FSX screenshots versus FS9.

[Guest Phantoms]

Any chance you can post a FS9 shot with default textures/scenery (keep the 38m mesh though) of the above? I'm interested in seeing the differences GE makes.

[LAdamson 240]

I just noticed that the aircraft interior textures look better in FSX too! The panel textures of the stock Cessna Caravan virtual cockpit look very good! Smoother edges too!With all my sightseeing in FSX, I just hadn't paid attention before. :7

[Guest PARADISE]

This is exactly the kind of nitpicking you hear in real pilot lounges when we're grounded by " Real World Wx ". I love it.... "Cessna is better than Beechcraft, Boeing is better than Airbus, our flight attendants look better than...., well you get the idea. I think we should fire up Active Sky and LETS GO FLYING BOYS. Last one to FL350 buys the drinks.John M :-beerchug

[CanadaOne 36]

It's funny how these things always become either/or. Too bad. I own both and I enjoy both vey much. But I see them as different sims that offer different flying pleasures.As I said, I am a big fan of FSX. I love the planes, the feel of flight, and some of the default graphics are fantastic.Perhaps what surprises some people is that, for right or wrong, they see graphics that were achievable in FS9 years ago that, in some places, are not nearly as good in FSX. Granted, the FS9 graphics are custom, but some of the custom graphics are also years old. I think it's reasonable for people to question this just as it's reasonable for other people to answer.Some have asked that if FSX is so advanced, why couldn't they bring the whole sim to FZ scenery or MegaScenery standards, programs that precede FSX by quite some time, technologicaly speaking. Someone else will answer that to do that, FSX would be a 10 DVD install and require everyone to buy new and bigger HDs. Others then ask why the code couldn't be tightened to permit the better graphics within a reasonable sized package? Then, of course, the answer will come that code that sophicticated would make FSX cost $500 instead of $50. And on and on and on.Much of the frustration with FSX comes from the "I want it now!" mentality of computer gamming (which I have as well), which is based on instant gratification and the partial illusion that newer absolutely must be better. People assume that if they can achieve excellent graphics and great FPS in FS9 with busy AI at a high detail airport, all tech from years ago using a rig from years ago, then they should get the same or better with today's tech and today's rigs.In the end, who cares as long as we're having fun. I'm flying FS9 and FSX, and though they have their differences, no one will ever convince me that I'm not having a great time flying in either. I consider myself lucky to be able to afford both, afford some nice add-ons, and have a rig that makes everything look nice. But part of all the fun is having these discussions on flightsim forums with people who share our interests, if not our specific points of view. Try talking to your wife about the excellence of the DO-27 or the importance of high res mesh and you'll see in seconds how lucky we are to have each other here, differences and all. :-kewl

[Guest Zlaned]

Could we please compare the default FS9 with the default FSX as to compare FS9 with all the addons is hardly a comparison!They then can compare and be critics on a level playing feild.Quote"Others then ask why the code couldn't be tightened to permit the better graphics within a reasonable sized package? Then, of course, the answer will come that code that sophicticated would make FSX cost $500 instead of $50. And on and on and on."Think how much you had paid for each sim, then add all the add-ons to the price and see how close you are to $500!Just a thoughtZlaned

[Guest Zlaned]

>It's almost>unbelievable developers like Level-D, Aerosoft, and Cloud9 are>charging head strong into this haphazard effort without>allowing it to get fixed and become a proven sim. I have to>thank developers like Eaglesoft who decided to stay with FS9 a>little while longer.I had to laugh, you state this, but your post has the Level D logo at the base of your post????? :-lolHow loyal are you to Level D? :-hmmmZlaned

[Guest Zlaned]

>Folks are increasingly sick and tired of having to buy $5,000>hardware to run $60 software. I mean, why in your right mind>would you abandon a smoothly running FS9 installation with all>the major addons?What you have to ask yourself is, when you bought FS9 how much did your system cost?Zlaned

[kerosene31 349]

FSX will look better eventually, and with many shots does already. With some much improved landclass and textures, things are going to look amazing eventually. But the big question is what kind of FPS is the screen shot taker getting?

[Guest Water Mango]

"I had to laugh, you state this, but your post has the Level D logo at the base of your post????? How loyal are you to Level D?"Just because I'm a fan of LVD's work doesn't mean I have to agree with their decision to move away from FS2K4 so quickly. Same goes for Cloud9 and Aerosoft. FSX is not yet ready to have major add-ons built on top of it. Most people can barely get the default sim to run much less look good at the same time (the various screenshots in the community prove that alone). :-roll

[Guest Water Mango]

"How far we've come...."Yea we even had dusk lighting back then, wow...

[CanadaOne 36]

Zlaned,You said: "Could we please compare the default FS9 with the default FSX as to compare FS9 with all the addons is hardly a comparison!"Perhaps not, but neither is comparing years old technology with brand new technology. What we're discussing, at least partially, is comparing FS9 with newer tech add-ons to FSX. There is some relevance to this.

[CV990A 0]

whats actually bugging me the most about those FS9 VS FSX comparisons is tha fact that they are only compared on the graphics rather then whats under the hood. I never hear people defend FSX for the improved flight dynamics, I never hear people defend FSX for it's realistic AI behavior and it's superior ATC system....oh thats right thats because they didn't improved those factors! FSX as it stands now is only a graphical update, the fundamental flaws FS9 had, restrictive buggy and unrealistic ATC usage, totally screwed up AI behavior (loads of AI at major airports usually meant several go arounds, from both you and the other AI planes) and a totally overloaded graphical engine (..it took us 3 years to run FS9 to the max with smooth FPS in all conditions). so can any of you explain to me, whats so darn great about FSX when a) today's hardware can only run it reasonably smooth with a lot of tweaking, and :( when the only major improvements are related to "better" graphics?I for one am happy to run a sim that runs smooth, most of the time reliable and has almost every plane I want to fly. at this point IMO even if they do fix the performance issues FSX is going trough right now, it's just not worth the trouble getting FSX when it still has the same things that trouble me with FS9 but has; hardly any add on aircraft available at the moment (at least not the types I care for), requires a few thousand bucks in order to get myself a system that it can run smooth on (I mean for the amount of money required for new hardware one can get a long way towards his/her PPL).anyway my rant's over ;)-Sander

[Guest PARADISE]

Your "rant" actually makes a lot of sense. I don't own FSX yet, but from what I read in these posts is that FSX is just as you said, a graphics update with some new "games" added into it. I fly FS9 for its simulator characteristics. Having nice graphics is nice, but it's not on the top of my list for what I want out of a simulator. I like flying the heavy's,so low level scenery is not important, nice, but not important.When I fly in the real world I rarely have time to notice car traffic when on final approach, lest it be on the runway, but I would worry about two 777's only 1/4 of a mile behind me. Give me a better traffic flow program over graphics anyday.I know I'll wind up getting FSX eventually, but for now I'm quiet content with FS9, even with the 777's hot on my tail.John M:-)

[LAdamson 240]

> I never hear people>defend FSX for the improved flight dynamics,Then start reading some more! :D Out of the box, FSX is much better than FS9. A much improved airmass with a greatly improved sense of turbulence & thermals. The default aircraft also trim better. There is just something about FSX's feeling of real air, that puts FS9 to shame, and I hate the word "shame" when used in context to flight sims! }( If you don't have FSX, and feel the need to rant anyway, then there is no point in explaining how the "feel" of flight, far surpasses that of the stagnet riding on rails feel of FS9. :-hah L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>Your "rant" actually makes a lot of sense. I don't own FSX>yet, but from what I read in these posts is that FSX is just>as you said, a graphics update with some new "games" added>into it. I fly FS9 for its simulator characteristics. Having>nice graphics is nice, but it's not on the top of my list for>what I want out of a simulator. I like flying the heavy's,so>low level scenery is not important, nice, but not important.AH..........And that's the difference! I run around with the crowd, that has flown the 747's, the 767's, the Connies, and so forth. These day's the ones still interested in flight, put a lot of their dollars into high performance kitplanes, and own hangars with loft's that beat high dollar hotel rooms, with big screen tv's, kitchens, and perhaps a jacuzzi tub! Well, at least the one we had lunch in today had all that plus a fancy wood burning stove with recliners on the main floor level. :)But, since we go in circles, it's all back to lower altitude flying, where the scenery and topography once again has meaning! :D L.Adamson