Post your support for FS9 here please?

[zfehr 1]

Sorry Dave,Guess I read it the wrong way and then messed your name up to boot. Back to the OT I'm using both on my computer which was pretty state of the art a year ago. I see FSX's potential but FS9 with all the add-ons does look/fly/operate/(insert almost any positive here) better given todays equipment which is to be expected with any new release. I think by late this year with DX10/Vista and ACEs patch for DX10 and some yet to be released hardware we will all see a big jump in the total experience of FSX but it will probably be another year till many of us will be able to justify the cost to upgrade just for FSX.

[boshar 6]

>FS9 had exactly the same bad frame rates upon launch like FSXThats selective memory kicking in. FS9 had way less complaints about performance then FS-X now and if you check the posted hardware specs at that time most complaint came from people with older machines. Meanwhile FS-X performance complaints are still raining down on us. These complaints come from people with top of the line hardware runing with major features/improvements switched off. Some of those people are commercial add-on developers to so there is something more to it than the standard always complaining routine.>FSX will be great in about a year. Give it some time and keep>the expectations real. It's the most realistic flight>simulator for consumers so far and far away from being a>game.That will depent on the fact if the future patches will give us significant Dual Core support. If thats not supported FS-X is not future proof and the claim thats its scaled to run on future hardware will be false.FS9 rode out the single core Mhz race on the way profiting from beter, more efficient cores. At the end Dual Core became mainstream and we got some extra perfomance for the complicated add-ons that have their own EXE's.Current FS-X has one proces that benefits from a 2nd core (reading scenery if I'm correct). More then 2 cores won't give you any benefit. The current processor roadmaps give us multi cores and show little in the way of higher Mhz. FS-X in its current state is ill adapted to the future hardware. You won't see a FS9 like performance increase unless they make big time patches to FS-X core engine. With the FS-X product already sold extra programmer time eats away the profits for Microsoft so its very unlikely.The only chance I see is the trainsim product that uses the FS-X engine. If they improve the game enigine in trainsim and can port those changes back into FS-X we might have a shot at a real perfomance increase.In the mean time lets burn some candles and keep the faith.

[aerdt 0]

I agree. The lack of dual-core support has been the biggest blunder from Aces and cannot be excused. While dual-core doesn't mean performance * 2, it would certainly help to achieve better frame rates. Right now, I don't even want to think about flying a highly complex airliner in FSX.Let's just wait for SP1 and DX10.Pat

[Guest Tingoose]

Dave speaks wisdom again. Yessss! A great idea. Let's canvass developers to concentrate on the FS classic which is FS9. Great call Dave from Devon!

[Guest Keyno-onyeK]

Im sticking with FS9. Think about it guys, whats really new in FSX? What some new water? Some reflection on objects?Im waiting for FS11. Where i'll get new ATC voices, new clouds, that have shadows, new ATC, new animation at the lonely airports, ect...And im building a new PC, Dual Core, not to run FSX but FS9, so i can set my sliders to the max and have all my payware addons run 30fps+When software keeps getting delayed, thats a clue.Go FS9, we love ya!

[kerosene31 349]

>Thats selective memory kicking in. FS9 had way less complaints>about performance then FS-X now and if you check the posted>hardware specs at that time most complaint came from people>with older machines. Meanwhile FS-X performance complaints are>still raining down on us. These complaints come from people>with top of the line hardware runing with major>features/improvements switched off.Yes, I can back this up. FPS in FS2004 were not bad at all if you had the hardware. I had what was probably close to top of the line at the time of the FS9 release. (3.0 ghz processor and a good video card). With all default scenery and aircraft, FS9 performed fairly well for the most part. Not that things were perfect, but I didn't really have any major performance problems until I started putting add-ons in.

[Glynn 405]

Hello ScottThat post sums everything up perfectly for me.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"FSX is a game and always will be."Funny, I was flying the Allegro in FS9 last night, which is the plane I fly in "real life". I was swept away by the breathtaking vistas as if I've never flown FS9 before, but in truth I've been flying FS9 since beta. It's a great product.And I think it's a product we should continue to promote, but promote on its merits, and not at the expense of FS-X or any other sim. Remember there's two types of politicians--the ones I loathe are those who preface everything they say with an attack on the other candidate. I said in a post a while back and I say it again, when we start putting down FS-X we sound like "FS-X wannabes" vs. people who want to celebrate a sim we enjoy. -John

[wrenchca 0]

Here, Here!!! Long live FS9! I was absolutely floored when I checked the processes tab to see my second CPU core off on a coffee break. When I bought FS9, I was running a HyperThreading CPU that was essentially two virtual processors and FS9 made use of them. With FSX, we have taken a step backwards.Furthermore, I would hate to be a developer right now. Can you imagine trying to create a complex add-on for FSX? The stock install of FSX sucks so much performance, now you have to create an add-on that uses as little CPU as possible...or get ready to face the flack of unhappy customers who have had their framerates tank when they try to run your product!It's going to be an interesting year...ChuckCYXU

[G7USL 117]

John, we're not 'putting down' FSX, we're just asking software writers to carry on with FS9 and not give it up, in favour of FSX thinking that we don't want to use it anymore?At the moment, all I use FSX for is entertainment. I think the 'Missions' are great but for hardcore flying, it's FS9 all the way.

[betelgeuse 41]

I agree with most of the above. FS9 is a superb simulation and whilst it has deficiencies e.g. poor ATC, dumb AI, awkward MP, none of these have been improved in FSX. Not only that, but my present highish spec hardware would struggle with the new version. I've recently bought a bunch of superb FS9 aircraft at knockdown prices and so will be sticking with it for the foreseeable...Betel

[Guest tango papa]

One of my favorite developers for FS9 is Holger Sandmann and team. I just saw some of the screen shots for his next freeware scenery, "Glacier Bay" and it's fantastic. Someone even created a fly-over video in several areas, and I could swear it was from a R/L flight. I'm sticking with FS9, even with this dinasour PC. AMD700Mhz, 128Mb GeForce Video, 328Mb ram. It works just fine flying in the bush. I'm just can't shell out $3-4K, for a new system. Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like -M.Twain

[Guest richpress]

To link software to hardware requirements that are not yet available is in my opinion bad trade practice. I am a private pilot and get all I require with realism in FS9 and have no reason to change. I support your comments.Richard

[G7USL 117]

>One of my favorite developers for FS9 is Holger Sandmann and>team. I just saw some of the screen shots for his next>freeware scenery, "Glacier Bay" and it's fantastic. Someone>even created a fly-over video in several areas, and I could>swear it was from a R/L flight. And mine, his Vancouver+ and Misty Fjords is fantastic. The 'Portland' scenery is so frame rate freindly and has all the moving objects too.Jeff Greth's video using the little Dornier D0-27 there is phenominal and clearly shows that FS0 has still not reached it's full potential.

[ghostrider 112 0]

My major disapointment with FSX is it's inability to utilize dual core. Im sure the upcoming patch will improve performance. But it still will not address this fundamental flaw.I have a ton of add ons for FS9 and it runs beautifully.I am going to stay with FS9, skip FSX and look forward to FS11.Let's hope they do it RIGHT the next time!