'FSX may be a step back' part II

[Guest Debosonic]

Dear Friends, I got rid of FSX and put back fs9 with only the good quality add-ons (ld767, pmdg 747, f1 727, cs 130 , pa31, etc.) plus GE and FE and some aiports. I have so many good quality add-ons that are operable in fs9 only and it is a shame not to have them available just because there is fsx. I gave fsx a chance for a couple of months but now I am back. There is not going to be a suitable complex airliner sim update for fsx for still some time. In fact, the only decent fsx offering at the moment is feel there's Legacy. Maybe good fs9 sims will get updated but i don't see that happeing any time soon.I am quite happy now. I shall start rebuilding my good old fs9 only with the best quality add-ons that I have accumulated over the years.George

[LAdamson 240]

I'm tempted to do a different topic on the FSX forum. I'll agree that FS9 is by far the best for many complex aircraft, and "lavish" airport scenery's at this time.However, it's FSX, that has quite an edge in flight qualities, ranging from trim, to a vastly improved feeling of being airborne. Yes, I could spend another $38 on Active SKY for FS9, but still not get that feel of flight combined with atmospherics, that comes stock with FSX. That's a step forward!I'll title mine.........."How to feel like you're flying at a desktop, without spending $ thousands $ for additional addons!" Of course, I'll post this in the FSX forum. :-lol L.Adamson-- FSX a really excited user, Pro-Pilot shill, and user of both FSX & FS9

[Mike T 208]

L:All I can say is since you don't own Activesky you can't compare the two. All you know right now is that FSX comes with beter atmospheric effects vis a v FS9.As an owner of Activesky I can tell you that the reason that many of us who own Activesky don't care about better default atmospherics in FSX is because they are no different than what you get with Activesky.Now, you could beg to differ, however, on my last flight: hitting turbulence on my climbout from KEWR, CAT over the North Atlantic and chop all the way to 0/0 CAT III at EDDF...I can tell YOU that you don't have anything in FSX in that area that I don't have now.

[LAdamson 240]

>L:>>All I can say is since you don't own Activesky you can't>compare the two. All you know right now is that FSX comes>with beter atmospheric effects vis a v FS9.>>As an owner of Activesky I can tell you that the reason that>many of us who own Activesky don't care about better default>atmospherics in FSX is because they are no different than what>you get with Activesky.>Mike,I know other users of FSX, who have owned active sky for several versions of MSFS. The report, is that the FSX default with mountain waves, and turbulence is superior. Perhaps Active Sky for FSX, might up the anti. :-hah In the meantime, since I gave it serious thought today, I'm not bothering with this addon for FS9. But I do have their GE Pro.I just did a series of pics for the screenshot forum using the RealAir SF260 in both FS9 & FSX. Flight quality wise, it's no contest. FSX is superior in everyway (flight dynamics), for this type of flight!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=252898&page=L.Adamson

[FTD1949 0]

I have FS9 and Active Sky and I say it's not as good as default FSX weather. And it didn't cost me to make FSX weather better as it did with FS9. Craig

[CV990A 0]

