Archived

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

Sesquashtoo

FS9 still delivers....big time!

Recommended Posts

Even though I use FSX on a regular basis, I still so much enjoy coming home to FS9. Yesterday, I took a silky-smooth 25 locked FPS flight from Detroit to Chicago. The weather yesterday was perfect for eye-candy as well as the chop and cross-wind landing on 09R.FS9 will not be removed from my 'pute, for there really is no good reason to do so. With hard drive capacity at an all-time 'cheap'...why would I?!? Too much FPS performance to 'click away....' :)Cheers!Mitch

Share this post


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

Indeed. Plus the fact that the availability of top end add-ons that just work and run smoothly is superior to FSX at the moment. I purchased Aerosoft's CDG the other day. Huge airport - very detailed and it just runs as smooth as silk with my PMDG B744 or PT TU-154m with ASV6.5. I suppose I could try to upgrade my 2 year old computer and try to get FSX to run and look as good as FS9, but it doesn't really seem to be worth the time, money and hassle. It's just more fun to fly than tweek. And before I know it I'll have a brand new MD-11 to play with :-) Maybe it's exterior model won't be as good as the FSX version, but then I can't get any aircraft to look good in FSX. However, based on what PMDG have written, the systems will work the same. I can live without wing views.We are, however, preaching to the converted here ;-) I have no beef with FSX and use it for 'low & slow' but, from my perspective only, it has been a disappointing product so far. I know there are those who can get it to run flawlessly and am very happy for those people - some of the screenshots I've seen are truly amazing.So to end up - the above comments are only my opinion and only refer to the MS FS products I have installed on my computer and in no way intend to insult or criticise anyone else who may have different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no beef with FSX and use it for 'low & slow' but, from my perspective only, it has been a disappointing product so far My thoughts exactly and that is also how I use the sim. In fact I see FSX as "FS9 General Aviation Edition". I like it for GA due to better immersion from the increased autogen. Apart from that its like flying inside a cartoon and when it comes to trundling along in an Airbus its back to FS9! FS9 gets stronger all the time - as an example just look at what VOZ does for it and this is *freeware*. Amazing. With mods like this we can expect FS9 to trundle along peacefully like a happy and contented bumble bee for a long time to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am still attached to FS9. And while I have FSX, it still is in the box. I've noticed though that there has been a considerable drop-off in scenery design, especially freeware, for the northern continent. For example, I enjoy flying Alaska due to the Tongass and Misty Fijords sceneries. But other areas are severly lacking, e.g. Purdhoe Bay.Also nothing really new in the lower 48 states.I'm not a scenery designer, don't have the time nor the talent, so I appreciate the work of those with the talent. But then there are a whole lot of places I still haven't visited. So maybe it doesn't really matter.Just a thought.Jim D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps unintentionally Microsoft have shown us the future of flight simulation!:-hah Two versions - not Standard and Deluxe. "Low and Slow" and "High and Fast". I know which version I'll choose! :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>My thoughts exactly and that is also how I use the sim. In>fact I see FSX as "FS9 General Aviation Edition". I like it>for GA due to better immersion from the increased autogen.>Apart from that its like flying inside a cartoon and when it>comes to trundling along in an Airbus its back to FS9! >
Well, General Aviation isn't half bad! :) There are a whole lot of commercial pilots who have hangars around mine, for "fun" flying on the weekends. Those that don't...........just don't like flying above and beyond their day jobs, I suppose :D Anyway, FSX certainly is my preference for GA flying at about 200 mph, and up to 10,000' agl. I use MegaScenery which looks far from a cartoon, and default FSX mountain areas (which I regulary fly) look far better than FS9. More photo like textures, richer colors, higher resolution, and improved shawdowing which adds a much better illusion of depth. Basically......the opposite of a cartoon.....most of the time! But, as with the orignal post, I still run FS9 much of the time too. I have a lot of great scenery and aircraft for FS9. There is no reason at this point, to delete it. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if I'm defective in some way, and perhaps the only one who feels this way, having actually started ou on FSX and having "moved back" to FS9 via the bargain bin at Amazon.3 computers, 6 monitors, and thousands in software and hardware add ons later, I still see posts like this pop up here and then I know: FS9 is good.PS: Ray Proudfoot: How've you been? I haven't seen your name posted in a while, have I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had FS9 for about four years on my computer and still love it! Lots of add-ons. (I never bought FSX). On Oct 18, 2008 I took a real flight on Virgin America from LAX to SFO and took pics of the trip. I got the speed and altitude data from flightaware. The matching FS9 screen shot on the right uses Megascenery. I use FSPILOT to make automatic flights from city to city.