FSX SP1 is out but I have no driving desire...

[JimD737 0]

I concur.To tell you the truth, I was more happy to see the rain here in NJ (should help with the forest fires).I've been simming since FS4 and I am also happy with the way FS9 runs with the addons. When I last tried FSX, it was OK but there wasn't enough of a change to jump from FS9.May be someday I'll try again.JimAddons: Active Camera, Active Sky, CS C-130, LDS767, Razbam T-2, AlphaSim T-28/T-34, Carenado T-34, FSD C-17/T38/Seneca/Commander, MAAM B-25, Flight1 C172/PA28, MegaScenery NorthEast, multiple SimFlyers.

[CanadaOne 36]

I can understand people's reluctance to jump into FSX given the state in which it was released and the DX10/Vista handcuffs that came with it, but since what we're after here is fun, in truth, we shouldn't care if it's a spitball simulator; if it's fun to fly - fly it. I've been enjoying some great flights in FSX today. And FS9 as well. And IL2-46. I'm also about to re-install Falcon 4: Allied Force and maybe Lock On, too. If it flies, I want it! I have no intention of denying myself even five minutes of flying fun because of politics or attitude.FSX is at the beginning of its flowering. Once a few key software programs are released for it and the tweaks get better, it will only be the die hard cave dwellers who will be able to deny the fun of it. This doesn't mean FS9 is finished. I, like many of you, have well over $500 in add-ons for FS9 and have no intention of letting it go. It will be quite some time before I can run FSX as well as FS9 in all situations, but if we can get FSX to do some things well, and we can, and it's fun...After all, if we're not here to have fun, why are we here?

[altstiff 71]

I'll say what has been said many times already.FSX as it is right now will not replace my FS9. Yes the SP1 made a VAST improvment on my system but with all the great FS9 addon's I have I just can't make the switch.When more complex airliners are in FSX AND I get a conroe system, then I'll make the move.

[LAdamson 240]

As most know here, I think FSX has been a very interesting and fun simulation to run side by side with FS9. Wouldn't think of giving it up!In a week or two, I'll probably get around to downloading SP-1. Just no real hurry here... :-hah L.Adamson

[Guest Jimbofly]

I have a single core and there's a huge improvement in performance. Also there's an improvement in the rendering of the graphics.For the first time last night I felt FSX was truly a finished product!James

[Mike_CFII_MEL 788]

Hello,I have a new system with all the bells and whistles (system Specs Below). I get good FPS with FSX. However, the blurriness and extended ground textures borders on being ridiculous.FSX is

[Dirk98 354]

>Hello,>>I have a new system with all the bells and whistles (system>Specs Below). I get good FPS with FSX. However, the blurriness>and extended ground textures borders on being ridiculous.>>FSX is

[Orlaam 306]

I decided that the time and effort Microsoft put into SP1, with respect to supporting multicore processors, along with the other fixes, that I would buy FSX last night. I was very hard on FSX when it came out because of the terrible performance that everyone was having, as well as the lack of support for newer systems. Obviously, Microsoft has proven itself to the community with this patch, and I'm happy to support them in their development of this series. I love FS9 and it serves all my needs right now, but FSX has potential, as do all future MSFS series.I still need to build a new computer to enjoy it properly, but that goes without saying. I understand the desire to skip FSX, however, I'm fully involved in this hobby and feel that the support of the series is important to keep it alive.

[MD83 1]

FSX won't catch up with FS9 until 2008 at best. I think I will skip this version :)

[MD83 1]

One final comment: The "Consensus" is that FSX runs much better with default planes and scenery. What will happen when people start installing complex addons? That 20-50% increase in frames will evaporate completely .....

[Dirk98 354]

>What will happen when people start installing complex addons? That >20-50% increase in frames will evaporate completely .....One or two new patches with newer hardware will appear that will run ok new addons in FSX. Dialectics.

