AM I MISSING OUT ??

[Guest captandy]

I find it hard to resist the temptation again to install FSX on my cpu.I have tried it 2xs once b4 SP1 and once after.There are already a bunch of free updates that I currently own in FS9 that are ported over to FSX.I really love FS9 now that I have it perfected and run it balls to the wall with many dollars of addons.I just feel compelled to install FSX again since I paid for it but I was not too impressed post SP1(Blurries) but as time goes on more and more addons are appearing here @ AVSIM. I guess this debate will live on and it is personal in nature but am I missing out !!!!!Andy

[Farlis 2,287]

Yes you are missing out:On commas. :(

[BobP 56]

Hi Andy,I have both installed. The newly ported FSX addons run just as poorly on my system as the earlier ones. There is no head room for complex aircraft on my system in FSX. The ATR, Legacy and LDS are pretty much unflyable on my system if I dare fly out of a major airport. I honestly wonder if anyone is actually flying FSX on a daily basis. Regular routes etc. I'm convinced most are just tweaking or flying until the FPS drops to a single digit or the scenery becomes a blurry mess. The FSX forum is void of any "Wow what a great flight from xxxx to xxxx" threads. Nothing about flying in FSX, just tweaking. FS9 is so rich in high quality add-on's that it will be sometime before FSX will replace it. I tweak FSX between cargo hauling and charter flights in FS9. Ten minutes of frustrating FSX tweaking followed by 3 hours of moving heavy cargo in FS9. Gotta make money. :)Bob...

[Max Kraus 339]

I think FSX is great for slow GA flights in real nice weather and atmospheric environment. But my time is still very much spent in FS9 running routes in anything from 737 to 747 with all the realistic procedures and FS2crew running. FS9 got as real is it possibly could. I have yet to see anything in FSX that can top FS9. Why move away from this if you enjoy it? FS9 has only matured just now. FSX will mature in the future. Then we will enjoy it more. Think of a fine wine.

[Guest thedoggg]

With today's huge hard drives, there is no reason to not have it installed unless your computer is really low end and it is totally unflyable. I mostly use it for GA flights. With that said FS9 is still my primary sim.My flying time:FS2004: 90%FSX: 10%FS2002,FS98,FSW95, Xplane, others: <1%Regards, Carlos

[ahinterl 1]

The LDS 767 and the Wilco 737 PIC are flyable on my system with almost all sliders at minimums, minimum AA and AF and a reduced resulution of 1280x1024. No way for the Maddog 2006 though, and even the other planes sometimes bring FPS to below 10s.I'm currently not using FSX because I miss the airports/scenery important to me (LPMA and KMDW for instance)as well as add-ons like RXP gauges, and my system is too weak to allow for simming like in FS9.This all could possibly change next year when new processors and DX10 adapters become available for reasonable prices, as well as new chipsets (just like to mention PCIe 2.0 here) and RAM (DDR3).When all that is cheap enough next year or so it'll blow off everything you can buy by now I guess, so I save my money and wait until I do any hardware upgrades.What I really highly doubt is whether all (or at least most of) those great add-ons I have (payware) will be ported to FSX...Andreas

[Guest JIMJAM]

I run both sims.I use FS2004 to fly and FSX as a benchmark program.

[brucek 38]

Hi Andy,I went back and forth between FS9 and FSX as well for a while. I figured out that it's all what you are after that was the decsion for me. FSX has much improved flight dynamics and immersion, I've found that this goes for almost any aircraft, so it's more than simply some good flight models. As a pilot, I find this factor over-rides most others, as I actually get predictable responses from hand flying aircraft that very closely emulates the real thing (and I'm talking the Cessna 172 here, not an airliner :) ).I imported a .cfg file from the Level-D forum (FSX sub-forum). This actually minimizes what many people want more of, being high quality textures with visibility way beyond what you ever get in flying. Since I fly a lot to practice instrument procedures, I don't really care for the scenery eye candy. But I do care about the cockpit eye candy in the VC, and the smoothness of panning, etc., which I now have. Bruce.

[CanadaOne 36]

I have both installed. I fly both. I enjoy both. I see no reason whatsoever not to fly FSX even if there is only one good flight to find in it. I'll let Neil & Bob argue the fine points of FSX thing-a-ma-whosits vs. FS9 banga-roos. I'm far too busy having fun flying to ruin my precious down (up?) time worrying about the fun I "should" be having but aren't. Like I tell my kids, happiness is the art of the possible. Neither FSX nor FS9 is perfect, but unless you're deficient in the playful arts, you should be able to enjoy yourself very much with both. And when I get a bit tired of FS9 and FSX, I load up IL2-46, or Lock On, or Falcon 4:AA, or any of my other flight sims. Time's short les boys, fly!

[Wilson 2]

LOL. Come on, give him a break.From the sentence structure and grammer, I am assuming that English is not his first language.I bet he speaks English better than you speak his native language. :-)I have made the same mistake before understanding what the poster was trying to say.Wilson

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

A week or so ago, I would have still been in the midst of my love/hate affair with FSX, but after reinstalling Windows XP & FSX SP1 and finding good video and sound drivers, I am on a roll with the love side of FSX. In fact, over the last week I have flown nearly 2.5 laps of the world in the LDS 767 for FSX in VC mode at high res and most sliders to the right, with 15+ FPS at the busiest airports (which is much smoother in FSX compared to FS9 at the same FPS I must say) and 20-70 FPS everywhere else.I still have a lot of FS9 aircraft, so I'll still be flying them (need Concorde for FSX!), but it's getting harder and harder to go back to FS9. It is indeed unfortunate that FSX works right off the bat for very few (Larry!), and the rest of us have to really work at it, trying to find the right mix of drivers that make FSX tick, but when it eventually does tick - boy is it sweet!Gary

[brucek 38]

I can't wait for the Reality XP GNS 430/530 products for FSX, as then I will have my instrument "recurrency" model complete. Just went to the RXP forums, biut no news as of yet.When I don't wish to practice IFR flight in the C172, I have also found the Level-D product in FSX to be awesome. For me, much smoother than FS9, and much more immersion. Bruce.

[Chuck_B 2]

I have both 2004 and X installed and, being one who always has to have the "latest and greatest" of everything, I find myself tempted to try MSFSX at least once a week. Every bloody time time I spend about 5 minutes flying GA around my home airport KVAY before I go running back to my beautifully configured FS2004 with it's 180 degree POV over 3 screens -- and I've got a brand new duo core. I spent hours last Saturday trying to get it to run well across WideViewX, and it just couldn't match what I was getting in '04. By that time it was sunset, and I'll never forget my first shocking thought when I got above 500 feet in 2004 -- "Why did I waste all that time AGAIN?? This looks beautiful! And smooth as silk."I think in releasing FSX MicroSoft, among other things, was trying to replace a lot of the add ons we've had to pay for in FS2004, so that X would look great right out of the box. The problem is that the only way to tone down that look and increase performance is by using the sliders which, eliminates those new features to begin with. And my machine is no slouch.I don't care how great it looks, unfortunately if I can't run it above "slide show" speed - I can't enjoy it!Just my two cents.Chuck