Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest captandy

BEEN AWAY IS FS9 STILL WORTH KEEPING

Recommended Posts

I have been away from simming for about 5 mths or so ever since my SATA RAPTOR CRASHED I am on the last stages of finishig a recuild/update.The biggest change is I am going form a E6600 t0 the E8500 with 4 gig RAM. I decided to keep XP and I own both FS9 and FSX ultimate but have helved the latter 2xs when it first came out.I have much dinero invested in FS8 as I know a lot of you do as well and I was just wondering since FSX has matured would ir be worth taking anothe crack at it. I prefer flying the heavies with all of the great addons I have for FS9 with all sliders maxed even with the E6600. How many recently have tried both again and turned back to FS9 and for what reasons. I also posted a similar topic in the FSX forum and I always felt that it is more unbiased over with the relics Thanks in advanceAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

No brainer for me. Keep FS9 and give FSX to your son. :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,I agree with Ed. FS9, no doubt. :)As I said not so long ago... we've never had it this good. Hardware has caught up with FS9 and indeed, you can have everything maxed.Take the, let's say, PMDG B744, put it on the recently released KJFK (or slightly older KORD) by FS Dreamteam, throw in AES by Aerosoft and a good AI traffic add-on and you'll find yourself taxiing in heavy traffic, AI's landing and taking off on parallel runways every few seconds... watch the "string of pearls" at dusk while waiting in queue for takeoff... talk about immersion! :)So, why do I still fly FS9? A short list, not in order of importance:- A lot of quality add-on aircraft (I cannot be without the RFP B742, period. :))- a lot of quality add-on airports (Aerosoft, FSDreamteam, Imaginesim, FlyTampa - do not forget their fantastic Kai-Tak!)- AES, Airport Enhancement Service by Aerosoft (I find myself flying to AESed airports exclusively these days. The list is now pretty long and you won't easily get bored)- AI Traffic (heavily modified and expanded Ultimate traffic and I REFUSE to fly with less than 100% traffic :))- FE, GEPro 2, Active Sky, FS FlightKeeper, Radar Contact (or PFE), TrackIR, Saitek Proflight Yoke with two throttle quads, CH rudder pedals (or Saitek X45 joystick) to further enhance the experience.All this with all sliders maxed. Now I can fire up my FS computer, plan my flight and fly instead of tweak, tweak, tweak. Some will argue that all that I have listed can be had in FSX as well. Well, almost all. True, but at what cost? FS9 with all it's add-ons comes very, very close to the visual quality of FSX - but with higher FPS and richer environment, IMHO. And, after all, add-ons are still being developed for FS9...My 0.2 euro... :)Regards,Jure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, you pegged it, Jure. I don't own FSX, and FS9 looks and flies so good on my 10-month-old computer that I don't plan to buy it anytime soon. I recently picked up GE Pro II, and have been kicking myself for not doing so sooner - it transforms the sim, all over the world. I'm a real-world GA pilot, and my heavily-upgraded FS9 is close enough to the real thing for my tastes. I've followed the trials and tribulations of the overclocking hardware gurus on the other forums in their quest to move the PMDG 744 out of the single digits FPS-wise (and OOM-wise), and have been grateful for my "reduced expectations" and stone-stock Dell, which allows me to just fly all day, in any scenario.Good times.John G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 is currently the only sim on my machine, which it powerful enough to handle FSX reasonably well. My decision to happily stay with 9 is because of all the wonderful addon aircraft I have, many of which are still not(some never will be)available for FSX. That said, I'm planning on purchasing a separate HD for FSX around the end of the year. The reason? Flight1 Citation Mustang. I likely will up my CPU from E6750 to E8500 at the same time. What I'm trying to say is that I'm a totally aircraft driven simmer. I pick the plane I want to fly and then the sim that it runs on. I don't plan to repurchase the planes I already have for FS9. My FSX will only have planes that are not FS9 compatible. You are into heavies. Good news is most top notch heavies are FSX compatible but bad news is heavies + X demands a lot. I doubt if you can achieve constant 25 fps even with your new reg. So unless you really prefer FSX as a platform I'd say why the FPS aggravation all over again?just my half of a cent.Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 for me as well. I'm just now getting great performance with FS9 on my latest PC built a few years back. I spend my time flying FS9, not tweaking. I'm not concerned with squeezing every last ounce of performance out, as just about everything runs fine. I'll be glad to buy a new version of FS when it runs BETTER than the last one. In my opinion, we shouldn't have to trade performance every time we upgrade. Other than better visuals, FSX doesn't offer me anything much. Supposedly the flight dynamics are slightly better... other than that? Most add-ons I see are just converted FS9 ones that I already own!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put off getting fsx until about a month ago when I caved in and tried it. I love the photo scenery,I also no longer get 'squares' over oceans.But...the performance for me is just too poor compared to fs9 with all my addons even with a reasonably powerful pc so I have shelved it.I am now enjoying fs9 even more, now that know that I am not really missing anything, except the above mentioned items of course.regards Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been playing with FSX again on a virgin Vista 64 install. I have a 2-year old PC...Core 2 Duo at 3.6 GHz, 4GB of 1 GHz DDR2 RAM, nVidia 8800GTX/768MB. With current drivers, FSX with SP2 runs at a stable 25 fps now, unless I try to push up the traffic sliders (at zero now) in which case it drops rapidly to the teens. The PMDG MD-11 runs acceptably on FSX and the 64-bit OS eliminates the OOM issues. But the environment is pretty austere compared to what I have available in FS9.That said, I note from reading the HiFisim forum that, two years after release, FSX still has an ugly untamed windshift issue. And I note that the availability of good add-on airport sceneries and quality freeware aircraft is still very anemic in FSX. And AES does not work in FSX.Mixed bag for me...ideal may be FS9 modded with the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set running on Vista 64 to put an end to the OOM problem. FSX may prove useful for helicopters and other slow flyers for the visuals.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate your honesty and I am going to stick with FS9/XPSP3 since before my raptor crashed I had everything mentioned here but AES which I was using the demo and really was debating a purchase. I like an idiot just put my new E8500 on my intel DB975X mobo and could not even get the bios up since on further debugging the LGA775 board is not compatible with the chip eventhough I was using a E6600 only 2 yrs old .....talk about ###### now I have to spring for a new mobo and probably will go with nvidia chipset and an Asus or DFI ...thanks againAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,FS9 absolutely !!!I have reinstalled FSX only to try out the new MD-11 from PMDG. But as soon as they release it for FS9, FSX will be off the HD for sure. :-)

