Hi fellow FS9'ers...After flying/using FSX pretty well non-stop from the moment SP1 became available, AND...SP1 (kicking butt) on my machine......well...here is the post I just wrote in the FSX forum.Is it just me out upon the lonely ledge with the way FSX world and environment 'seems' to me? I find it so...well...(gulp...) ARCADE! There! I said it!It looks like I should be dropping in a quarter instead of getting ready for a serious flight experience. Anyway, here's the post, and I solicit anybody else's feelings with the 'look and feel' of FSX as you see it. The post below, and who knows, I could be the only one seeing it as now so 'arcade'.------------------------'I think that compared to FS9, FSX renders out as 'cartoonish', to invent a word.I have been flying it non-stop since having fired up SP1 and even though I now have pretty decent performance from my P4 3.4 GHz machine,....I still have to say that FS9 has far more realism and attraction as per the 'rendered world' about you. My opinion, of course.I now honestly believe that M.S. intended FSX to feel and look as though it is a 'flying game', rather than what had been its franchised 'serious' look in the past three versions of M.S. FS.I find FSX renders washed out and pastels.I feel myself now leaning towards FS9 as my main M.S. flight sim. It just does everything so well, and it looks and renders so good!I'm not bumming out because of SP1. No...but rather that FSX personally, just truly doesn't cut it for me.Back to FS9, and all the great stuff that goes with it, including VIBRANT colors and a planet that is not one pastel-brown desert in scope. My two cents, and not beer-tears.'Mitch R.

For all the stunning shots I've seen of FSX, often I too do not like the overall 'look' of the sim either. I do believe though that once ASX, FSE X and other graphics enhancements really get going we'll start to see darker, richer colours.SP1 overall seems to have regained a lot of lost ground. One can only guess what a stunner FSX may be in a year or two.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

>Hi fellow FS9'ers...>>After flying/using FSX pretty well non-stop from the moment>SP1 became available, AND...SP1 (kicking butt) on my>machine...>>...well...here is the post I just wrote in the FSX forum.>>Is it just me out upon the lonely ledge with the way FSX world>and environment 'seems' to me? I find it>so...well...(gulp...) ARCADE! There! I said it!>>It looks like I should be dropping in a quarter instead of>getting ready for a serious flight experience. Anyway, here's>the post, and I solicit anybody else's feelings with the 'look>and feel' of FSX as you see it. The post below, and who>knows, I could be the only one seeing it as now so 'arcade'.>>------------------------>>'I think that compared to FS9, FSX renders out as>'cartoonish', to invent a word.>Mitch, I totally agree, just as I did on the FSX forum! :7Why fly this cartoony FSX Cessna Caravan?: FSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171827.jpgWhen you can fly the FS9 deluxe version!FS9http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171828.jpgL.Adamson

In all honesty, the above is just a sales pitch, based on what I want the viewer to see. Kind of like Mitch's post! :)In reality, with six months of FSX, I've seen some fantastic scenery, colors, and a field of depth which is totally 180 from Mitch's assessment. In other words, I totally disagree!But being fair, I'll include a couple of FS9 shots. CS-130, RealAir SF260 & FlightScenery's Portland. I do use FS9 too.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171829.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171830.jpgL.Adamson

I agree with Mitch. With SP1 I'm getting reasonable performance on my modest machine, but the word I came up with was also "cartoonish". Is it the textures, the lighting ? (I do like the water though)I keep going back to FS9, particularly for the areas I usualy fly in, Australia (VOZ) and Alaska-BC (Misty Fjords etc) FS9 still feels like home.Mark

I don't have FSX since, SP1 or not, it ain't going to run worth a lick on my ancient hardware, but this post just seems silly to me. I recall exactly the same criticisms being levelled against FS9 early on. Then the magicians in the community (freeware or payware) got busy and fixed it. You can of course test this out by removing all your add-ons in FS9 (including any sky and environment enhancements) and flying around in the defualt sim for a while. I'm pretty sure FSX is a big step forward from that. Why not compare apples to apples instead of comparing apples to suped up hotrods...