>I'm tempted to do a different topic on the FSX forum. I'll>agree that FS9 is by far the best for many complex aircraft,>and "lavish" airport scenery's at this time.>>However, it's FSX, that has quite an edge in flight qualities,>ranging from trim, to a vastly improved feeling of being>airborne. Yes, I could spend another $38 on Active SKY for>FS9, but still not get that feel of flight combined with>atmospherics, that comes stock with FSX. That's a step>forward!>>I'll title mine.........."How to feel like you're flying at a>desktop, without spending $ thousands $ for additional>addons!" Of course, I'll post this in the FSX forum. :-lol >>L.Adamson-- FSX a really excited user, Pro-Pilot shill, and user of both FSX>& FS9thats all great and all, but does FSX feature wake Turbulence and/or accurate wind aloft data?trim? in what way is it improved? I didn't notice any difference between the latest FSX demo and FS9, both still don't come even close to flying a real plane... besides if you know a bit about tuning FDE's you'd know you can alter the trim in any FS9 aircraft.nice set of shots, but what are they to prove? you can live without autogen, I can't. the real world isn't flat and approaching into an airport like Kai Tak or any airport with a lot of buildings, trees etc surrounding the airport in real life, without autogen that looks just plain wrong to me. besides as an heavy metal pilot, usually coming in at approach speeds of between 130-150 knots you would hardly notice the difference between the FSX high res textures and the lower resolution ones from FS9.also, Activesky deffinetly enhances the FS9 experience, it does simulate turbulence rather well, Wake Turbulence adds a whole new level to flying and thanks to the accurate wind aloft data it make flying at cruise altitude a lot less frustrating then the default "high altitude windshear" often experienced..LA with all respect as I believe you would be a nice guy and all, you're not going to convince us FS9 simmers to switch to FSX.. especialy us heavy metal flyers have no reason to switch.-Sander, a guy who still enjoys every sec out of his FS9 setup.. 3 years after starting with it-

[LAdamson 240]

>trim? in what way is it improved? I didn't notice any>difference between the latest FSX demo and FS9, both still>don't come even close to flying a real plane... besides if you>know a bit about tuning FDE's you'd know you can alter the>trim in any FS9 aircraft.I'm well aware of altering trim settings. However, it seems that the best of the best still had troubles. It's now much closer to flying and trimming a real plane, and not a case of not coming close. >>nice set of shots, but what are they to prove? you can live>without autogen, I can't. the real world isn't flat and>approaching into an airport like Kai Tak or any airport with a>lot of buildings, trees etc surrounding the airport in real>life, without autogen that looks just plain wrong to me.Some times, autogen looks great, and sometimes awful.See pic: Excellent 3rd party add on for FS9, but the boundary to default scenery with auto-gen is very evident with the lower left hand block.Do keep in mind, that as previously said, I use both simulations to find the best of what I want. While numerous airport scenery looks great in FS9, MegaScenery has certainly found it's nitch in FSX, as it's much crisper overall, and much more pleasant at low altitudes.For the heavies, stick to FS9. And buildings, do show without autogen, as in the second pic (MegaScenery Hawaii).http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167414.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167415.jpg

[FTD1949 0]

>>I'm tempted to do a different topic on the FSX forum. I'll>>agree that FS9 is by far the best for many complex aircraft,>>and "lavish" airport scenery's at this time.>>>>However, it's FSX, that has quite an edge in flight>qualities,>>ranging from trim, to a vastly improved feeling of being>>airborne. Yes, I could spend another $38 on Active SKY for>>FS9, but still not get that feel of flight combined with>>atmospherics, that comes stock with FSX. That's a step>>forward!>>>>I'll title mine.........."How to feel like you're flying at>a>>desktop, without spending $ thousands $ for additional>>addons!" Of course, I'll post this in the FSX forum. :-lol >>>>L.Adamson-- FSX a really excited user, Pro-Pilot shill, and user of both>FSX>>& FS9>>thats all great and all, but does FSX feature wake Turbulence>and/or accurate wind aloft data?>>trim? in what way is it improved? I didn't notice any>difference between the latest FSX demo and FS9, both still>don't come even close to flying a real plane... besides if you>know a bit about tuning FDE's you'd know you can alter the>trim in any FS9 aircraft.>>nice set of shots, but what are they to prove? you can live>without autogen, I can't. the real world isn't flat and>approaching into an airport like Kai Tak or any airport with a>lot of buildings, trees etc surrounding the airport in real>life, without autogen that looks just plain wrong to me.>besides as an heavy metal pilot, usually coming in at approach>speeds of between 130-150 knots you would hardly notice the>difference between the FSX high res textures and the lower>resolution ones from FS9.>>also, Activesky deffinetly enhances the FS9 experience, it>does simulate turbulence rather well, Wake Turbulence adds a>whole new level to flying and thanks to the accurate wind>aloft data it make flying at cruise altitude a lot less>frustrating then the default "high altitude windshear" often>experienced..>>LA with all respect as I believe you would be a nice guy and>all, you're not going to convince us FS9 simmers to switch to>FSX.. especialy us heavy metal flyers have no reason to>switch.>>-Sander, a guy who still enjoys every sec out of his FS9>setup.. 3 years after starting with it- I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to switch. Get the full version of FSX and then you can talk about it.FS9 has had years to mature and most users have had time to uprade their machines to catch up with it. If you want to talk apples to apples it's really quite simple.FS9 with no add-ons vs. FSX out of the box. I have both. FS9 with more money spent on add-ons than a care to admit and FSX out of thebox. FSX wins hands down. I have found myself using FSX almostall of the time and every time I go back to FS9 to try and convince myself that it is better I find that it is just wishfull thinking.Craig