Staffan[/font size]

http://www.scandicair.com/images/banner_sa_2008_s.gifFlightsimmer since 1987Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 3,33GHz FSB 1333MHz LGA775, Asus P5Q Intel P45 ATX DDR2 PC6400 800MHz 4096MB, Asus Nvidia Geforce 9800GTX+ 512MB DirectX 9.0c, W XP Home with SP3, E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"Samsung 750GB SATA HDD 8MB, Samsung 250GB ATA , Maxtor 120GB ATA, All 7200rpmLacie 250Gb Extern HD, Cooler Master ATX Chassis, 550W Power supplyBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 all the way.There are so many good add ons for it out there, and even tough my PC is quite old, it handles FS9 really well.I own FSX but it is a fps killer.I'll stick with FS9 for a little while.Regards,Aldrei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> FSX may prove useful for helicopters and>other slow flyers for the visuals.Slow is realitive.... :D In real life, my hangar is surrounded by biz, commercial, and military pilots who fly experimentals such as Van's RV's and Lancairs on the weekends/days off. The commercial airline pilot who shares the other half of my hangar flies a Pitt's M-12 with a nine cylinder Russian radial.Therefor, at around 200 mph, FSX is usually far more appealing in the visual department than FS9. I simply cannont stand FS9 in comparison when sim flying about 5000' agl. It shows it's age, even with so many 3rd party addon's. This is why, I run both simulations, and shall continue to do so.In real life, it's apparent, that many commercial pilots seem to become bored with their day to day "jobs", and yearn for the chance to fly a bit lower again! :-hah So get FSX and see that everything doesn't need to be viewed from 35,000' and above..... :)L.Adamson --- Van's RV6A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> FSX may prove useful for helicopters and>>other slow flyers for the visuals.>>Slow is realitive.... :D >>In real life, my hangar is surrounded by biz, commercial, and>military pilots who fly experimentals such as Van's RV's and>Lancairs on the weekends/days off. The commercial airline>pilot who shares the other half of my hangar flies a Pitt's>M-12 with a nine cylinder Russian radial.>>Therefor, at around 200 mph, FSX is usually far more appealing>in the visual department than FS9. I simply cannont stand FS9>in comparison when sim flying about 5000' agl. It shows it's>age, even with so many 3rd party addon's. This is why, I run>both simulations, and shall continue to do so.>>In real life, it's apparent, that many commercial pilots seem>to become bored with their day to day "jobs", and yearn for>the chance to fly a bit lower again! :-hah >>So get FSX and see that everything doesn't need to be viewed>from 35,000' and above..... :)>>L.Adamson --- Van's RV6AThis is something I have to agree with, FSX is better in the "visual departement", no doubt, so if you like GA flying up to let's say 15000 feet then FSX is not so bad.However, if you are into commercial flying simmulation like me, then FSX is a killer, on my laptop I run 100% AI with crowded airports such as Kennedy, Frankfurt, Heathrow and so on. FS9 handles this fluidly, no problems with major add-ons. When you consider that 90% of the time is spent on the ramp and at high altitudes then FS9 is a better choice.Frankly I was disapointed that FSX didn't bring much to the faulty ATC and weather engine. Personnally, I'd keep my fingers crossed and wait for FS11.just my 0.02 turkish liras :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 is still active for developers. You can also get great sales now a days for add-ons products. I'm sure we all go through this small depression feeling when we see many add-ons growing everyday for FSX and know someday FS9 will be on our shelves with other MSFS. Cheers'T. Headlam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have been away from simming for about 5 mths or so ever>since my SATA RAPTOR CRASHED I am on the last stages of>finishig a recuild/update.The biggest change is I am going>form a E6600 t0 the E8500 with 4 gig RAM. I decided to keep XP>and I own both FS9 and FSX ultimate but have helved the latter>2xs when it first came out.I have much dinero invested in FS8>as I know a lot of you do as well and I was just wondering>since FSX has matured would ir be worth taking anothe crack at>it. I prefer flying the heavies with all of the great addons I>have for FS9 with all sliders maxed even with the E6600. How>many recently have tried both again and turned back to FS9 and>for what reasons. I also posted a similar topic in the FSX>forum and I always felt that it is more unbiased over with the>relics Thanks in advance>>Andy Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FS9 is still active for developers. You can also get great>sales now a days for add-ons products. I'm sure we all go>through this small depression feeling when we see many add-ons>growing everyday for FSX and know someday FS9 will be on our>shelves with other MSFS. >>Cheers'>T. HeadlamHi,But if you look closely on all, so called "FSX addons" here in the Avsim library, only a tiny percentage are infact FSX addons. Most of them are FS9 addons compatible with FSX. But for some strange reason, the developers get it all mixed up...."FSX addon compatible with FS9" which is not accurate. It only confuses a whole lot of simmers who can not find what they are looking for.

