used in A Pilot's Life V2:  PMDG 738, Aerosoft CRJ700, FBW A320NX, WT 787X

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict, with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be like 3 years from now.Your prediction must include:CPU design and speedType and amount of system memoryGPU systemMedia format and sizeHard drive format and sizeWhen you have this vision, please post it.Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jgreth123

>Hi All,>>Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict,>with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be>like 3 years from now.>>Your prediction must include:>CPU design and speed>Type and amount of system memory>GPU system>Media format and size>Hard drive format and size>>When you have this vision, please post it.Hey Jim, All joking aside, until MS can create a sim that is a true multi-core application, all the upgrades in the world aren't going to help. MSFS is the most CPU-intensive 'game' that I've ever seen. Until the core speeds break 5 - 6 gHz ( Which we know isn't going to happen, they are just going to put more cores on a single die ) then you aren't going to be able to run FSX like people run FS9 right now. In their defense, they had no idea ( which I'm sure is why you made the post you did ) what the systems would be like now. To make the sim true multi-core, it will take a LARGE re-write of existing code. Then you go into another few MONTHS of basic testing to ensure all is working as it should. Basically it was an early design decision that cornered them. Halfway through the development the dual cores started coming out and getting popular. By then they figured it was too costly ( and time-critical ) to re-code the core of the application to use multiple cores. Anyhow, FSX will never run like FS9 ( with lots of addons ) does now. If they re-write the core and make it a true multi-core application then FSX does have hope. If they don't, it will fade out. Now I can only hope that not all the developers are FSX-only or this niche community will die out. The developers won't be getting money and the community won't be getting any addons. Time will tell, but that's my prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi All,>>Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict,>with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be>like 3 years from now.>>Your prediction must include:>CPU design and speed>Type and amount of system memory>GPU system>Media format and size>Hard drive format and size>>When you have this vision, please post it.>>Thanks,>Jim>>http://www.hifisim.com/>Active Sky V6 Development Team >Active Sky V6 Proud Supporter>HiFi Beta Team>Radar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/>AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/>FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/Hi JimBottom line is that we KNOW it will be multi-core based with probably only small gains in each core Mhz.I think that is all we need to know right now.FWIW, as a very active purcahser of FS9 addons, I have no intention of buying ANY addons for FSX unless it demonstrates zero framerate hit on my PC. I don't have any FPS headroom to play with!Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest camtech

You know you go over to FSX forum and they get mad at you for tring to beat a dead horse, im mad because i want to run FSX but it will not, and the most frustrating thing is i have the money to upgrade but i do not no what to get, because everyone has there reasons what to buy , but no one can tell me what will absolutely work.That is because there is not a machine that will work.So i ask myself why did they release the game when they did, i would say timing, and money , Christmas etc.I also believe they no that this version is not the best that they came out with, but they have no choice but to see it thru.I dont care what you FSX guys are saying how good the game is , it is only good for default and average game play, for anyone to tell me that i have to go out and buy new and i mean real good and new equiptment just to get average results, that tells me that the game was for average users , because the average user is not going to go out and buy a new three thousand dollar system to get a game to play. And for all of you folks out there claiming that you are getting good results with FSX and are getting good frame rate show me what you got for a system and i will go out and buy it. but if you are going to tell me that you get good frame rate and you have to cut way back and turn of this and tweak that and use just default planes, and if you do use an add-ons its not the more advanced software.Im sorry folks but i have a right to speak about this because im a consumer and i have been around awhile doing this flight simming.Of course until there is a company out there that will come up with a platform for us serious simmers we will still be beholding to Microsoft and there new arcade game FSX and i do use the word arcade, because it will work perfectly for the playstaion bunch because they dont ask for much:)( just joking )..........Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JTEK99

>I dont care what you FSX guys are saying how good the game is>, it is only good for default and average game play,....You make some valid points in your post; but the bottom line is -- as with all iterations of MSFS --A year from now, you won't even remember posting this comment because FSX will be the end-all of flightsimming, with addons built just for it. It happens with every version, and each time a new one is released, people can't run it at high settings. We're spoiled with FS9 because we now have the PCs that can run it with boatloads of addons and complex aircraft and refuse to run any new version at "average" settings.It's not a biggie by any stretch of the imagination. I just don't understand why flightsimmers have to complain. Just bide your time, fly in FS9 with all of its glorious addons, and come back to FSX in a year when your budget allows a new PC purchase and all the tweaks, patches, updates and addons are known/released for it. You'll have the benefit of knowledge from the 'guinea pigs' who have been flying it for a year and you won't make a blind purchase. You'll know much more about what to expect performance-wise.It's funny. There's something about the average flightsimmer's EGO that won't let him enjoy what he has, even if it's downright amazing; that nagging little voice in his head that keeps saying: "Someone out there is running a new version of FS and you're sitting here with this 'antique'."Strangest phenomenon I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jgreth123

>A year from now, you won't even remember posting this comment>because FSX will be the end-all of flightsimming, with addons>built just for it. >>It happens with every version, and each time a new one is>released, people can't run it at high settings. We're spoiled>with FS9 because we now have the PCs that can run it with>boatloads of addons and complex aircraft and refuse to run any>new version at "average" settings.>>It's not a biggie by any stretch of the imagination. I just>don't understand why flightsimmers have to complain. Just bide>your time, fly in FS9 with all of its glorious addons, and>come back to FSX in a year when your budget allows a new PC>purchase and all the tweaks, patches, updates and addons are>known/released for it. You'll have the benefit of knowledge>from the 'guinea pigs' who have been flying it for a year and>you won't make a blind purchase. You'll know much more about>what to expect performance-wise.>>It's funny. There's something about the average>flightsimmer's EGO that won't let him enjoy what he has, even>if it's downright amazing; that nagging little voice in his>head that keeps saying: "Someone out there is running a new>version of FS and you're sitting here with this 'antique'.">>Strangest phenomenon I've ever seen.Did you not read what I posted about single/multi-core ?The fate of FSX lies w/ the Aces Studio development team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JTEK99

>Did you not read what I posted about single/multi-core ?>>The fate of FSX lies w/ the Aces Studio development team.I read it, of course.But I take those statements with a grain of salt, much like I took the same comments about 64-bit operating systems during FS9's initial release stage.In the same fashion, and with melodramatic overtones, the same statements were made. 64-bit was "THE FUTURE". What the heck was Microsoft thinking????Uh huh.I have a feeling that everyone forgets that Microsoft, no matter what your political/philosophical opinion is on its monopoly of the Operating System, is able to hire just about the best team(s) in the world, precisely because it's a mega-company with near-unlimited assets. And, though I hate to say it, I'm afraid I believe that it just might be that the ACES Team and Microsoft as a whole is quite a bit smarter than I am in these matters (and smarter than the vast majority of posters here).What do I base this admittedly vague belief on?Simply: this is all the same stuff that has been posted over and over and over and over, with each and every version of FS. And each time, everyone moves over to the new version as soon as their budget allows it. It's about money, and few are willing to admit it. One can't afford a new system (which is needed with EVERY single new version of FS) and so the fiery complaints, accusations and conspiracy theories start. EVERY time. Remember that: EVERY single time. Let me say it just once more: EVERY single time.Flightsimmers have what I like to call "ephemeral memory". They like to think that the present is somehow unique to them, when it's all been repeated before. The convenience of psychological denial enables them to justify all sorts of wild accusations when, in the end, all it takes is about a year (again, with EVERY new version of FS) and the flightsimming community makes the ghostly shift to the newest version. Call me hopeful, naive, blind, ludicrous or anything else. But I have history on my side, and flightsim history -- in near formulaic fashion -- repeats itself continually.Freeware releases and repaints at AVSIM and other flightsim sites for the older version dwindle, older version screenshots disappear into oblivion, and yes... all the way until the release of the very NEXT version, the tweaks and the mystery of getting one's sim "just right" continue ad infinitum.And then it begins again.... :-roll (For the record, I'm still using FS9 with a boatload of addons and complex aircraft. I love it. I have FSX, too, and I think it's nice as well; but the default aircraft don't cut it and most developers who have released FSX "patches" or "conversions" for their aircraft have done so with alacrity rather than experience. It will take time for complex aircraft to be released, and I'm not one to go ga-ga over default aircraft. Until then, FS9 is great and I'm proud to be flying it. But I don't need to go on an anti-FSX 'Jihad' to prove to myself I'm "doing the right thing". I'll just wait. Time is still the Great Leveler of flightsimming. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest captandy

Hi all I built a new rig with FSX in mind back in October and when I finally burned my rig in I put FSX on its own dedicated 10K drive and I was hoping for an eye opening 20 year wait for the ultimateflight sim experience.What I received was an "Arcade" looking type Sim that I could not run @ 50% without performance issues.So I figured let me try some of the wonderful tweaks and I still was at around 50% before degragation sets in.So I said what the #### how could a rig so powerful be brought to its knees with a $70 piece of software.I am an engineer by trade in the Semi-Counductor field and if we ever based our designs on legacy rather than future products the present world would be still stuck in the 80s.MS screwed themselves, and us on this and that is the plain and simple truth of this fiasco.I have sinced shelved FSX and I am so so happy with FS9 and all of its addons and I hope developers follow forums and post like this to help them see that a large market still exsist for FS9 and will so until FS11.Andy

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...