Indeed, FS9 is not dead , and wont be in the upcomming 5 years.After that, it will be FSX all the time, for all of us who upgrade with a better PC.Now, currently at a E8650 I am not happy with the FSX performance, the rest is top notch, better sounds, better dynamics, better textures, overall the flight expierence is much better. The performance however is sub standard. Dont discuss, it is. Just loading a cessna at a default airstrip somewhere in Texas, on spot view with just some trees in the back gives me barely 25 fps, while the same in FS9 gives 60+.In FS9 a lot of traffic installed, etc etc etc. What happens in the background in FSX? with traffic sliders at 20% ? something is wrong imho.So, for flying GA FSX is a must have. The textures give a much better idea of altitude than FS9. For real world ops, like a 747 to Paris, you need FS9..My guess is that because a lot of youngsters dont have high speed systems, FS9 will be their first choice. So there will be a market for at least a couple of years.Johan

Indeed, FS9 is not dead , and wont be in the upcomming 5 years.After that, it will be FSX all the time, for all of us who upgrade with a better PC.Now, currently at a E8650 I am not happy with the FSX performance, the rest is top notch, better sounds, better dynamics, better textures, overall the flight expierence is much better. The performance however is sub standard. Dont discuss, it is. Just loading a cessna at a default airstrip somewhere in Texas, on spot view with just some trees in the back gives me barely 25 fps, while the same in FS9 gives 60+.In FS9 a lot of traffic installed, etc etc etc. What happens in the background in FSX? with traffic sliders at 20% ? something is wrong imho.So, for flying GA FSX is a must have. The textures give a much better idea of altitude than FS9. For real world ops, like a 747 to Paris, you need FS9..My guess is that because a lot of youngsters dont have high speed systems, FS9 will be their first choice. So there will be a market for at least a couple of years.Johan

Totally agree. BTW you wouldn't happen to be the PSS FDE guy? You share the same name, according to the manual. Coincidence?

Oh no, no coincidence.. its me.. good old 2000 days.. lol!

While I respect your opinion, speaking as an AVSIM reviewer I must contest this. A reviewer, certainly at AVSIM, is not bound to any developer. We simply install the program, try it out, and write down what we think of it. Influence of the developer is a no go for us! We are by no means a part of their marketing scheme. I think you can trust us to be honest in our reviews, and we are quite possibly a more reliable and useful source of information than a random customer (that's not to say customers are always not to be trusted, of course).

Hi Thralni,I'm sorry if I was a little unclear about what I meant with that statement :( Let me try to clear it up. From AVSIM's point of view, I always trust your comments about how something performs - in fact, I would never just go out and buy a plane unless I get a good review from it at AVSIM. I trust your reviews here at AVSIM with my life :( What I mean, is that the people who advertise their products sometimes have the tendancy to "overcook" the product, you buy it, have a huge expectation and then the product doesn't live up to what the marketing guys said. I do apologise without any reservations if I offended anyone by that statement :( RegardsWerner747

Indeed, FS9 is not dead , and wont be in the upcomming 5 years.After that, it will be FSX all the time, for all of us who upgrade with a better PC.Now, currently at a E8650 I am not happy with the FSX performance, the rest is top notch, better sounds, better dynamics, better textures, overall the flight expierence is much better. The performance however is sub standard. Dont discuss, it is. Just loading a cessna at a default airstrip somewhere in Texas, on spot view with just some trees in the back gives me barely 25 fps, while the same in FS9 gives 60+.In FS9 a lot of traffic installed, etc etc etc. What happens in the background in FSX? with traffic sliders at 20% ? something is wrong imho.So, for flying GA FSX is a must have. The textures give a much better idea of altitude than FS9. For real world ops, like a 747 to Paris, you need FS9..My guess is that because a lot of youngsters dont have high speed systems, FS9 will be their first choice. So there will be a market for at least a couple of years.Johan

Hi Johan,Excellently put mate! I think that the SP's have eliminated most of the issues but FSX is still unfortunately extremely resource hungry :( But I also do the same thing - GA in FSX and 747's in FS9! LOL!RegardsWerner747

---------- But I also do the same thing - GA in FSX and 747's in FS9! LOL!RegardsWerner747

----------------------Werner- When Classic Sim (FS9) looks like this in low & slow, there's not much incentive to spend bucks for an upgrade to New Sim!!Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron on approach to Kamloops CYKA. (AMD 1.8 XP2200/ 2GB/ 2 GeForce FX 5200 GPUs)