[ahinterl 1]

Installed SP1 for FSX yesterday and tried the Maddog 2006 for FSX.To run the default planes decently in FSX I need to reduce all display settings considerably, so even in "default configuration", FSX is no real pleasure for the eye (and I haven't installed any better mesh or scenery yet).What should I say? FPS dropped from 21 with default C172 to the cellar with 6-8 using the MD-82.I don't think that AirlinerXP's A320 would give me 20 FPS back but I'm quite sure that I'd have 1-2 FPS with it (if at all)!And all that on an average machine where FS9 runs smoothlessly even with the most complex planes and scenery addons.My conclusion? Either all FSX users have ultra-power PCs (which I cannot afford actually), or they fly default planes only and have tweaked FSX "to the max" in countless hours (something I really don't like to do - it's a hobby, not a preparation for a computer science exam).Nevertheless, I simply cannot imagine how the average FPSs would be on even the best power-PC one can assemble these days when hi-res mesh, AI planes like Ultimate Traffic, a weather generator like Active Sky, some things like Radar Contact and Flight Deck Companion as well as a complex airliner like AirlinerXP's A320 are running in 1600x1200 with medium anti-aliasing and anisotropic filter settings.That's what I can do now in FS9 and have good FPS, thinking about running the same under FSX is illusory for my hardware configuration.IMHO the time hasn't yet come for FSX, and I can only hope developers keep on writing for FS9 'cause I've wiped FSX off my drive completely, it's unusable for me since I'm not a user of default planes or a GA only flyer...Andreas

[Guest smileymiley]

>I think a lot of our reluctance to move on to FSX stems from>the fact that we've spent hundreds of dollars on addons for>FS9 and until those addons are patched for FSX a lot of us>wouldn't be moving. Personally I've been spoiled by high>quality airport scenerys. I just hate flying into a default>scenery airport.>>When I finally buy a new system for FSX, I'll still run my old>one networked, so I can still enjoy FS9.>>Dave Fisher>CYYZ>>P4 Prescott 3.2e 478p 800mhz 1mg CPU>P4P800SE Asus Motherboard>2.5 gig PC3200 DDR RAM 400MHZ>GeForce 7600GT/512 OC'd>Maxtor 80 Gig ATA 133 HD x2>WDC WD800 80 Gig HD>Antec 500watt true power>Sharp 19 inch LCD Monitor>Logitech Extreme 3D pro Joystick>>http://fs2crew.com/linepilot.jpg>>http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg>>>>I reckon you have summed it up there. Microsoft whilst pushing the envelope had forgotten abot the 3rd party develpoers for FS9. We have grown and matured with FS9. Why change? The only thing that may happen is that the major developers concentrate their attention on FSX rather then FS9. The only time I will change in the next 12 monthsa is when Level D, Xp Pro or AI become only for FSX. I still feel that FS9 has at least 18 months in it and for the first time I will transit with a fully mature FS that has loads of addons ( I hope or maybe don't).I still do not see the benefits of FSX against FS9.That and a couple of thousand dollars spent on addons.The commercial view like in everything in life will govern our preference.Cheers

[Gdavis0101 0]

I gotta say, I saw a BIG improvement with FSX and SP1 but I still prefer FS9.. Until Ground Environment Pro and UT is released for FSX my FS9 environment is so much better.. I was really hoping to see a fix regarding the endless deserts in FSX, it all looks so sandy and in places where it shouldn't be. I bought Cape X from Aerosoft, got at the upgrade cost.. On FSX its heavy on frame rates and in FS9 it actually looks better and performs 10X better than the FSX version.. Is this the future of FSX scenery add-ons? I certainly don't plan on buying another new computer just to run scenery!Now, the photoreal stuff; that is a whole other issue.. After seeing it in FSX I really don't use my Photoreal scenery in FS9 anymore.. I have tried Phoenix, Hawaii and Yellowstone..All in all I think I am on the fence with FSX, but I don't see myself giving up my PMDG 747, Level D 767, and other countless add-ons with FS9; I just like it to much to give it up and when I get frustrated with FSX, I shoot over to FS9 and go for a hassle free flight.

[Guest over and out]

I think a lot of this just matters where one is in their stage of FS setup. If I just bought a new top end computer and did not have FS9 with all the addons, I would simply buy FSX and work with it, get the service pack(s), addons etc. Then in 2008 I would be in the same boat as I am now, by having a highly customized FSX version without wanting to upgrade to FS11. But instead, I have a highly customized FS9 that I am still customizing, here 6 months after FSX is released. So I'll just wait another year and see what FS11 has in store for us. By then I can consider building a new machine. I can handle a major hardware overhaul every 4 to 5 years, but every two years? no way.I imagine in 2008 all of us who waited for FS11 will be excited about the prospect, while all those who invested in FSX will be where all of us diehard FS9ers are right now. It's just the nature of the hobby.My hardware overhaul cycle will match the FS11, FS13, FS15. While other's may match the FSX, FS12 FS14.. And most of us will skip the FS version for the odd interval year in which we are not upgrading our hardware.This is all general of course. :)