FS.9 Vs. FSX

[krishcanag 0]

HiI was wondering what people's experience is of using FSX compared to FS.9. I am still using FS.9 mainly because I have heard that FSX is far more resource dependant which I suppose will pull down frame rates. Is this correct?At the moment while flying at 27k I get with default aircraft 50/60 fps and 30/50 with add-on aircraft. Which is just about good even though I still see shuttered when on the ground.regardskrishan

[Ray Proudfoot 8,905]

Here are my thoughts on FSX which I've had installed for nearly a year now...My ageing P4 3.0 is not best equipped to get the best out of the sim but having added a X1950Pro 512Mb card and increased RAM to 3Gb it's certainly flyable providing conservative settings are used. With my earlier 9800Pro 128Mb and 1Gb of RAM it was quite poor.It's relatively easy to get high frame rates whilst at FL350 - the crunch comes when you're landing at a biggish airport. That is still a pipe dream for me unless I drop Ai % down to less than 20 and what's the fun of having very few aircraft in your airspace?My main gripe is that large parts of Europe look like a dust bowl in the autumn and winter. England (and most of north-western Europe) is a green and pleasant land all the year round (occasional summer droughts excepted) and I would expect this to be reflected in what is meant to be a sophisticated simulator. Whatever weent wrong with the landclass should have been put right in a SP. It disappoints me it wasn't.FSX cannot take full advantage of multi-core processors and as I run all my FS-related software on networked PCs spending a lot of money on a new dual or quad-core system that still can't allow me to push all the sliders to the right doesn't make financial sense.Nor does spending lots of dosh on a DX10 graphics card when ACES weren't able to do all they had hoped for in that area.In all the years I've been buying FS there have been classic releases (FS98 and FS2004 being the most recent) and a few pups along the way. I have a feeling that FSXI will be much better and should be able to deliver on DX10 (11?) and multi-core processors.I may build a new system next year but if I do it will be to maximise my enjoyment out of FS9 which looks like remaining on my system for some time yet. Let's hope the 3rd party addon companies continue to support it!

[kerosene31 349]

I built my system in the summer of 2006, and I built it specifically for fs2004. Even then, I am just now getting the performance I want out of fs2004. I never even got past the demo of FSX. Personally, I want FPS of 25+ all (most of) the time, no matter where I land. I also don't feel like spending hundreds on hardware and software to update my PC right now...I just don't get enjoyment out of the hobby if my FPS drops much lower than that. I can see myself being 1 version behind on Flightsim for quite some time. For me, it has been a lot more flying and a lot fewer headaches.

[krishcanag 0]

I just tried the FSX demo, arrrrrrgg what rubbish, maybe its supossed to be poor graphics because it was worse than fs9 in scenary. I think having read your comments I will stick with FS9, it runs good on my E6400 DUAL CORE, 2G RAM, 7600GT, 250 SATA H/DThis might interest you; This makes both CPU's workI found a way of making fs9 always operate in AboveNormal priority.%windir%system32cmd.exe /c start "" /AboveNormal "C:Program Files/Microsoft Games/Flight Simulator 9/fs9.exe"I then get CPU usage up to 80%, before around 54% with one CPU maxed out. This is dispite having both CPU 0 & 1 set to operate with fs9.exeThis causes an increase in frame rates. But note it seems to make a big difference with light aircraft not boeing or add-on aircraft, why? I don't know.NOTE: This is a new shortcut creation!!!

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

FSX is good, but we are still another generation or two of hardware before it goes from being a great GA and remote area simulator to one that can be used in all its glory in busy / complex cities.Even if you do try FSX out, there is no law that says you have to stop using FS9. Both will happily coexist and can be used for different purposes.Gary

[greggerm 312]