Hi DAH4062,Thanks for the indications mate! I'll get these asap and do a comparrison. I also have to say that you hit the nail on the head there with your comment about rather wanting to get people who use the product to comment than reviewers, because (to use another cliche) marketing will always be marketing, and what you cannot always be sure that you are getting what they say you are.One of the best examples of this is when they sell an airplane and say "certified by real world pilots" or some of the other very well known phrases and then the final package turns out to be a disappointment, so I also tend to speak to other people who already own the product to get their opinion of it first :-)RegardsWerner747Hi DAH4062,I'm sorry it took a while for me to get back to you on this one - hectic with my studying and my exams less than two weeks away, but here it is; the comparrison between 9Dragons and Fly Tampa :( I installed and used the 9Dragons for a few hours, and I have to agree with you that it is very, very good. It is amazing that you can get freeware products like that! Wow!However, the Fly Tampa scenery is better. It is more detailed (which, as I said does have some fps issues, but not that badly), and gives you a much better idea of the city and the airport's location in the heart of it.Also very noticable (if you have flown the Fly Tampa before the 9Dragons) is the careful detail on the checkerboard approach. I find the 9Dragons scenery doesn't have the checkerboards in exactly the right place and that the checkerboards in the Fly Tampa is the correct size while I find that the checkerboards in the 9Dragons is a little too big (correct me if I'm wrong here, just an observation :( ).The overall feel of the Fly Tampa scenery is just better and captures the life of the city and the aiport better than the 9Dragons - well worth the money spent! Perhaps someone else who also has the Fly Tampa Kai Tak can also leave a comment here to help you out a little. Let me know if there is anything else that you want to know.RegardsWerner747Hi Thralni,I am very happy with my FSX at the moment, but I have seen some people with the same and better performance and then they go and buy PMDG's 747X and getting about 8 - 10 fps with it. That is no cool! LOL! I think I must get a much much better machine to be able to handle that and I'll wait until I can actually afford that in about 2 years or so and then look at migrating (THAT IS A BIG IF!!!). I think I'm gonna stick with FS9 for my platform to do my serious "heavy" flying on :-)RegardsWerner747

I'd just like to step in and say that IF I could get FSX to run fluidly on my system, then I might use it more often but FS9 is FAR from dead for me. I have a full size LJ45 sim and what's the point of having all the panels and controls in place at the right location but have an inferior sense of movment and motion due to trying to run FSX at a lower performance? FS9 is becoming dated, but not so much that I wont still buy scenery packages for it. In fact I just spent more money yesterday on a package and have several more planned for over the next several months. :-) The only reason I actually like FSX at all is because of the higher texture resolutions and road traffic. Other than that, FS9 actually looks better once you add in all the mods and 3rd party packages (IMHO).Long live FS9 till I can happily run FSX, if ever.

Hi Thralni,I'm sorry if I was a little unclear about what I meant with that statement :( Let me try to clear it up. From AVSIM's point of view, I always trust your comments about how something performs - in fact, I would never just go out and buy a plane unless I get a good review from it at AVSIM. I trust your reviews here at AVSIM with my life :( What I mean, is that the people who advertise their products sometimes have the tendancy to "overcook" the product, you buy it, have a huge expectation and then the product doesn't live up to what the marketing guys said. I do apologise without any reservations if I offended anyone by that statement :( RegardsWerner747

You don't have to apologize. I completely understand you guys, and it's nice to hear you value our reviews that much!

I'd just like to step in and say that IF I could get FSX to run fluidly on my system, then I might use it more often but FS9 is FAR from dead for me. I have a full size LJ45 sim and what's the point of having all the panels and controls in place at the right location but have an inferior sense of movment and motion due to trying to run FSX at a lower performance? FS9 is becoming dated, but not so much that I wont still buy scenery packages for it. In fact I just spent more money yesterday on a package and have several more planned for over the next several months. :-) The only reason I actually like FSX at all is because of the higher texture resolutions and road traffic. Other than that, FS9 actually looks better once you add in all the mods and 3rd party packages (IMHO).Long live FS9 till I can happily run FSX, if ever.