Staffan[/font size]

http://www.scandicair.com/images/banner_sa_2008_s.gifFlightsimmer since 1987Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 3,33GHz FSB 1333MHz LGA775, Asus P5Q Intel P45 ATX DDR2 PC6400 800MHz 4096MB, Asus Nvidia Geforce 9800GTX+ 512MB DirectX 9.0c, W XP Home with SP3, E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"Samsung 750GB SATA HDD 8MB, Samsung 250GB ATA , Maxtor 120GB ATA, All 7200rpmLacie 250Gb Extern HD, Cooler Master ATX Chassis, 550W Power supplyBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread may answer my question that I came here for. I have not had either installed for over a year because of a HD space shortage. In that time I picked a couple sets of Mega Scenery and Traffic for FS9. I also now have FSX that came in a Ebay software bundle. I do not have the latest machine, a P4 H/T and a ATI 7800 Pro 256k card. It seem to me, based on what I am reading here, that I need to load up FS9 and forget FSX. Will my Southern and Northern Cal Megas look better than the Stock FSX? I am not into heavies. Sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>No brainer for me. Keep FS9 and give FSX to your son. :-lol>

>regards>>Ed>>aka Capt. P[/font color][font>color=brown]i[/font color]c[/font>color]a[/font color][font>color=purple]s[/font color]s[/font>color]o[/font color]>>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/ede...008EdwardV3.png>My>Videos] >>AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD >512Mb GDDR3 Nvidia 8800GT OC, Audigy 2 ZS>Viewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD>[/font colorAbsolutly...Im love FS9 and what has been the biggest success for MS flight sim.Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX has a really cartoonish look to me. I would be really interested in a tileproxy type sim for flying GA.I am very happy to keep FS9 for my heavies as FSX is no improvement (in fact the opposite) for me. :(I do like flying GA as well and I'm sure like other RW GA pilots we would love a sim that was real as a tileproxy type sim.Low and slow would become exciting for me if I could practise RW VFR for RW GA flying.I have been looking at our own Geofa's RW/FSXSIM compare's.I would like to see Geofa do RW/FSXTileproxy compare's as FSX even with addons does not cut it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites