>Tile Proxy, Maps2Bgl all nice programms, through which you>can see your own house in the sim but only 2D and which make>the scenery awful looking when flying below 2500 AGL! So>nothing for really low and slow flying.>If once FS?? will have photorealistic sceneries combined>with autogen ... then I will probably upgrade :-)!>>WolfgangI wasn't talking about "upgrading" at all :-hah I meant a separate GA sim.We already have photoreal sceneries at our airports in FS9 but once out of the airport area it is a different matter ....not a problem at FL350 but low and slow not so good (same in FSX).I don't know why I am going on as I am very happy with FS9 and will be for a long time, for heavies AND GA. :)I'd like to see improved ATC and sloping rwys more than anything else.

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/ede...008EdwardV3.pngMy Videos] [/font size]AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 512Mb GDDR3 Nvidia 8800GT OC, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

FS9 for me!! Having been away for awhile, I finally got the balls to build my own system. FS9 now performs the way I've always dreamed & still looks great. Like Ed said, FSX looks to cartoonish to me. RegardsAdam

Staffan,exactly the same for me. Installed FSX when I purchased PMDGMD11 and absolutely love to take the airplane out for a spin. However, once the FS9 version is released FSX will be untouched again (although this time I suppose still on the hard disc).

>FS9 for me!!> >Having been away for awhile, I finally got the balls to build>my own system. FS9 now performs the way I've always dreamed &>still looks great. Like Ed said, FSX looks to cartoonish to>me. >I run both, and there is just too many locations, sceneries, and scenarios to say that one looks cartoonish over the other; as in one big blanket statement. I have many FSX screenshots that look photo-real, and the same with FS9. Examples are MegaScenery Hawaii for FSX, and FlightScenery Portland for FS9. Both are excellent products and really add to the immersion factor.L.Adamson

I think you should run both if you can. I have spent several evenings lately enjoying FS9 as well as some flights in FSX. I prefer the higher FPS of FS9 and I still get fairly comparable graphics. OK, I like FSX's graphics better, but smooth wins much of the time. The ATR keeps me pretty busy and I hate low-FPS approaches.Dolph

>I'd like to see improved ATC and sloping rwys more than>anything else.>

>regards>>EdMe too - but also would like to have breaking distances affected by rain/snow/ice etc. I believe this is simulated within the PT TU154m - as I do get into a little trouble sometimes on wet days ;-) - but don't know why I don't hear other people asking for this.

>>>>I'd like to see improved ATC and sloping rwys more than>>anything else.>>

>>regards>>>>Ed>>>Me too - but also would like to have breaking distances>affected by rain/snow/ice etc. I believe this is simulated>within the PT TU154m - as I do get into a little trouble>sometimes on wet days ;-) - but don't know why I don't hear>other people asking for this.>And to all that I would like to add more realistic damage and failure simulation. For example I can treat the engine in any way without problem. And the plane just suddenly crash in case of overspeed.