well, I'm an open minded individual, you can always try to persuade me, if you bring in solid arguments perhaps I might even agree with you ;)you are right I don't have FSX, simply because of the fact that both of the demo versions really disappointed me, sure FSX might have an improved airmass, but that still comes at a really high cost (a few thousand bucks to be precise..if you want to experience it smoothly), not too mention, with AS6 Turbulence is greatly improved at FS9, sure it still isn't as realistic as it could be and I can't compare it with FSX as you say...I don't own it. you didn't disputed my other issues, so i guess you either agree with them or overlooked them, wish to debunk those claims? and speaking about the default planes...I never fly default planes anyway, and from what I've seen there is not a single one that comes with FSX that I actually even care about ;) anyway, I still prefer the ability to fly my Tupolev's, Ilyushin's and older western jets in a smooth environment :)-Sander

>>anyway, I still prefer the ability to fly my Tupolev's,>Ilyushin's and older western jets in a smooth environment :)>To be honest....A third party P-38 I flew in Microsoft's CFS2 was the best by far! :D Smooth, and exceptional flight characteristics!

Poor frame rates (on stock A/C!) over cities sure kills any sense of airmass or any such thing. Rather than feeling real air, I feel disappointed.Of course, if one prefers bush flying over google map or funky desert texture and city scape without dusk/dawn lighting, that's perfectly okay. And how rain avoids the windshied amazes me.ASv6 or other pgms do offer better wind/air in FS9 so I'm not sure where the "riding on rails" comes from.The biggest problem is FS10 is not compatible with the HW roadmap for better performance in the future. We all hope the new patch will enhance performance and we can all transition to FS10 and run complex jets.PatAMD 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

Now is the time that FS9 is really starting to come into its own. Seriously, FSX doesn't hold a candle to what FS9 can offer at this present moment. Personally, with my P4 3.2, X800 Pro, 1GB RAM system, FS9 performs pretty well, but the thought of upgrading to one of the latest systems with a Core 2 Duo processor etc etc *to run FS9 on it* really gets me excited. Forget FSX for the time being. It doesn't perform well enough, and it won't do for another couple of years. Forget your photoreal textrures, your moving traffic on the roads and whatever else, because it's pointless if you can't get the required performance. And with FSX, you can't at this moment in time. It can't cater for AI traffic adequately, with no FSX AFCAD program being available, and what's more, the performance of FSX is going to be even worse with a whole load of AI traffic flying around. IMO FS9 is now coming into its own as a flight simulator. Believe me when I say this, I just took off in the freeware Socata TBM700 from Honolulu with all the nice addons installed (FS Genesis mesh, Flight Environment, Active Sky, UT, Real Environment Pro as well as a heap of fantastic AI traffic that I've been installing since Easter 2003, and boy, I had the most fantastic FS experience of my life so far today. It looked and felt wonderful. The odd stutter here and there (especially as ASV6 updated the weather) but ####, the performance was generally very good (FPS well into the 20s/early 30s even) and I'd just like to say that *this was FS at its very best*. I've toyed with FSX over the past few months and while it does look nice with it's autogen and photoreal-esque textures, it really doesn't hold a candle to FS9 performance-wise and the older sim still looks absolutely fantastic. It is going to take a long time before FSX can match the experience that I had today looking out over the wing of the Socata as I began my ascent over the (yes, almost photo-realistic) suburbs of Honululu (thanks to Ground Environment Pro), and then encountered a beautiful thin layer of cumulus clouds, coupled with slight turbulence and the busy chatter of the ATC (due to all the AI traffic I have installed). It really was breathtaking. What I really want to say here though is that with MSFS, it takes a good few years for the hardware to catch up to what the current sim can really offer in terms of performance and enjoyability (is that a word?!). It is only NOW that FS9 is really showing what it has to offer. Forget FSX, for now at least.. It has potential, obviously... but it won't show it's true colours for another couple of years. People just don't realise that, or, more importantly, *they simply can't accept that*. Let the hardware catch up, and for now just enjoy FS9, because it simply has *much much* more to offer than FSX in its current state. And also, with the current top-of-the range hardware, FS9 should perform like a dream. You should be buying your Core 2 Duo processors and the like for FS9, and not for FSX. FSX will need at least a couple of years to start showing true potential as a flight sim. And yes, that WILL happen. In 3-4 years time.. But for now.... Upgrade to the latest hardware and load up FS9 and you will really see Microsoft Flight Simulator at its very best.So put an end to this silliness that FSX is the better sim. It isn't. And it won't be for quite some time. Sorry.

I hear ya loud and clear, see you on the next go around....the Space Station in FS11:-wave John M

Interesting thread! One of the first FS9 vs FSX threads I've seen that has stayed totally civil!I went out and purchased FSX on the day of release in the UK. The first time I loaded it up and went for a flight I was totally underwhelmed. Bad graphics and even worse framerates. I spent some time trawling this and other forums, applying the various tweaks as they were being discovered. Eventually I forced myself to sit down and make a few complete flights with FSX. It began to grow on me, and I will be the first to admit FSX has potential. Eventually, I decided to uninstall it and return it to the shop as I couldn't see myself using it that much for the forseeable future.In the meantime I've upgraded to a Core 2 Duo system and FS9 runs beautifully. After more than 3 years I can finally fly a PMDG or Level D aeroplane into a detailed airport with lots of AI activity and the framerate stays perfectly acceptable. I've spent 3 years trying to get to this point, and I'm not about to migrate to FSX and start the exercise all over again!In fact, I think I'm going to settle down with FS9 for the long haul (well, at least for another year or so). To that effect I'm currently scanning the major FS sites for good freeware airport sceneries, and I've spent quite a bit of money at Simmarket in the last few weeks on payware sceneries.My virtual hangar is packed with everything from a 747 to a Spitfire, and just about everything in between...We've reached the point now where people have invested so much time and money in FS9 that they don't want to give it up so easily and start over with FSX. If guys with bleeding edge systems can just about eek out acceptable performance from FSX straight from the box, it doesn't bode well for the FS afficionados who will want to load up a Fly Tampa scenery and an PMDG bird. That to me is the crux of the argument - I don't want to spend hour after frustrating hour trying to get FSX to run acceptably with "out of the box" aircraft and scenery. Especially seeing so little of actual substance appears to have been improved in FSX.Now I'm not saying we should all boycott FSX and burn the developers at the stake for their crimes. If people are happy with FSX and are enjoying it then that's great! I don't want to urinate on their proverbial cereal. However, it appears a very substantial part of the community want to stay with FS9 for the time being. This creates a problem for the developers - do they make addons for FS9 or FSX? We've already seen the first companies announce their future releases will be FSX only. This has already generated a lot of disappointment for the people who are sticking with FS9 - the recent announcements concerning the Level D 757 comes to mind. I wouldn't be at all surprised if PMDG made an announcement that their forthcoming MD11 will be an FSX only product. Up until now it's been pretty simple - develop addons for FS9, after all, that's what most of us are using. Now in the coming months (years even?) things are going to be more complicated. Should a developer invest all the extra time and effort in creating an product that can be used in FS9 AND FSX? Or should they just create a product for one version of FS. If so, which version will it be? What version is their customer base using? Will they lose sales because of the division in the FS community?Here's a scenario for you - Level D release their long awaited 757 for FSX only. Will they experience disappointing sales because so much of their customer base is staying with FS9? Or will that customer base finally be given the impetus to migrate to FSX because they want to fly the Level D 757?As I said earlier, there's no point arguing over which version is better. It doesn't achieve anything, and as long as the individual is happy with their sim then all is well. To each his own, and all that! As for me, at this point in time, and for the foreseeable future, FS9 will provide a better flight sim experience for me, so it's staying on my system, and those developers who continue to release quality products for FS9 will continue to receive my not so hard earned Sterling/Dollars/Euros.Cheers!

I completely agree with you. That's why I always say I don't own FSX "yet". There is great potential there, like you say, it will only take some time. I just don't feel like chasing the software with expensive hardware upgrades at this time. I just completed a nice scenic air tour myself of Maui. I thought I heard you on the Unicom frequency:-) John M

Nick, you are running about what I am, and I am running FS9 tricked out pretty nicely at a pleasant 1600x1200 16AF 4xAA. You should be able to get enough excellent perf out of your rig so that perhaps you can wait and really make a big upgrade. It's what I am trying to do. Perhaps then FS will offer multicore support. My advice is hang on as long as you can before upgrading, then upgrade big!Noel

Mmm... Concerning LVL-D... The 757 may not be here before a whole year from now... When the 757 is out I think FSX will be patched. (FS9 perf + bug, then DX10/Vista)... Considering how FS9 and FSX are different platforms, meaning devs have to program "twice" for a LOT of systems, I can understand their choice to stick to FSX. Especially when the addon they're developping is not out before several months.

>> 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.AdamsonAgain, for those of you with AS6.5, the Vertical Air and Turbulence simulation gives you 90% of what FSX has to offer in this department.If you are using FS9 and don't have AS, go get it.No 'riding on rails' for me..........

Unless these guys can make the new addons with a zero FPS hit, then I won't be buying them. (based on current pre-ACES DX9 patch performance)

Just some friendly questions, please don't get upset by them, but how are they going to patch FSX? Are they going to patch it "backwards" so it will run like FS9? If so, then why not just stay with FS9 since a backward patch will only degrade the capabilities of FSX? Most likely to a level that many of us can already achieve with a "loaded" FS9.I agree with some of the posts above that say we have to wait for the hardware to become available to run FSX properly.John M

>IMO FS9 is now coming into its own as a flight simulator.>Believe me when I say this, I just took off in the freeware>Socata TBM700 from Honolulu with all the nice addons installed>(FS Genesis mesh, Flight Environment, Active Sky, UT, Real>Environment Pro as well as a heap of fantastic AI traffic that>I've been installing since Easter 2003, and boy, I had the>most fantastic FS experience of my life so far today. Weeks ago, I sat on the simulated runway at Honolulu, looking towards the rising terrain in both FS9 & FSX. Each has FSGenesis installed. I could easily see that FSX had made vast improvements in depiction of the island's terrain over FS9. I sat there thinking, wow, I didn't realize just how bad FS9 was! :-hah L.Adamsonedit: Note that my interest regarding flight, has always been with rising terrain, which supercedes AI traffic, etc. Therefor, I will always have a different take on this subject.

This post, like most of his posts, sound like adverts :-|"I find the superior AirMass

HelloI 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.So your home area and also Honululu are improved in your eyes but what about the rest of us who live in areas which are now desert.Or the simmers who enjoy realism in aircraft systems and airports.At least be balanced in your appraisal of FSX, surely you can see lots of things that are plain wrong about how it renders huge areas of the planet.Or the fact that a huge library of airport sceneries developed with a lot of effort on the part of Payware and freeware Devs are now useless despite Aces claiming backwards compatability for our addons.Have look on Ebay for an idea of how well FSX has been received it is now a bargain bin legacy app, with no support for the machines that are being sold over the holiday season.You can evangelise all you like but the fact is most of us will probably skip over this version, wait for FSII and pin our hopes on MS hiring some devs who actually have a clue about modern hardware.