Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vscimone

What Msfs Version Are You Using Now

FS9 or FSX  

1,131 members have voted

  1. 1. What MSFS Version do you use for airline addons made for both platforms?

    • FS9 exclusively for airline addons
      650
    • FSX exclusively for airline addons
      343
    • Both FS9 and FSX for airline addons
      129
    • I don't fly airlines in MSFS
      9
  2. 2. What MSFS Version do you use for light aircraft addons made for both platforms?

    • FS9 exclusively for light aircraft addons
      463
    • FSX exclusively for light aircraft addons
      362
    • Both FS9 and FSX for light aircraft addons
      150
    • I don't fly light aircraft in MSFS
      156


Recommended Posts

Guest keiron

Why do people keep sucking up to MS and ACES for the errors that they will not address. Whats this DirextX10 preview mode all about? Does that mean we'll get a 'could be' mode with FS11 too?When is the page file recall issue ever going to be really addressed that limits anybody from getting a decent amount of FPS at high settings as the CPU compensates processing power to debug?Why have many simmers being brainwashed so bad to believe FSX actually takes advantage of true multi-core processing.Why is it that many simmers believe that FSX is so technological advanced that today's and most likely tomorrow's hardware just cant handle the sliders at max....and they've been put their for future hardware? I've seen more technological advances in X-Plane 9!!... and no technological advances does not = eye candy!All the simmers in their little GA aircraft that keep coming out with this FSX high FPS talk. Is that with the PMDG/LDS jets, full settings (that's with MAX AI traffic too!!) and running intense weather in a busy city? <--Every time I ask these people this question they lean away from answering it like it's some sort of personal dig... "uggh stop bashing my FSX and just upgrade from crappy FS9".. how about answer the question please?a really excited user need to wake up! "Stop dissing my sim it's ftw" attitude <--- oh please LOLFS11 will not be any kind of advancement IMO as you FS9 and FSX a really excited user cant work together (oxymoron I know). You cant acknowledge the outstanding errors and need for improvement from both sims because you're brainwashed by the sight of all the "lovely colors" and payware. IMO by the time the a really excited user have woken up and smelt the coffee, either the Laminar research team will be owning the flightsim scene or CAE will decide to release a sim which would just own too!

Share this post


Link to post

That last pic looks like, it was dropped into a bottle of blue ink. (FSX I guess)/ Leffe

Share this post


Link to post
Guest lukeh
fsx2008120916542746qu7.jpg
To me that looks like a scene from another Planet.

Share this post


Link to post
To me that looks like a scene from another Planet.
I agree, the colors are unlike any I ever see in reality, but that is not to say FSX is not visually superior with correct textures - faaaar from it. Personally though - I do mostly night IFR a few times a month and lemme tell you - in the vc climbing thru ASV6.5 clouds at fl220 last night, plus having AES at departure and arrival airports....I just don't need anything more right now. If I were a die hard GA simmer, I'd have switched from the get go - FS has always been first and foremost a GA platform.

Regards,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Johan!Since you still have FS9 also together with your FSX, then I can