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194418.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: Ray Proudfoot: How've you been? I haven't seen your name posted in a while, have I?I'm fine thanks Chuck. I've been reading but not posting much. I lend support in the Radar Contact forum. It's all down to the subject and what I feel I can contribute. This one caught my eye, just like you ;-)Just a pity that with the pound/dollar exchange rate dropping there aren't quite so many bargains to be had recently. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great graphic representation, ristretto! A picture is worth a thousand words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topics like these make me feel warm and fuzzy inside ;)I am also truly dedicated to FS9. The add-ons, the ease-of-use, the raw performance...why would one choose to build a new system just for FS X?This topic will probably be argued for a few years coming, but I, for one, will stick to my guns ;). Inevitably, we all will be forced to upgrade, but why speed the process when FS 9 is still the best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more!Shame is that I did honestly try FSX for some time. But after an average of 10-15 fps on a high end system, no matter what tweaking I did, I in the end switched back completely and shelved FSX.Also, the quantity of good quality add-ons for FSX doesn't even come close to those of FS9.We'll see how the next FS will turn out, but I for sure will keep on flying FS9 for quite some time still. I have no problem to churn out 40fps locked steady with ASV6.5, any add-on plane and scenery.With FSX one can only dream about those possibilities.Kivech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use FS9 with the Matrox 3H2GO (triple head to go)for the PMDG B747-400F. For those unfamiliar, the Matrox spreads the VC across three monitors utilizing a single PC. My system is a 5-year old Dell 3.0 processor with 1.5 G of RAM and 256 video card. I have contemplated making the switch to FSX, but not with this current system. This thread almosts seals the deal for me to stick with FS9 to the bitter end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people that are migrating back to FS9 lately is a bit of vindication for those of us who have advocated the virtues of the older platform over FSX. Even the high end developers who once said they would not be developing FS9 compatible products in the future, are doing an about face of sorts. Now, we have to show our support for them by buying their FS9 products so they will continue to support us. The sales of FSX may have been a technical success but, the next version will not be nearly as good. Most of us who have upgraded to the new versions in the past, sight unseen, will not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon next time. As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". FSX simply doesn't offer anything new, relevant to the simulation of flight, compared to a modified FS9. Many of us purchased FSX based on our experience with the franchise. Given that a number of issues were left untouched in FSX, FS11 will need to have demonstrated, substantive improvement, for us veterans of the franchise to jump onboard. If the developers insist on ignoring glaring inadequacies brought to them by the serious simming community, FS9 may well be seen as the last, best true Flight Simulator. It's a shame really, that a successful franchise of some 27 years and 10 versions is now in a position to have to prove itself yet again. This, of course, is just my opinion.Regards,Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FSX simply doesn't offer anything new, relevant to>the simulation of flight, compared to a modified FS9.That's what I keep saying in various discussions on the FS9/FSX matter.I had huge expectations and was very happy to hear FSX was coming.But... what a huge disappointment!I call FSX 'the Good Look Simulator' since the improvements are concentrated about eye candies.If someone is a VFR GA flyer it may be nice.To me, an IFR heavy iron flyer, that would be a waste of money.Especially remembering that the pure FS means nothing until we spend a lot of money on addons to make it work like we want.That's what FS9 is to me now and will stay much longer from now.Best regards,Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both sims running well at this point. However, when it comes to my day-to-day flying...FS9 keeps winning out. It starts faster, has been rock-solid stable for me (for years), and I can fly at maxed out settings with a solid 60fps whether by myself or with a group of friends. I have tons of aircraft and places to choose from, and the environment is gorgeous. There is no technical reason why I can't use FSX at this point, and I do use it from time to time when I'm with friends that want to do a flight that would use scenery only available in FSX, but the enjoyment factor on the FS9 side remains better for me. By a substantial margin.Because the multiplayer environment I fly on supports FS9, FSX, and X-plane...for the most part none of my flying buddies care (or even know) which version of the sim I'm using unless they ask specifically.I find FSX to be interesting, but not