>Why not compare apples to>apples instead of comparing apples to suped up hotrods...That's kind of funny. I've always thought this same thing when I've seen the comparison. I'm a big Ford Mustang fan (both the pre-74 classics and the current S197 models) and one a certain car forum I post on, any time the Mustang comes up, someone will go off about how their twin-turbo'd 99 Accord with a performance suspension smokes the Stang that just drove off the lot. And my eyebrow raises just slightly and I blink for a second before collecting my thoughts and moving on.Perhaps my experience is unusual on these forums, as I did not come to the knowledge that so many add-ons existed until a little bit before FSX came out. With the exception of one or two planes for FS9, I've always flown a bone-stock Flight Simulator, and from that perspective, each and every new version has been a magnificent improvement over the last.Sure, it certainly makes a lot of sense that if you manage to continually make your sim better as it ages, the jump will not seem like much at all. But I don't see that as anything to hold against FSX as a program.

I think the key is wait til the big payware texture replacement addons roll out. I agree FSX is all too bright and cartoony in the current default photoset. I'm sure GEX and ActiveskyX will change that though. I still do my serious flying in 9, and do VRF circuits and general mucking around in X.At least the performace seems to be sorted out now so we can all move forward to the good stuff now.

>I agree FSX is all too bright and cartoony in the current>default photoset. I'm sure GEX and ActiveskyX will change that>though. >Strange as it seems, according to some posting/replies.... :7 I always figured that X-Plane had the edge over FS9 in looks of terrain, because of it's high resolution photo-type texture tiles. These tiles repeat alot for mountains, but look much more like a photo. I considered FS9's mountains to be a lot more "cartoon like".Now comes along FSX, where I see some great photo-type gloss textures, that are much more focused, and resemble a photo on "my" machine instead of colored smudge swirls; and then I hear of all this "cartoony" stuff! :-lol I don't know where these pilot reporters are flying from, but as to the mountain west, I'll take the new FSX photoset anyday! L.Adamson

Actually Larry, I disagree, the FS9 Caravan VC looks more cartoonish, and fake to me.Jeff

>Actually Larry, I disagree, the FS9 Caravan VC looks more>cartoonish, and fake to me.>If that's the case.... :-lol Then what looks more real in these stock FS9 & FSX screenshot's, keeping in mind that FSX is labled as cartoony to some in this thread.FS9http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171892.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171893.jpgL.Adamson --- yes, I prefer the new Caravan too!

But what's THIS stuff?! (attachment)

"...can of course test this out by removing all your add-ons in FS9 (including any sky and environment enhancements) and flying around in the defualt sim for a while."Well thats what i am doing now, i just flew in bare FS2004 infact thats the only way i fly i dont have any other environment add ons.FSX is good but it needs time to mature.

I reinstalled FSX on Thursday afternoon and tried a few flights with FSX straight out of the box, just to check my performance pre-SP1. I then applied SP1 and went flying again. The good news is I was seeing around a 50% increase in performance. I could run FSX with all the scenery sliders at the right (expect autogen, which was set to "very dense") and maintain my 20fps framerate lock.The bad news is I got the s-s-s-stutters. A bit more tweaking, applied the reduced variety of trees autogen file, and edited out the default.xml file in my autogen folder. Result, stutters disappeared and all was smooth once more.However, I can only echo what was said by the starter of this thread. FSX just looks cartoonish. The colours don't look very natural at all. I'm a marine engineer, I work at sea for a living, and I never seen water that looks like the stuff in FSX. The desertification that seems to have taken hold in so many parts of the FSX world also really bugs me. I even purchased the Scenery Tech Landclass as I have heard this is the best one currently available (albeit only for N America), and I still saw far too many sand textures where I shouldn't. Flying around my native South East England, it looked far too dry and yellow. Nowhere near as much green as I would expect to see.So, as far as FSX goes, thumbs up for the performance increase, although it appears autogen is still a problem unless you start digging around and tweaking stuff. A big thumbs down for the FSX environment. Until we have accurate landclass and convincing ground textures, I think it's still a step backwards from a contemporary FS9 installation with UT and GE Pro.Just hit the uninstall link for FSX... Oh well, maybe in another six months?

Looks like the tree line, where the air is so thin trees are few and stunted. Above that is the tundra---no trees. Don't know what the elevation is there, but that's what it looks like to me being from Colorado.Scott