Share this post


Link to post

I buy new hardware for each FS release; this is my habit and ritual. FSX has been a struggle in some situations, but it is the present and future of the franchise and I prefer to move forward with the franchise rather than wiegh anchor and remain static. Personally, I feel that clinging to FS9, despite the very sound and reasonable arguments given here, is an anchor on developer productivity. Instead of mastering the new tricks and art required to make FSX shine, developers like PMDG are burning valuable time "shoehorning" a great title like the MD11 backwards into FS9. I am paraphrasing PMDG a bit, but this the impression I've been given while reading their posts on the matter. FS9 people are vocal and the critical mass of add-ons they have acculuated allows for a very enjoyable simming experience. However, FSX is better in most aspects and represents the way forward... that's the way I want to be headed as well.Fortunately, ACES is leaning towards wiping the slate clean with FS11 in terms of backwards compatibility and I say "BRING IT ON." Backwards compat also slows forward progress down. The new Microsoft paradigm is in the "Side-by-side" paradigm. You can see this in the approach to development using the .NET platform and you can see this even in the design of SimConnect (which is the way forward - Pete Downson will confirm this). So, if we're lucky, we'll have side-by-side compat where content slated for FSX can live alongside (maybe) FS11 content. FS9 will not enjoy this arrangement, which presents another nail in FS9s coffin in my mind. Since FS11 isn't anywhere close to being a reality, this arrangement may not pan out... You'll recall that FSX was ABSOLUTELY to have been a DX10 title - this did not come to pass. Thus anything regarding FS11 is pure speculation.As someone pointed out in this thread, Moore's Law has stalled out for processors and throwing more cores at the problem isn't a total solution for titles not developed with multi-core processing in mind. Also, bear in mind that titles developed for multi-core processing will be much more difficult and time-consuming to make and TEST on the developer end. In any case, I am sympathetic to the "You'll-take-my-FS9-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands" crowd, but I am also ultimately irked by them as they are dragging development down here at PMDG. I don't think PMDG will fess up to this as they don't want the PR headache but what a developer knows is this: time spent on an FS9 product is time TOTALLY wasted as FS9 is DEAD moving forward. I'll bet a month's pay that FS9 content WILL NOT be supported in FS11. Thus, any new product developed for FS9 is already dead in the water. I guess 2011 (my personal estimate for when we'll see FS11 released) will roll by and most of the FS9-or-die crowd *might* port over as their platform du jour will be 8+ years old by that time. However, developers who continued to pour precious development time into FS9 may have lost out on time they could have used to hone their FSX "tricks;" tricks which can be used in FS11. Thus, those that focused on FSX will have sharper skills that allow them to get qaulity products to the market SOONER with FS11-specific content. Of course, there is a downside to the loss of backward compat. If it weren't for backwards compatibility, there is a good chance that NONE of PMDG's FSX releases to date would have survived... both the 747 and MD-11 are, at their hearts, FS9 titles. However, the FSX SDK offers more steps forward than back and FSX allows for a more feature-rich and aesthetically-pleasing product.I could be wrong with all this, but it is undeniable that time spent in making and, more importantly, TESTING an FS9 product is time away from making better FSX content ( recognize that the converse of this statement is equally true). I am not surprised that the FSX MD-11 was first out of the gate; the new techniques make a compellingly better product. I am certain that there will be slightly bad news when the FS9 version is released along the lines of "...feature X is not included due to the limitations of the FS9 platform..." and yet PMDG is spending preciously valuable development time TRYING to "shoehorn" the MD-11 back into FS9. Thus, the timing of this poll is not surpising to me. Let me attempt to interject with some conjecture on the meaning of this poll and its timing: "Dear FS9 customer, here is your MD-11 for FS9. It is hobbled in several respects, but the results of our poll indicates that you love FS9 so much that you'll take an incomplete MD-11 so long as it runs on FS9..." Indeed, brace yourselves, your MD-11 won't be the same as the one the FSX crowd are running. However, compared to other FS9 offerings, I am sure it is the pinnacle. Among other FSX titles? No so much. The MD-11 for FSX, on the other hand, is the TOP of the TOP.The poll results clearly show that FS9 remains as a considerable market and most businessmen will cater to a market in order to profit. By catering to this market, developers are splintering their time and limiting the degree to which they can promptly offer outstanding FSX (and beyond) product. Of all the arguments put forth by the "give-me-FS9-or-give-me-death" crowd, the economic argument is the most compelling. "While the world is running down..." at the moment, it is hard to justify the considerable expense of an uber-machine. The tendency to upgrade on every cycle might be considerably hindered by the current economic slump most of the world is in. Many may not have much choice but to stick with FS9 and the computer on their desk is going to have to last them for the forseeable future. Anyone having to make due with what they have is going to put a positive spin on this - may including denigrating FSX: Hey, isn't FSX FLAWED? Yeah, yeah, it is... FS9 is BETTAH! So on and so forth. Again, I am sympathetic to this sentiment as many are going to have to "... make the best of what is still around."I wish this schism didn't exist, but alas it does. I think that the 3rd Party development outfits are feeling the schism more profoundly with FS9/FSX than ever before. Looking back on the history of FS, I will say this: invariably, all developers eventually move on and the develop exclusively for the current platform (or beyond). Any way you slice it, the FS9 contingent will shrink. Given that time is finite, I still maintain that time devoted to FS9 development is time wasted. I see a majority of those answering the poll are delighted to prove me wrong. Bully for you!


Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
I could be wrong with all this, but it is undeniable that time spent in making and, more importantly, TESTING an FS9 product is time away from making better FSX content ( recognize that the converse of this statement is equally true). I am not surprised that the FSX MD-11 was first out of the gate; the new techniques make a compellingly better product. I am certain that there will be slightly bad news when the FS9 version is released along the lines of "...feature X is not included due to the limitations of the FS9 platform..." and yet PMDG is spending preciously valuable development time TRYING to "shoehorn" the MD-11 back into FS9. Thus, the timing of this poll is not surpising to me. Let me attempt to interject with some conjecture on the meaning of this poll and its timing: "Dear FS9 customer, here is your MD-11 for FS9. It is hobbled in several respects, but the results of our poll indicates that you love FS9 so much that you'll take an incomplete MD-11 so long as it runs on FS9..." Indeed, brace yourselves, your MD-11 won't be the same as the one the FSX crowd are running. However, compared to other FS9 offerings, I am sure it is the pinnacle. Among other FSX titles? No so much. The MD-11 for FSX, on the other hand, is the TOP of the TOP.
Absolutely agree! And lets say the PMDG 737NG comes out a year from now. I wonder how many of those FS9 users will have upgraded to FSX by then? They will then buy the FSX version of the 737NG not the crippled FS9 version. Will PMDG even see good ROI for FS9? My point is the FS9 addon market will continue to shrink whilst the FSX addon market will continue to grow especially as "newbies" who recently bought FSX discover they can purchase highly realistic addons such as the FSX 737NG. I'm talking about online and in retail stores. I doubt retailers will even stock "FS9 only" addons since they don't sell FS9 boxes anymore, just FSX!

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post

Yes the visuals may be better in FSX. If I want to take a screenshot and hang that screenshot on my wall I would choose FSX. If I want fluidity and an enjoyable sim then I would choose FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes the visuals may be better in FSX. If I want to take a screenshot and hang that screenshot on my wall I would choose FSX. If I want fluidity and an enjoyable sim then I would choose FS9.
I use FSX with a modern computer and get both great visuals and fluid fps! I guess the point is that those that are prepared spend money upgrading their computers are very happy with FSX. Those that choose to stay on outdated hardware have no choice but FS9 :(

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
I use FSX with a modern computer and get both great visuals and fluid fps! I guess the point is that those that are prepared spend money upgrading their computers are very happy with FSX. Those that choose to stay on outdated hardware have no choice but FS9 :(
Not everyone CHOOSES to stay with outdated hardware - some may have different priorities. I have a Macbook Pro laptop which I use for uni, that I bought about 7 months ago: a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, with 2GB RAM and a 256MB Nvidia 8600GT. It isn't really outdated hardware - but as I'm sure you'll appreciate, I can hardly fork out for another machine, or for a more heavy-duty machine, in the near future. Other priorities such as food, house, car, textbooks, labcoats etc. start to weigh in as well. On a measly student handout from the Australian Government, that could possibly make a squatter look like a millionaire, there isn't a lot left.I'm not saying that everyone should stick with FS9, or that developers should develop forever into the future for it. Of course that's not going to happen. What I am saying, is that if I had the money to spend on a machine that could run FSX with the same fluidity that it does FS9 (I never drop below 25-30fps, with everything set to maximum, with tonnes of AI at add-on scenery airports like Heathrow Xtreme EGLL), then I probably would change. But it doesn't really make financial sense for me to go doing such a thing, and it seems a lot of other users are in the same boat. The fact that change will happen one day is not necessarily a reason for a lot of FS9 users such as myself to change NOW. If I applied that logic to everything, I might as well go and buy a brand new car every time my model gets superseded (which it has been about 87,000 times already), a new computer every time a better one comes out etc. Great if you can I suppose, but not many can. Changing now, just because one will have to change in the future, isn't necessarily good logic. (Now if you asked my views on changing lifestyles for climate change, I would give you a very different answer...so in some cases, yes!)So, what I am saying, is that it's not time to give up on FS9 yet. The day will come, but it's not for a little while yet. So I think anyway. A bit like my beloved Windows 2000, whose day has been and is almost gone. Of course, I don't expect FS to have quite such a long life cycle as Windows 2000...

