FSX screenshots versus FS9.

[Guest Water Mango]

I really don't know how to put this or even if it should even be said after all this time but these FSX screenshots are pretty ugly to say the least. In comparison to FS9's screenshots I'm finding it hard to see how people keep praising every shot someone's posted. Flightsim.com's screenshot forum is the worse. There you have FSX pics of watered down looking mountain ranges, no dusk lighting to speak of, and unrealistic looking rural airports. The FSX textures look like something out of Jane's F15 or JSF from the mid 90's, I'm finding it hard to believe what I'm seeing. The endless praise of these screenshots is what get's me. I'm seeing shots where the ground scenery is not even in full focus and sombody's talking "Great Screenshots Man!!!". The lack of trees and autogen is horrible but that's a whole other topic (that a few actually support), which escapes reason altogether.Even looking at what Cloud9 has released with the 'Xclass' series is not helping (that much). It's almost like trying to polish up ^%&^%, it won't work. I can't wait to see what FSX will look like with most sliders turned up in all these areas people are posting on. It's almost like the detailed terrain textures are toned down to a point mountains look like hills instead of the sharp corners and pics FS9 and the real world has. The funniest thing I saw was a glaring bug in the default scenery that people just flat out dismissed as a natural feature. It's almost pathetic (look for the thread 'Himalayers~~ Mount Everest tour!'). Why can't people be honest? FS9 is a far better looking sim in many areas (not all in case Geofa or LL reads this) over FSX. This shouldn't be the case. FSX should excel in every area over FS9. Well I'm done with my rant on the subject. I just think it's funny the effort many in this community are putting in to downplay the problems in FSX. Many of the screenshots I've been seeing over the past few weeks are just terrible. I go into FS9 on a nice dusk lite night and get a more vibrant feel than what I'm seeing in many FSX screenshots. 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. FSX not only performs badly, the screenshots pictured on sites like Flightsim.com prove it looks just as bad. You couldn't have told me FSX would shape up to be like this a year ago...:-erks :-hmmm :-hang

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I've seen some pretty cartoonish FS-X shots, and I've seen some pretty cartoonish FS9 shots. I've had beautiful moments with FS2002, which I still like to work with once in a while. But I've also seen some outstanding FS-X shots. And some outstanding FS9 shots. And some ugly FS2002 shots. I really think to indict FS-X based on screenshots, which aren't always the output of the most artistic among us, really just shows an agenda which seems consistent with your other posts on the subject. I think it's living in denial to shoot FS-X down over screenshots. It will evolve and augment our hobby. Maybe those of us without systems or patience to realize the best out of the sim will make ourselves feel better by trying to identify the worst we can with it, but just as with FS9 before, there's a growing community who've managed to make things work and make some outstanding and compelling examples of why FS-X will grow in our community. I find threads like this one divisive more than anything else. I don't believe in putting down someone's belief that something is good by saying it's bad. Both forums should be for celebrating the best of the sims, not for saying "Your dog is uglier than my dog". I don't want those making an earnest effort to make FS-X work feel we think they are stupid for trying and blinded by love. Most of us who hang in one or more forums do so out of the pleasure of celebrating what we enjoy. I call 'em as I see 'em... My soapbox is yielded-John

[Guest Pilot533]

With good hardware and all the addons out today fs9 certainly beats fsx in many ways, looks being one of them.

[CanadaOne 36]

I admit to being surprised at the poor detail in some places in FSX. I think it's a great flightsim with incredible promise, but for right now, there are a few lackluster environments.This is FS9 + MegaScenery PNW only.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor...s/Megamesh2.jpgThis is FS9 + GE Pro + 38m Genesis Meshhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor.../GEPromesh2.jpgThis is default FSX with all sliders max or near max.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor...ss/FSXmesh2.jpgIt's hard to say what's fair in all this. Some might say comparing custom graphics to default isn't fair. But some of the custom FS9 graphics are years old and FSX is brand spanking new. On the other hand, there are some FSX scenes that are really outstanding.The way it's looking to me is that FS9 with a few custom scenery packages added on makes FS9 look just like FSX or better, but with much better FPS.Now, if we could bring the default FSX aircraft into FS9 (love the VCs), and incorporate a few add-on sceneries, then I think we'd have the cat in the bag.

[LAdamson 240]

I can make examples look any way I want just to make a point. Personally, I prefer the look of FSX in many areas over FS9.My examples, to make FSX look preferable: :-hah First pic is a beautiful "autogen" subdivision form FS9. :) The rest are FSX. Both sims use FSGenesis mesh.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163164.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163165.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163166.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163167.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Thanks Larry for the backup--if anyone has a problem with shots like those, they aren't interested in simming and are here for something else :)-JohnEdit--thought I'd throw in this FS2002 shot for kicks.... How far we've come....http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163168.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>Thanks Larry for the backup--if anyone has a problem with>shots like those, they aren't interested in simming and are>here for something else :)>It's a fact, that everything in the default FSX isn't going to look as good as FS9 with addons in certain areas.Yet, as my flight simming interest has always been topography, especially the mountains and deserts west of Denver, I find FSX to be very stunning visually in many of these areas.If it wasn't, I simply wouldn't use it!L.Adamson

[JSkorna 137]

What I would like to see is some stock FS9 shots vs. some stock FS10 shots. Then we'll see what ugly truly is.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/

[GHarrall 494]

GE or GE Pro would have solved your misaligned autogen 'subdivision' problem in FS9.....(and your textures would have been 100% better too!)

[GHarrall 494]

Whilst I agree with you Jim, who here is using stock FS9?Right now, I can't get FSX to go beyond 20FPS in any areas I normally fly in. In fact it's a crapshoot if I get 15-18 FPSFS9, fully loaded with UT, GE, AS6 etc gets me a solid 30+FPS no matter what I throw at it. (after some help from you today!)It's kind of hard to leave that right now.....Glenn

[LAdamson 240]

and more city views, FSX - stock defaulthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163171.jpg

[kdfw__ 542]

Google map flying--ZZZZAside from the nice water effects, FS10 has been a dud so far. Promises *zero* headroom for complex addons.Let's hope for performance enhancing patches. Until then, FS9 rules the virtual sky.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163172.jpgPatAMD A64 4000+ @ 2.6GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 1GB DDR, LTK6800GT-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, WDRaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, XP-hsp2

[Ricardo41 5,958]

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?This is why I recently bought an xbox 360, after spending several frustrating evenings trying to configure Splinter Cell: Double Agent on my pc. I said: screw this, bought an xbox 360, hooked it up to my gateway widescreen monitor, loaded up Gears of War and haven't looked back since. ricardo

[LAdamson 240]

I don't question that your airport scenario is going to look best in FS9. It's why I'm keeping FS9. However, if your to look out over your wing or cockpit view on the climbout, then in many cases, FSX is just going to look better! I just wish that FS9 could handle the improved texture resolution of FSX while maintaining frame rates. But, as you say, until FSX can handle the "load", it's just going to be some compromising.stock FSX: http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163173.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163174.jpg

[JSkorna 137]

Hi Glenn,But is it fair to compare a fully souped up FS04 to a stock FSX, especially when you don't even OWN FSX?Remember, we are not comparing performance here, but screenshots and the way they look.Don't worry Glenn it is just the monthly time to post!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/