[kdfw__ 539]

I'm rather tired of the same FS10 fans yaking "AirMass" over and over.Head latency is not unique to FS10. Go get TIR and ActiveSky, you'll notice FS10 isn't any better than FS9. FS10 is just bad FPS and poor hires scenery tiles (and great looking water).PatAMD A64 4000+ @ 2.65GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 1GB DDR, LTK6800GT-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, XP-hsp2

[FTD1949 0]

>>I'm rather tired of the same FS10 fans yaking "AirMass">over and over.>>Head latency is not unique to FS10. Go get TIR and ActiveSky,>you'll notice FS10 isn't any better than FS9. FS10 is just>bad FPS and poor hires scenery tiles (and great looking>water).>>Pat>>>AMD A64 4000+ @ 2.65GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 1GB>DDR, LTK6800GT-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH>FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, XP-hsp2 I don't have to PURCHASE ActiveSky for FSX because it's allready there. By the way I do own FS9, Active Sky, and Track IR as well. If you can't run FSX thats no fault of mine. I'm an FS9 fan too but if you compare apples to apples ie. no payware then FSX wins hands down. CraigASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CDSeagate ST3160811AS 160GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQSeagate ST3160811AS 250GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQEVGA 7950 GT KO PCIe 512mb nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/STrack IR3 w/vectorCH Yolk & RuddersFS Genesis Terrain MeshRC4

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"If you can't run FSX thats no fault of mine."After how many thread locks, you think members would get the hint? What is the use arguing about this? I don't think opinions will change. This forum should be about FS9, not about opening threads stating why FS-X is sooooo bad. And members who fly FS-X, if FS-X is really "that good", shouldn't have to spend bandwidth engaging in these threads. If the product is "that good" you should just be able to laugh off such threads.I now wonder if it was a mistake to divide the forums into two "camps". After all, FS2002 didn't warrant that attention and I still fly it from time to time just for the fun of it. It's almost like a dividing line is drawn between two political parties and you better have an opinion, or you're persona non grata. Anyway, off my soapbox. Back to flying Flight Assignment ATP :)-John

[FTD1949 0]

Wish I knew what happened to my copy of Flight Assigngment ATP as wellas my copy of Space Simulator.Craig

[FTD1949 0]

I would imagine the arguing might stop if folks didn't post a topic with this headline. "FSX may be a step back' part II" If that's not meant to provoke then I don't know what is. Respectfully, Craig ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CDSeagate ST3160811AS 160GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQSeagate ST3160811AS 250GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQEVGA 7950 GT KO PCIe 512mb nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/STrack IR3 w/vectorCH Yolk & RuddersFS Genesis Terrain MeshActive SkyRC4

[kdfw__ 539]

>If you can't run FSX thats no fault of mine.Who said it didn't run? It runs fine for bush flying, if that's your cup of tea.>I'm an FS9 fan too but if you compare apples to apples ie. no >payware then FSX wins hands down. FS10 wins what? Water? Yes. Default planes? Yes. Visual quality per FPS? No. Headroom for complex scenery/a/c? No. Well, not until SP1 fixes the performance problems....PatAMD A64 4000+ @ 2.65GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 1GB DDR, LTK6800GT-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, XP-hsp2