Tried FSX again but going back to FS9

[Jetman67 517]

Hi AllI gave FSX another go, applied all the tweaks, but I honestly like FS9 better, with Actice Sky 6, voz australian scenery and ultimate traffic things run very smooth. FSX would grind to a halt with those applications running. Dont know what the rest of the world looks like in FSX but australia looks ordinary and I am less than impressed with the underpowerd piston aircraft that seen not capapble of maintaning 8000 feet even at full throttle and correctly leaned. There are many that swear FSX looks better but I cant agree, maybe it looks better on a new system i dont know but I am enjoying FS9 maxed out far better than FSX and imagine it will be this way for some time.

[Staffan 12]

Hi,You are not alone. More and more simmers returns to FS9. And I very well understand why. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifDell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

[LAdamson 240]

>Hi,>>You are not alone. More and more simmers returns to FS9. And I>very well understand why. ;-)>I hope it's not because of supposeably "unreal" piston performance! That's incorrect... :-hah L.Adamson

[Guest GA Flyer]

This release of FS is a bit different from prior versions and has left many simmer feeling it. On one hand you have FS9 + addons + hardware that can run it smoothly = a sim that you no longer need to tweak or discover to enjoy. On the other hand you have FS10 which shows what is possible - the hardware - the addons = for now just a default sim that is very uncustomized to the users likens. However, if you dont look at it like is one better than the other and look at it as a way to use the sims in two totally different ways and stop trying to make FS10 be what you've done with FS9 then you might find equal enjoyment in both and no longer worry about being in a rush to "switch" to FS10.Personally I use them both and completely differently. I'm more focused on making FS9 to replicate the real world with addons and FS10 to enjoy the improved v/c and new planes. I have equal fun in both and yet in FS10 I dont have auto-gen, AI traffic or fly near any cities but in the ice covered mountain ranges of Alaska.I have no care to ungrade FS10 via addons and hope that the developers keep making addons for FS9 because I will keep buying them. I might invest in a few utility upgrades for FS10 like FSUIPC but no a/c or scenery. ACES has made it this way for us with the choice to design the sim to support future hardware which I have decided I will no longer follow. FS10 has its problems and updates are on the way but thats besides the point. I want a sim that I can use today and enjoy today not right before the next release. With FS9 I have it. Now had ACES made a total upgrade to the ATC engine that would support holds, STARs, DP's, spacing etc then I would feel that I would rather use FS10 to replicate the real world then FS9 but since that didnt happen- no loss there. So I am thinking about using FS10 as more of a multiplayer sim and online flying where you can have default ATC or AI anyway.I also believe that the missions will really save FS10 and once again it makes FS10 a sim that you can use differently then FS9.What we really need is for ACES to make the next version where we can upgrade to following versions without a complete new install just like how they do their OS. Design the engine with the core in mind for not only ACES but all addon developers that make their products without going outside of the SDK. That way all addons that are made to code with FS's SDK can be moved from one version to the next without having to reinstall it. All non SDK addon will need a patch.You just buy the next version and it moves all your addons over to the next version just like how you dont lose programs when you upgrade from one OS to the next.

[rjsagel 0]

Hello,I have unloaded FSX from my computer system for the third and last time - until something changes and I can fly sims better than in my FS9.1 setup.I have a resonably fast system with 2 gigs of ram, AMD 64- 3500+ and two Nvidia 6800 cards in SLI mode. I use Tweakfps for my FS9 and tried the FSX version with all of its tweaks. My performance is awful in FSX. I get about 40 FPS in FS9 and about 8 in FSX. Since I switched mostly to VFR flying of Helicopters, the FSX system performance is so bad (at low altitude) that I cannot use it. Unless I invest a fortune in a new computer I cannot justify this "incredible advancement" as my main sim. I have reloaded X-Plane (most recent version ) with new scenery updates and it is far better (my opinion) than the FSX with all of its' "enhancements". My GOFLIGHT system works fine with the X-Plane helo addons and the payware price for the X-plane helos is modest compared to the MS Flight Sim addons. Eye-candy not withstanding, my FS9.1 with DODOSIM helo(s) and other addons is far superior for my taste.Hopefully, an SP for FSX will make it usable for those of us who are not ready or able to invest in another computer system for their sim flying.Cheers,Ron Sagel

[CanadaOne 36]

I removed FSX from my HD when I bought and installed several payware add-ons for FS9. Defragged and did a nice clean install of everything all at once. haven't put FSX back in yet. Maybe today.Like the other fellow said, the bush and mountain flights in FSX are wonderful. And the Maule Orion is a dream plane for me. But if I want everything all at once, only FS9 can serve it up. With the add-ons I get great bush flights that turn into great city flights and great landings at busy AI, high detail airports. All with top shelf graphics and good FPS. No way I can do that in FSX with my rig.In a year or two I might be FSX only. For now, only FS9 gives me the whole flight enchilada.