necessarily as enjoyable.On a practical note, when faced with the option of purchasing a killer add-on for FS9 that I do not already have, or basically re-buying a FSX add-on that is similar to something I already have in FS9 (like an updated version of some aircraft I have bought before)...I buy the killer add-on for FS9. I can't see myself spending much money on FSX in the next 12 months. I don't use it enough, and many of the add-ons are not substantially different from their counterparts in FS9. What I do enjoy these days is cruising for sales on the FS9 side. Picking up things that I might not have wanted at $40, but are a lot more attractive at $20. I don't really care anymore about the "message" that sends to producers. I'm just buying what will bring me the most enjoyment in my hobby over the next 12-24 months.Finally, I will add that most of the new members of our community at Hovercontrol are using FSX. Because they are just starting in the hobby, and they have purchased the latest version of the software. Its only natural. So I don't think anything will change that powerful trend. They seem to be enjoying it just fine, and they don't have anything to compare it to. So it works for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RayNice to see you're still around. Like you I don't post much these days but this post caught my eye too. I've been quite fascinated watching the non-development of FSX. I've tried it lots but 95% of my flying is still done in FS9. The failure of FSX, for me, is evidenced most obviously by the new files posted daily in Avsim. Here we are, some two years on from FSX's release and yet, whenever I check Avsim's home page, the new files for FS2004 invariably outnumber those for FSX.I must admit, however, that I await FS11 with interest because it's been my experience that, since I got hooked on FS back when it was v5.0, it's been every second version of FS that's worked well whilst the intermediate versions have invariably failed to deliver. Why this should be heaven only knows but, if this sequence continues, FS11 should be another memorable version. I'm just hoping it'll run on XP SP3; I bought a new laptop a few months ago, it's got Vista as the OS, I cannot get on with it, it's slower than XP even with 4 MB of RAM it and, as soon as I can find the time, I'll change it back to XP too. Cheers for now.Paul Croft15 miles north of EGKK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took FS9 off months ago, and do not miss it one bit; It will never be installed again. That chapter of FS is closed for me....as is 2002,2000,FS98,FS5.1, FS5.0a, FS5.0, etc.For the flying I do, I rarely get below the 20's, and often times maintain the 30's with my rates locked at 38....But, I'm glad to see so many enjoying the old version...blue skies... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've begun to fly my PMDG 737 again-so that means installing FS2004 in Vista (got a new copy as my first set of disc are badly scratched).Been getting a good frame rate 16-30fps and graphics are nice with my 512MB 8600GT with maxed settings.Tip for Vista-use compatibility mode and select disable desktop composition/disable desktop themes for best usuage. And yes, I also enjoy 2004 as well as FSX-have both FS2004 and FSX installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be simplistic on my part but if MS was to re-write FSX to work with multi-core processors, wouldn't that solve a lot of the FPS issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This may be simplistic on my part but if MS was to re-write>FSX to work with multi-core processors, wouldn't that solve a>lot of the FPS issues?Didn't they do that with SP1? Or am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read here that no games yet take advantage of multicore processing - multi core only works well when running two or more applications. That's why sometimes an older dual core will run flight sim better than the newest, albeit slower clocked, quad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit, however, that I await FS11 with interest because it's been my experience that, since I got hooked on FS back when it was v5.0, it's been every second version of FS that's worked well whilst the intermediate versions have invariably failed to deliver. Why this should be heaven only knows but, if this sequence continues, FS11 should be another memorable version. I'm just hoping it'll run on XP SP3; I bought a new laptop a few months ago, it's got Vista as the OS, I cannot get on with it, it's slower than XP even with 4 MB of RAM it and, as soon as I can find the time, I'll change it back to XP too.
Hi Paul,Sorry for not replying earlier. Too much football on TV and a new forum to boot! Nice to hear from you and I trust you are enjoying retirement.You're right about alternate versions being the better ones although FS98 was also pretty good too. The timing of the release of FSX was unfortunate given that Vista was relatively new and DX10 was not properly implemented. One day I hope to see that infamous lake view in FS looking just like that!Sadly I suspect it could well be a 64-bit version thereby excluding XP but if Aces learn from their mistakes it could be a classic. Let's hope so. In the meantime I'll continue to enjoy FS9. No matter how much scenery and cloud I throw at it the fps stubbornly refuses to drop below 30. :( Life is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites