FSX screenshots versus FS9.

[Guest PARADISE]

What is so "bad" about FS9? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but why do you still have FS9 installed if it's so bad for you? I'm refering to the wonderfull screenshots you posted above which, I'm assuming, came from your FS9 and FSX instalations. Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the positive things you're saying regarding FSX, but why do you feel like bad mouthing FS9 when you still use it yourself? Just wondering.:-hmmm

[MD83 1]

That's because FSX has superior AirMass

[LAdamson 240]

>Hello>I think that we have all figured out that FSX your needs>perfectly.>Question for you, if FSX is so good then why even bother>posting in the FS9 forum.Why not...I beta tested FS9, have FS9 installed, and have spent a lot on addons. And of course I'm aware that much is wrong with FSX. And just the same, I've always known the problems with FS9. And no, FSX does NOT fit my needs perfectly. I treat these two as individual simulations.However, some of the testimonials I see here, and thoughts of boycott's, are rather laughable. Geeze, after thousands of postings on this FS9 board.......I can't post here anymore? Is this the North & South during the Civil War era? Sure seems like it! :-roll L.Adamson

[Glynn 405]

HelloHoly S*** i forgot about the vastly superior Airmass.It's probably down to all the hot air rising from the vast european desert.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Question for you, if FSX is so good then why even bother posting in the FS9 forum."Because he was invited. The whole thread was meant to bait FS-X users--remember the thread was based on the premise that the screenshots coming from FS-X showed how bad the sim is? I don't have FS-X installed, but Larry's shots cannot be argued or rationalized away. Honestly I think anyone wasting their time trying to put down FS-X isn't in this hobby any more for the simming. I doubt they spend much real time enjoying FS-9 the way it should be enjoyed. Flying a sim isn't about proving "ours is better than theirs"... Pity that's falling on deaf ears for a large part of the audience. But if you raise that question and try to make everyone who uses FS-X feel like "you know better", users will respond. I won't hold that against them for doing so.-John

[LAdamson 240]

>Hello>Holy S*** i forgot about the vastly superior Airmass.>It's probably down to all the hot air rising from the vast>european desert.Now...... you do know that the RealAir products, which are superior in spins, slips, and overall aerobatic manuvers, are going to work even better in FSX don't you! :7 It is a fact! :)Actually, their products had better performance in FS2002, and took a few compromise hits in FS2004. As is, they are not capable of any spins in FSX, but after some re-work on Rob Young's part, they do even better than FS9!I'll be looking forward to RealAir's capabilities in FSX! But that's okay, as I can always revert back to FS9 for fantastic AI! :-hah L.Adamson

[MD83 1]

>> 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.AdamsonBut ... wait a moment, didn't you say:"And at the same time, I could easily spend day after day on FS9 forums or X-Plane forums explaining why I dumped these two sims, or never bought them in the first place, and be forever justified by pointing out errors."Aren't you doing exactly that? ;)

[Guest jordanmoore]

I have had FSX for several months. I get good enough performance for it to be flyable (20+ FPS) with some scenery, autogen, weather, etc. I don't necessarily spend a lot of time at large airports, or in large passenger jets (so one would think that FSX would be well suited for me) However, after several solid weeks of flying (200+ landings, 100-200 hours flying), and trying to get into it (including successfully rebuilding one of my development projects to be compatible with it) the result is:I am enjoying FS9 with FE, GE, and FS Genesis more. A lot more.The visuals I get from FS9 are simply better, the user experience is better, the systems and flight dynamics are not as different as some would claim, and having access to thousands of FS9 add-ons and utils like FSNav certainly doesn't hurt.I didn't expect FSX to be like FS9 with all of the add-ons. But I did expect it to be a solid default start. Instead, I have found that it has serious problems that no user can correct, and that will need to be addressed before it is adopted anywhere near the levels that FS9 enjoyed. MS has confirmed this, and they are working on it. My fingers are crossed that they make some positive changes.If I was to have a neighbor come try out FS9 and FSX and didn't tell them anything about the versions. They would certainly choose my FS9 as the more modern, faster performing (loading, flying, etc), and more visually stunning simulator, with more capabilities. Simply put, they would choose FS9 as the "new" simulator in a blind taste-test. It might not be a fair comparison amongst this crowd, but why shouldn't we (or any customer) expect FSX to look and perform as well as FS9 with Ground Environment, Flight Environment, and FS Genesis?Why shouldn't we expect the highest level of FS9 to be the lowest level of FSX? And if the lowest level of FSX is far lower than that (which it is), than why shouldn't it produce better performance than 10-20 FPS for a user that is getting 30-40 FPS (solid) on FS9 at the highest level?It is because FSX has serious problems behind the scenes that must be addressed. Microsoft is aware of this, and thankfully, they are trying to do something about it.I have high hopes for FSX, and this is not a rant.Jordan Moore

[LAdamson 240]

>But ... wait a moment, didn't you say:>>"And at the same time, I could easily spend day after day>on FS9 forums or X-Plane forums explaining why I dumped these>two sims, or never bought them in the first place, and be>forever justified by pointing out errors.">>Aren't you doing exactly that? ;)Thats all I do! :) I never fly desktop simulations as much as I argue about them! The "real" fun is in "arguing"........not flying! :7 L.Adamson

[Guest PARADISE]

Good point. This is like the age old argument, " my car is better than your car because....". A pointless argument since it all depends on what the drivers use their cars for and which ones make them happiest. Thankfully we have only two sims to " argue " about. Could you imagine the mess if we had as many different flight sims as cars. Anyway, enough of the forum for now, I'm going flying in 'my' favorite sim.John M:-wave

[Mike T 208]

Screenshots are generally not a good indicator of FSX v FS9. It has been my observation that most don't know how to take good screenshots and furthermore many taking screenshots have horrible visual quality as a tradeoff for performance in both sims. Generally I've seen horrible screenshots in both FS9 and FSX.With that said, FSX has problems and ignoring them is getting pretty insane. Thank goodness Aces has acknowledged the problems and are working hard on three patches for: Performance, Dualcore and DX10. Good for them! All we can do is hope that things will get better for the "rest" of us who don't fly only in the foothills Saskatchewan, Canada!Similarly, the argument of comparison of FS9 out-of-the-box vs FSX out of the box is equally insane. FS9 is almost 4 years old and the add-ons available are daunting. For those who have upgraded FS9 with accurate terrain, landclass, textures, aircraft, weather engine, virtual cockpit viewing tools, et al, the argument is what does FSX bring to the table that I don't already have, vs. if I uninstall $1,000's of add-ons I'll like FSX better. To gauge an "upgrade" one must take into account ALL of the things that the current version has to offer and weigh that against what the upgrade has to offer. Of course new is preferable to old...but not always.For the record, I own FSX. My question even before FSX release was what do I get that I don't already have? 1m textures and 38m mesh are great, but if I were flying in the mountains all day and not at 37,000 feet where that doesn't matter as much. Feel of flight is another argument for FSX, but I don't fly FS9 default aircraft therefore I've got aircraft that are tweaked as far as possible within MSFS. Equally, this "AirMass " argument is great in FSX...um but I've been using unstable airmasses (CAT, thermals, cloud turbulence etc) in AS6 for two years...one of the biggest proponents of its existance in FSX admittedly doesn't even own ActiveSky so no wonder the transition is so welcome. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it should be noted when the arument is made.For now, nothing leaps out at me to move to FSX from FS9 but eventually I will, as will many others who don't currently use it. If Aces fixes the performance issues then I see no reason not to jump on the Airmass bandwagon. Add-ons will eventually move to a FSX only paradigm anyway and all the cool things to come will require FSX. So, yes, FSX is in my future (and probably yours), but for now, FS9 is my present until Aces brings performance up to snuff and add-ons allow me to have the same experience in heavies that the bush fliers enjoy now.FSX is in a state of flux right now as Aces is hard at work on patches. Those who love FSX as it stands can only feel better about the sim with patches applied. Those who are in a wait and see mode, will have to reserve judgement until all is said and done which probably won't be until this time next year.Personally, I'm looking forward to flying exclusively in FSX, actually I can't wait...but I will.

[LAdamson 240]

>For the record, I own FSX. My question even before FSX>release was what do I get that I don't already have? 1m>textures and 38m mesh are great, but if I were flying in the>mountains all day and not at 37,000 feet where that doesn't>matter as much. You're right, :7 I'm in the mountains all day, and you're at 37,000' :-hah L.Adamsonhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163302.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163303.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163304.jpg

[GHarrall 494]

"Equally, this "AirMass " argument is great in FSX...um but I've been using unstable airmasses (CAT, thermals, cloud turbulence etc) in AS6 for two years...one of the biggest proponents of its existance in FSX admittedly doesn't even own ActiveSky so no wonder the transition is so welcome. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it should be noted when the arument is made."Mike,So true. AS6 provides me with at least 90% of what FSX has to offer in the Airmass department.The argument of 'riding on rails' in FS9 is completely irrelevant for those of us with AS6.I also note that FSX's 'biggest supporter' doesn't appear to have GE in his screenshots, which as we all know, is a MASSIVE improvment over the stock textures and with it's aligned autogen (especially if you use the improved koorbygen building textures) looks fantastic in FS9Again, things to consider when comparing the two.Look at these two pics from FS9 with GE (from Flight1). I don't feel FSX gives me much of a 'jump' over this and certainly not at a super smooth 30FPS like I currently get with FS9. As I have said before, I think if I had the FSX 1m textures in FS9, I would be happy for the next 12 months or so while the kinks in FSX are ironed out.Glenn http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163363.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163364.txthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163365.jpg

[Guest Joe D]

FS X is kinda like FS2000 when it came out,awesome in its expectations,but a dud none the less,I stayed with FS98 until FS2002 came out.I am guessing that FS X is still pretty much a test bed and will be updated with a patch or two from Microsoft.One thing that they need to fix,and fix fast is the default weather servers,they need a back up system,so when one server fails,the other can kick in and pick up the load until the mains come back online.I think I am going to use FS2004 for quiet awhile,prolly until FS 11 comes out...or wait at least another year before installing FSX,this way most of the bugs will be worked out and more freeware aircraft can be used with it.

[Guest Joe D]

FS X is kinda like FS2000 when it came out,awesome in its expectations,but a dud none the less,I stayed with FS98 until FS2002 came out.I am guessing that FS X is still pretty much a test bed and will be updated with a patch or two from Microsoft.One thing that they need to fix,and fix fast is the default weather servers,they need a back up system,so when one server fails,the other can kick in and pick up the load until the mains come back online.I think I am going to use FS2004 for quiet awhile,prolly until FS 11 comes out...or wait at least another year before installing FSX,this way most of the bugs will be worked out and more freeware aircraft can be used with it.