Share this post


Link to post
So, what I am saying, is that it's not time to give up on FS9 yet. The day will come, but it's not for a little while yet. So I think anyway. A bit like my beloved Windows 2000, whose day has been and is almost gone. Of course, I don't expect FS to have quite such a long life cycle as Windows 2000...
FSX users. Do you remember your first electronic game, bike or car? How about that second one? Well from some that third one was the charm(FS9). It is no longer the best on the market(FSX) but you can get parts real easy. It is not the fastest and it does not take the latest hardware to run (FSX) just need to tweak just like the rest. But there is nothing like that third one (FS9) which worked so well and still does. It does not look the best(FSX) or operates the best. But it is something you have come to LOVE(FS9). To leave your first real LOVE (FS9) something FAR greater(Maybe FS11) has to come along. For ME, at this time, The new girl (FSX) is a better model but the old (FS9) sure TREATS ME RIGHT! CARL P.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest neiljay66
I buy new hardware for each FS release; this is my habit and ritual. FSX has been a struggle in some situations, but it is the present and future of the franchise and I prefer to move forward with the franchise rather than wiegh anchor and remain static. Personally, I feel that clinging to FS9, despite the very sound and reasonable arguments given here, is an anchor on developer productivity. Instead of mastering the new tricks and art required to make FSX shine, developers like PMDG are burning valuable time "shoehorning" a great title like the MD11 backwards into FS9. I am paraphrasing PMDG a bit, but this the impression I've been given while reading their posts on the matter. FS9 people are vocal and the critical mass of add-ons they have acculuated allows for a very enjoyable simming experience. However, FSX is better in most aspects and represents the way forward... that's the way I want to be headed as well.Fortunately, ACES is leaning towards wiping the slate clean with FS11 in terms of backwards compatibility and I say "BRING IT ON." Backwards compat also slows forward progress down. The new Microsoft paradigm is in the "Side-by-side" paradigm. You can see this in the approach to development using the .NET platform and you can see this even in the design of SimConnect (which is the way forward - Pete Downson will confirm this). So, if we're lucky, we'll have side-by-side compat where content slated for FSX can live alongside (maybe) FS11 content. FS9 will not enjoy this arrangement, which presents another nail in FS9s coffin in my mind. Since FS11 isn't anywhere close to being a reality, this arrangement may not pan out... You'll recall that FSX was ABSOLUTELY to have been a DX10 title - this did not come to pass. Thus anything regarding FS11 is pure speculation.As someone pointed out in this thread, Moore's Law has stalled out for processors and throwing more cores at the problem isn't a total solution for titles not developed with multi-core processing in mind. Also, bear in mind that titles developed for multi-core processing will be much more difficult and time-consuming to make and TEST on the developer end. In any case, I am sympathetic to the "You'll-take-my-FS9-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands" crowd, but I am also ultimately irked by them as they are dragging development down here at PMDG. I don't think PMDG will fess up to this as they don't want the PR headache but what a developer knows is this: time spent on an FS9 product is time TOTALLY wasted as FS9 is DEAD moving forward. I'll bet a month's pay that FS9 content WILL NOT be supported in FS11. Thus, any new product developed for FS9 is already dead in the water. I guess 2011 (my personal estimate for when we'll see FS11 released) will roll by and most of the FS9-or-die crowd *might* port over as their platform du jour will be 8+ years old by that time. However, developers who continued to pour precious development time into FS9 may have lost out on time they could have used to hone their FSX "tricks;" tricks which can be used in FS11. Thus, those that focused on FSX will have sharper skills that allow them to get qaulity products to the market SOONER with FS11-specific content. Of course, there is a downside to the loss of backward compat. If it weren't for backwards compatibility, there is a good chance that NONE of PMDG's FSX releases to date would have survived... both the 747 and MD-11 are, at their hearts, FS9 titles. However, the FSX SDK offers more steps forward than back and FSX allows for a more feature-rich and aesthetically-pleasing product.I could be wrong with all this, but it is undeniable that time spent in making and, more importantly, TESTING