Hi FlightLevel180,I do agree with you. I'm currently building a simulator around my PMDG 747-400 for FS9, and cannot see myself transition anytime soon (if at all...) I'm also spending money now on upgrading my fs9 scenery so my fs9 looks great and performs great and I'm very happy with that. I like FSX because it has great potential, but I think it is just a matter of thinking in the end. I know people who still use FS98 and 2002 and are very happy with it and cannot see even the need to upgrade to fs9. I don't know if we are going to see a FS11 or not, because MS only made the vague statement that it stands committed to FS, but whether that means more FS in the future, or more updates for the current, I cannot really say. Maybe somebody who has some inside information can share with us. In the end, I think that if you are happy with what you have, stick with it. My problem with the world is that everyone is just going with the flow and if this guy drives a Merc then so should I - a bit dull isn't it? I'm not one of those guys - I stick to what I feel comfortable with and for me at the moment and a long time to come after this moment (LOL!) is fs9.RegardsWerner

Hi Mondeoman,Uhm, I don't really know to tell you the truth! LOL! I have never made any changes to my FS9.cfg file myself, but I will go and check out the config and get back to you. What I can tell you though, is that I don't use the standard FS9, I use the FS9.1 version update. I also find it a little strange that you cannot max FS9 on your system You have one monster of a graphics card there! Anyway, will get back to you soon!Hi Werner747, Have you been able to look at your FS9 config? I also use the FS9.1 version

Hi,It's been a while as we all know, and since the last posts I have installed my new PC:4Gb DDR3 RAMnvidia GTX 285 1GbQuad i7 2.66I have installed FSX Acceleration and set the graphics to high levels, with 70ish% water, 100% AI (about 25 WoA packages), full ships, 20% cars and so on. I have also tried the Flytampa VHHX in it and was not blown away (that never happens to me for some reason), but I can see how awesome it is. It is worth the money for FSX, but I find it pointless to install in FS9 when the 9D is more than up to the job.On my settings and with FPS limited to 29 (the human eye can only detect up to 24, so its more than enough) I can fly pretty much all of the missions. There are some exceptions: flying the Bell 206 over central Tokyo brought me down to 4fps (!), so, coupled with my pathetic heli skills, forced me down to .25x speed so that I could land on a building. Other than this, It has been OK, with Heathrow and the POSKY 777 at a perfectly acceptable 17fps, and VHHX with pretty much any Airliner at 10 fps. This may sound dismal but somehow the 10fps in FSX seems smoother and more fluid than the 10fps I used to get in FS9. No, don't ask me why, it doesn't make sense to me either!On to the title of this thread: FS9.After the FSX novelty wore off, I installed FS9.1 on my new rig, and I must say, Vive le Difference! I am absolutely thrashing it mercilessly: Everything on and at maximum, new water textures, detailed scenery and aircraft, real world weather, this new big black nuke just eats it all up! I am running FS9 as I write this with no problems at all! And...and...I don't care.I use FSX whenever I can. I can't really explain, but (yawn) a picture is worth a thousand words.

Hi,write this with no problems at all! And...and...I don't care.I use FSX whenever I can. I can't really explain, but (yawn) a picture is worth a thousand words.

What's special? The water. there are good programs for FS9 to produce better water and I have 9 dragons which has better landclass and mesh than whats in this picture.

What's special? The water. there are good programs for FS9 to produce better water and I have 9 dragons which has better landclass and mesh than whats in this picture.

I have to say that the water in FSX is largely unmatched by FS9. I have see things in FEX that have translucent layers for areas like the Caribbean or other tropical areas that give the illusion of seeing the coral and white sand just underneath the waves. Also FSX supports a higher range of lighting effects that can give realistic lighting on an aircraft, as seen in 3D light Redux add-on. It does some stunning work with the lighting. I also look to the sky and find out of the box a beautiful night time sky complete with a moon and its phases.FSX has a high potential of pushing how well the game can look. FS9 seems to still be behind, but that doesn't go to saying the game looks bad in any reguard. I own both, but no spend all my time in FS9 because i only have my notebook. WHen on my desktop it is only FSX.FS9 is far from dying. I looks great, play great, and it runs great on all hardware. I do look forward to being able to push more higher res textures and lighing in FSX that I can't do in FS9. That excites me and makes me build a better PC.I have to also add that the life of FS9 will go on because of its fan community and great number of add-on free and pay.

What's special? The water. there are good programs for FS9 to produce better water and I have 9 dragons which has better landclass and mesh than whats in this picture.

Why wouldn't you show it off then if you claim there are programs, lol? :)Dirk.