[Nick75 0]

FS9 with all the trimmings is far far better than what FSX can currently offer. FS9 has basically evolved into a sim that now shows the true extent to what today's technology, combined with today's leading FS addon developers, can offer. No doubt FSX will be the same in 3-4 years' time, but until then FSX will only bring you headaches if you attempt to use it as your 'serious' sim, despite the vain attempts here to contradict that fact. Now, FS9 has come into it's heyday as a sim. Yes it has. It's just that people don't realise that, aren't being realistic in terms of what technology can currently offer, and have leapt onto the FSX bandwagon in haste, expecting some kind of miracle FS that will blow them away. And sadly they forget about the previous sim as if it never existed. And so FS9 never actually reaches that grand status it truly deserves by now. IMHO of course. I guess I haven't been flightsimming for that long in comparison to some simmers on here (only since Summer 2002), but by now I've learned that you give an FS version at least a year from it's release date before you even bother to install it on your system. Like a fine wine, it takes considerable time for an FS version to 'mature'. There's something much much more pleasing in getting nice smooth framerates than being able to have sharper ground textures just above ground level and cars on the roads (or freeways/motorways only, rather..). FSX can offer more in terms of its graphical content I guess, but it CAN'T match up to a sim which currently offers much better performance on average. Better framerates=more realistic motion, leading to a much more enjoyable & realistic flight simulation experience all round. In certain instances in FS9 where I've pulled a few sliders back and set the FPS slider to unlimited, I've seen what the sim is like at 60FPS (although the frames subsequently dip down to lower numbers intermittently in certain instances). At 60FPS though, the sim performance seems a world away from what it's like at say, 30FPS, which is what a lot of people find completely acceptable. Even 20FPS is deemed by some as being acceptable, but this is actually quite poor compared to what it *could* be like. What I'm saying is, that we all rush out to buy & install the newly-released sim, when we know that in 3 years' time we're only going to be getting 30-odd FPS tops. We're simply not giving the current flight simulator version enough time to mature in relation to the technology that comes onto the market that will be used to power it. No, there's little we can do about Microsoft's need (for want of a better word) to keep their profits rolling in by having to release a sim every couple of years, but you're simply never going to get a performance-hassle free sim if you don't allow for the technology to catch up. And that takes a #### of a long time! Yet no-one seems to really appreciate that...! To take an average middle-of-the-road flightsimmer's system into account, I'd say we're still *nowhere near* getting a solid 50 or even 40 FPS in FS9 (what I would personally class as 'realistic motion', although that's no doubt entirely subjective, as I'll inevitably find out), and yet FSX has already taken over these forums as being the primary discussion topic! We even had to *beg* the moderators to re-instate the FS9 forum?!?...... From a personal point of view, I'm actually currently only interested in *FS9* and to be frank, I'm quite excited about what it will be able to offer on a high-end system of today (I currently have a P4 3.2 Gig/X800 Pro system that was pretty much 'high-end' in mid-2004, but looking at newer systems with a view to running *FS9* on it...note not so much FSX as such..). The reason for that is I just know that while FSX will perform pretty well on such a system, from what I've experienced with FS9 on my current rig, there WILL still be a number of performance issues during certain in-flight scenarios.. And yes, it will be interesting to see how FSX performs on Vista/DX10, but I'll cross that rather flimsy-looking bridge when I come to it (gulp!)...but that is still going to be quite some time away. By the law of averages though, it's going to be another 4 years at least before FSX will become a fully-fledged flight simulator as it's meant to be. So until then....

[vonmar 123]

Yep,I purchased FX and will be "testing" it for some time to come.Just purchased DreamFleets Baron58XP! for FS9. Great plane, great avionics package, great frame rates.The FX computer will cost $3000 US ... current quote.So, I hope the software/hardware guys continue making FS9 packages with upgrade paths to FX.

[Guest bobsk8]

>I removed FSX from my HD when I bought and installed several>payware add-ons for FS9. Defragged and did a nice clean>install of everything all at once. haven't put FSX back in>yet. Maybe today.>>Like the other fellow said, the bush and mountain flights in>FSX are wonderful. And the Maule Orion is a dream plane for>me. But if I want everything all at once, only FS9 can serve>it up. With the add-ons I get great bush flights that turn>into great city flights and great landings at busy AI, high>detail airports. All with top shelf graphics and good FPS. No>way I can do that in FSX with my rig.>>In a year or two I might be FSX only. For now, only FS9 gives>me the whole flight enchilada.FS9 with Misty Fjords and Ultimate Terrain Canada and FS Genesis Mesh and some of the payware planes like the Goose and Beaver and Carendo 182 RG to me look alot more realistic than FSX and I don't have to replace my 1 1/2 year old PC with a Cray Computer to get it to run decently.

[Guest SilverCircle]

>>Hi,>>>>You are not alone. More and more simmers returns to FS9. And>I>>very well understand why. ;-)>>>>I hope it's not because of supposeably "unreal" piston>performance! That's incorrect... :-hah Nope, it is probably because of:a) bad performance. A fact, although some tweaks really help, there is NO way to make FSX perform like FS9, not even close. For many, that is an issue, especially for those who have purchased new (and expensive) hardware recently and now realize that their high-end systems are not able to run this sim like they would like to see it.:( Lack of add-ons. For me, that's the #1 reason. As long as my favorite planes (sstsim, level-d, pmdg 747) won't *fully* run at acceptable performance in FSX, I'am not going to convert. Plain and simple. My system is fast enough to run even the most complex add-ons in FS9 with good and steady performance but it chokes on FSX, even with default planes.Yes, I know that something which should help a bit with the performance issues will be done. DX10 may help another bit, but people who expect wonders from all these things may be disappointed. Faster video cards won't do miracles either, and CPU speed is not going to increase dramatically within the next 10-12 months (the next clock frequency "upgrade" for the Core 2 Duo won't appear before Q3/2007 and a quadcore won't help).For me, the benefits of FSX are very small. Yes, it does render the terrain a lot better than FS9 and it also has some really interesting new features (shared cockpit for example). But it also has a lot of issues, especially in compatibility with older add-ons (not only planes, even many good scenery add-ons won't fully work).FS9 "just works" and with some tweaks and add-ons, it provides ecellent visuals. And visuals are not everything - at FL550, I couldn't care less about highres textures, ultra-dense autogen, animals, moving vehicles and all that "eye candy". In case, I *do* care about visuals (airports for example), there are lots of excellent add-ons, both payware and freeware, for FS9.

[CanadaOne 36]

I just re-installed FSX. The VCs are great. If we had planes like that in FS9 I wouldn't buy any add-ons. (Almost.) Did a bit of sightseeing. Some of the terrain is lousy. Some of it is very, very nice. Not crazy about the textures, though. Too much of a pastel to them. Flew over the Grand Tetons and though they were nice, all I could think of was how much nicer they would look back in FS9 once I get my hands on the 9 meter mesh of the area. Must be mind blowing.To be fair, FSX is an infant of a program. A 500lb infant, but an infant none the less. In a year or two when it matures, when we have entire countries with high precision mesh, Ground Environment textures and Flight Environment skies, as well as the rigs to run it all, FS9 will pale in comparison. It's inevitable, and I look forward to flying it.FSX is not as good as FS9 has become. And FS9 will never be as good as FSX will become.

[Guest PARADISE]

>FSX is not as good as FS9 has become. And FS9 will never be as>good as FSX will become. That's true. But,just as the MS Flight Sims have changed over the years, so too have the simmers that use them. Especially the "newbies" that are looking for some new form of entertainment to satisfy their needs. Most of us have been transformed, by riding in the fast lane for the past few years, into a society that demands instant gratification. If this is not achieved, then we move onto something else that will give us that feeling, now. That's where FSX is riding in dangerous teritory. If the number of simmers that feel ungratified with this product grows too large then FSX will not get the support it needs to become better. Hopefully, the number of patient simmers will outweigh the number of instant gratification seekers and your above statement will hold true.John M

[Jetman67 517]

Maybe it is a tweak that caused it but it is definently happening to me, I will enjoy FS9 and leave FSX at this timeRegardsWayne

[Jetman67 517]

Removed

[aerdt 0]

I agree with a previous poster about the lack of add-ons for FSX. Only a few years ago, there were only a handful of add-ons available for FS. With FS9 the add-on 'industry' seemed to have increased exponentially and simmers just don't want to go back and fly "default". Blame PMDG, Level-D and Flight1.I did fly with FSX, completed the missions and.. now what? I don't have a plane of the quality of a PMDG, no Radar Contact, no super-detailed airports, no FS Passengers - the list goes on. And, yes, giving up $400 of add-ons is a bummer. I understand that technology evolves and backward compatibility is not always guaranteed, but right now FSX does not offer me any improvement over FS9.Additionally, I am annoyed with some of the developers who are now trying to cash in to release FSX-compatible versions for a same or slightly lower price. It just not fun anymore.Eventually, I returned back to FS9 and, guess what, I had a blast again. I loaded up my X-Plane v8.5 and I had even more fun, because XPs scenery blows FSX away - and that is with 60fps on average. Period.Sure, FSX *can* look stunning, if you enjoy flying a slideshow. Right now, it's simply unflyable, even on the most advanced hardware. Aces has made a huge mistake in releasing FSX too early. Unless Aces comes out with a magic Dual Core patch or some serious DX10 magic, FSX will remain sockdrawered here, because it is simply not enjoyable.Pat