an FS9 product is time away from making better FSX content ( recognize that the converse of this statement is equally true). I am not surprised that the FSX MD-11 was first out of the gate; the new techniques make a compellingly better product. I am certain that there will be slightly bad news when the FS9 version is released along the lines of "...feature X is not included due to the limitations of the FS9 platform..." and yet PMDG is spending preciously valuable development time TRYING to "shoehorn" the MD-11 back into FS9. Thus, the timing of this poll is not surpising to me. Let me attempt to interject with some conjecture on the meaning of this poll and its timing: "Dear FS9 customer, here is your MD-11 for FS9. It is hobbled in several respects, but the results of our poll indicates that you love FS9 so much that you'll take an incomplete MD-11 so long as it runs on FS9..." Indeed, brace yourselves, your MD-11 won't be the same as the one the FSX crowd are running. However, compared to other FS9 offerings, I am sure it is the pinnacle. Among other FSX titles? No so much. The MD-11 for FSX, on the other hand, is the TOP of the TOP.The poll results clearly show that FS9 remains as a considerable market and most businessmen will cater to a market in order to profit. By catering to this market, developers are splintering their time and limiting the degree to which they can promptly offer outstanding FSX (and beyond) product. Of all the arguments put forth by the "give-me-FS9-or-give-me-death" crowd, the economic argument is the most compelling. "While the world is running down..." at the moment, it is hard to justify the considerable expense of an uber-machine. The tendency to upgrade on every cycle might be considerably hindered by the current economic slump most of the world is in. Many may not have much choice but to stick with FS9 and the computer on their desk is going to have to last them for the forseeable future. Anyone having to make due with what they have is going to put a positive spin on this - may including denigrating FSX: Hey, isn't FSX FLAWED? Yeah, yeah, it is... FS9 is BETTAH! So on and so forth. Again, I am sympathetic to this sentiment as many are going to have to "... make the best of what is still around."I wish this schism didn't exist, but alas it does. I think that the 3rd Party development outfits are feeling the schism more profoundly with FS9/FSX than ever before. Looking back on the history of FS, I will say this: invariably, all developers eventually move on and the develop exclusively for the current platform (or beyond). Any way you slice it, the FS9 contingent will shrink. Given that time is finite, I still maintain that time devoted to FS9 development is time wasted. I see a majority of those answering the poll are delighted to prove me wrong. Bully for you!
Whew!! Take a deep breath now man. I hope all that selfish banter of yours makes you feel good. Let me remind you fsx only provides upgrades in terms of graphics and when compared to fs9 with all the great add-ons available, not by very much. And yeh, eventually developers will move away from fs9. BUT not yet my friend

Share this post


Link to post
I use FSX with a modern computer and get both great visuals and fluid fps! I guess the point is that those that are prepared spend money upgrading their computers are very happy with FSX. Those that choose to stay on outdated hardware have no choice but FS9 :(
A modern computer you say? great visuals can be defined in so many ways, it's always subjective to each individual. When i have asked on other forums if there is any computers at a reasonable price that can run FSX in it's full glory (read: all settings and AI set at MAX) no one have ever replied, and you know why? because such hardware does not exist yet, especially not when you're flying heavy airliners at densely populated urban areas with some addons.Don't you think that most of the simmers would have made the switch by now if such hardware did exist?As i said earlier; I see FSX as a preview of the future of flightsim, it's nothing but a test bed in my eyes. FSX to me is just a good looking piece of junk, a beta test which we all had to pay in order to participate in, cause when you look at it the only real improvement over FS9 you can see is the graphics and not much more. That's at least my point of view... for what it's worth :)RegardsJan

Share this post


Link to post
FSX to me is just a good looking piece of junk, a beta test which we all had to pay in order to participate in, cause when you look at it the only real improvement over FS9 you can see is the graphics and not much more. That's at least my point of view... for what it's worth :)
I imagine your comments are insulting to the ACES team!

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...