Specs Below.It's funny this thread popped up. I *JUST* went through the exercise of reloading my PC from scratch, and I installed FS2004 (after using FSX since release).Sadly, yesterday I *RE*-reloaded my machine to purge all FS2004 pieces and went back to FSX. :) Here's my commentary...My Flying Style:You can't compare sims without first defining what it is you do with it (your goals, your enjoyment, etc). I've been primarily flying general aviation planes in the FSEconomy world. I don't do much airliner flying these days. I'm not limited to geographic areas like the Alaskan bush country or the streets of NYC - I fly everywhere. Performance:I lock at 30 FPS (no matter which sim). In FS2004, it gave good rates but there were occasional stutters and hiccups that made it noticable. In FSX, it was smooooth. No hics or stutters to distract. In both sims, I tailor the sliders to give me a good, steady 30 FPS - not deviating too much in dense scenery areas. While my FSX scenery density and autogen sliders are lower than their FS2004 counterparts, I actually have MORE scenery objects due to the method in which the sliders are scaled in each sim. Bottom line - I get better scenery visuals at the same performance factor in FSX as opposed to FS2004, and it is smoother to boot. (Editorial Comment: Far too many people only look at the slider values instead of their visual impact. Heck - far too many people judge their sim experience on the sliders alone. You have to experiment and use the sliders for their job of balancing performance with scenery. When you do, FSX is a very enjoyable platform.) Ambiance and Atmospherics:After reloading FS2004, I *immediately* noticed the difference between the 4m/pix textures of FS2004 and the 1m/pix textures of FSX. ...I immediately missed the added detail and immersion of the FSX ground textures. Even after installing Ground Environment in FS2004, the lack of ground texture resolution was missed. Also, I was quickly struck by the weather/atmosphere rendering between FS2004 and FSX. Again, I loaded in the ActiveSky/ActiveGraphics package for FS9, and still I was left disappointed. FS2004's graphics engine seems dated as compared to the FSX engine. It also seems that FSX does a better job rendering mesh textures. Even at the same LOD levels, the FSX terrain looks more faithful than it's FS2004 counterparts. Not to mention the enhancements FSX introduced to give a much better "horizon" line of distant mountains and hills.With addons or without, FS2004 was lacking in the texture and atmosphere presentation as compared to FSX. Some may find FS2004+addons to be the bees knees, and that is just fine... I however see a difference and really prefer the FSX side. The added ground and mesh resolutions really show up when doing side-by-side comparisons.Flying:Did you ever get the feeling you were on rails in FS2004? After flying FSX for a while, then moving back to FS2004, the feeling is amplified. FSX has a certain feeling to it which conveys "flying" better than it's older sibling. FSX has a more fluid, more realistic feel to it... it's very hard to describe, but it is readily apparent. Especially after going back-to-back with the sims. Addons and Extras:My key addons exist for both platforms. Weather generation, sky/atmosphere customization, enhanced elevation mesh scenery, Ultimate Terrain (roads/coastlines/streams). FS2004 definately has the edge for VOLUME of addons, and there's only one FS2004 software that I miss in FSX (FSNav), but for the most part, FSX is developing a nice library. Truth be told, FS2004 beats out FSX with addons, but that probably comes as no surprise due to the time developers have had to work with each platform.Conclusion:Holy crap, you read this entire thing?I felt it was compelling to tell the story because I just went through the exercise of blowing out FSX in lieu of FS2004 because I thought I would get better performance and enjoy my addon library more. I was quite surprised at myself though for not being able to fly without the enhancements and improvements that FSX brought to the table. After reloading the system with FSX, I am back to enjoying it again. You don't know what you've got until it's gone, and while I had a smidge of that when transitioning from FS2004 to FSX last year, I had a heaping lot of that this week transitioning from FSX, to FS2004, and now back to FSX. Good luck with what you choose to do, and remember - DON'T be afraid to set sliders lower than what you have in FS2004 - you may find things are still better than the older simulator! -Greg

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

>In both sims, I tailor the sliders to give me a good, steady>30 FPS - not deviating too much in dense scenery areas. While>my FSX scenery density and autogen sliders are lower than>their FS2004 counterparts, I actually have MORE scenery>objects due to the method in which the sliders are scaled in>each sim. >>Bottom line - I get better scenery visuals at the same>performance factor in FSX as opposed to FS2004, and it is>smoother to boot. >This is a good point Greg. When FSX first came out and I set it up to look like FS9 on max sliders, FS9 still came out a long way ahead on the performance department. Fast forward to now with SP1 and SP2 (not too sure about this later one), and I'd say the situation is now back to even, if not in favour of FSX. I'll have to test it again to find out for sure.The thing that still peeves me about FSX is how long it is taking for all the classic heavy iron aircraft addons to port over from FS9. Ironically, thats what keeps me flying FSX as, having mainly GA aircraft, I keep clear of the FPS sucking cities in the USA and therefore remain happy with FSX sliders mostly to the right. :-)Gary

[MD83 1]

I never made the change to FSX. I don't like sandy airports and sandy scenery! :-lol

[Guest GA Flyer]

Greg,I went back to FS9 because prior to SP1 FS9 had better frames, post SP1 it was hard to enjoy the 1m/pix when they were blurry and looked like FS9 ground textures.It wasnt until FSX starting acting up that I called it quits and uninstalled it never to return.I loved many features and visuals of FSX but can do without the headaches and starting over of always looking for addons to add to the sim.While FSXI is being developed I'll just enjoy fs9 as is. Hopefully every thing in FSX and FSX-A will be in the next version (feature wise) and I can then enjoy what your enjoying then.ACEs has a big opportunity to make the next version a blowout success with taking full advantage of DX10, multi-core threading, waiting for Vista or the next OS to be stable and drop backward compatibility since there's not too many FSX addons to carry over and all addons from FS9 will be like putting a FS98 addon into FS9 (well dated).

[RFields5421 1]

I'm currently involved in one of the long distance relay type races with several friends and friendly competitors - most of the flying on-line.There are some aircraft so good in certain situations where I must fly in FS2004 - but whenever possible I fly FSX.Despite the desert or brown textures - FS2004 just looks too cartoonish compared to FSX - even with Ultimate Terrain loaded.It's not the textures - it's the way they are used/ displayed. The FS2004 textures are better in many cases - but they still look bad compared to FSX.The weather and clouds in FSX have FS2004 beat so bad it's not even funny. With or without Active Sky.Also as mentioned above - in FSX we have WEATHER - TRAINZ has more impact from winds and weather changes than FS2004 - FSX makes you take weather into account and you have to deal with wind shifts, ground effect, etc.It's real simple in my mind - FS9 vs FSX is the same as FS2002 vs FS2004Now - there are three situations I would strongly recommend AGAINST moving to FSX.1. Hardware - FSX needs horsepower - BIG horsepower - if you don't have it don't go.2. AI Traffic - FSX works pretty well with AI traffic and with some extensive work, you can make FSX very decent. But the best AI models are FS2002/FS2004 technology and are missing some key elements. No one has made updated flight plans for FSX standards. If you have really good customized AI - you will not be happy with FSX. If you have 'good enough' AI - FSX will work pretty well.3. Favorite Addon - If you favorite addon hasn't been produced in a new FSX version - don't go. Porting over doesn't work very well. Don't bother - stay with FS2004 and be happy.A couple other notes - FSX really needs the FPS locked for most people. Since I fly on-line a lot - I lock mine at 20.FSX has a 'smoothness factor' which is hard to understand - but FSX at 20 FPS is smoother and more fluid perception than FS2004 at 30 FPS.It's a perception vs reality issue - and FSX just feels smoother.The worst thing in FSX for me is the airport polygons - they stand out so clearly - like FS98 - you can spot a 1,500 ft grass strip from 10 nm away.

[krishcanag 0]

Hi reggie, gregThanks for your detailed posts. I think the bottom line for me is to stick with FS9 for now. I also have a MCE 2005 platform which I have been told is slower than standard XP. I wonder what vista is like speed wise, it uses more memeory than XP but that's all I know.I think I would need to upgrade to a DX10 graphics card PC before going into FSX.regardskrishan

[scootersm 0]

I saved my money up and bought a new PC that would fly my FS9 hoping it would be enough to run the Up and comming FSX............It was not. I can fly it with the settings turned down like everyone else. So what I did is take about $250.00 and up graded my FS9 with Ulimate terrain, FS genesis, Flight Enviroment, Ground Enviroment PRO, FS genesis Mesh, Active Sky 6.5 wx and Ultimate Traffic and I am a very happy with it now good FPS and looks very nice. With Sliders at MAX.I'll just have to save up and by a new PC that will run FS11 like it's supposed to. I have over 1500 hours in all flight sims.ScooterP4 HT 3.4 Ghz2.0 DDR RamNVIDA Geforce 7800GTX with 256MB HDSound Blaster Audiogy ZS2

[bkeske 0]

>Specs Below.>>It's funny this thread popped up. I *JUST* went through the>exercise of reloading my PC from scratch, and I installed>FS2004 (after using FSX since release).>>Sadly, yesterday I *RE*-reloaded my machine to purge all>FS2004 pieces and went back to FSX. :) Here's my>commentary......snip......>>-GregExcellent post Greg, and I agree with most all of it. Especially the feeling as though you are 'on rails 'in FS9 vs FSX. That alone keeps me working with, improving, and adding onto X, and only X at this time. FS9 is basically 'tapped out' for the type of flying I enjoy.No matter how many times I fire-up FS, it just has a static feel in comparison.

[brucewtb 247]

Thanks a good post - you have talked me into it - FSX is clearly NOT for me. At least not until the sandy desert problem and the blurries problem are fixed, there is an FSX version of FS navigator (or its equivalent), RXP upgrades its Garmins for FSX, I can fly PMDG class heavy iron addons into complex airports with lots of AI and some weather, I can afford something beyond current generation leading edge hardware, and I can be confident installing FSX wont trash my FS9 install nor have any activation hassles.Bruceb

[LAdamson 240]

They're both better....honest!L.Adamson FS9,FSX,X-Plane/global scenery