Would you migrate to FSX with a new PC?

[hitter439 4]

Was wondering if the opinion of most users is that they would like to migrate to FSX but are remaining with FS9 due to PC limitations and / or their current investment in FS9 add-ons. My current PC specs are: P4 3.6 mhz, 3GB ram, with an ATI X800 XT 256MB vidcard and a pretty basic FS9 installation. I would like to purchase some payware aircraft and scenery enhancements (UTUSA, GE Pro, FS Genesis mesh,etc.) but am not sure whether the investment in FS9 add-ons is worthwhile if I plan to upgrade my PC in approx. 12 months to a more FSX capable machine.Thanks.

[Arklight1 140]

Was wondering if the opinion of most users is that they would like to migrate to FSX but are remaining with FS9 due to PC limitations and / or their current investment in FS9 add-ons. My current PC specs are: P4 3.6 mhz, 3GB ram, with an ATI X800 XT 256MB vidcard and a pretty basic FS9 installation. I would like to purchase some payware aircraft and scenery enhancements (UTUSA, GE Pro, FS Genesis mesh,etc.) but am not sure whether the investment in FS9 add-ons is worthwhile if I plan to upgrade my PC in approx. 12 months to a more FSX capable machine.Thanks.

Whether the investment is worthwhile or not is completely up to you. It really depends on what you are hoping to do in the sim and what level of performance you find acceptable. Using the computer in my signature below, I am quite happy with FSX in most circumstances. However, there are still times where the performance causes me to have a "##### is this" moment. I like high settings, lots of detail, lots of AI, no jaggies, good flight dynamics, good weather effects, and in-depth aircraft systems. I want it all. With FS9 I can get all of that. There may be a few things here or there that FSX does better, but it also does it at a huge cost. A $35 add-on airport with a $50 add-on aircraft looks great in FSX, but it feels stunning in FS9. I still buy FS9 add-ons, not becuase I don't get "good" performance in FSX, but rather because I get "great" performance in FS9.FS9 really is more of my Airliner sim while FSX is more reserved for general aviation. Hope this helps!

[Chock 17,769]

I don't see using FSX as a migration, I use them both depending on what I want to do. If I want a completely realistic 747-400, I have the PMDG 747 in FS9 for that, and since I'd be concentrating on the systems rather than the eye candy, it still does it for me in every respect, which is why I saw little need to buy it again for FSX.By the same token, the FSX Catalina that just got released was worth taking the drop in performance I get in FSX, so it was a no brainer to buy it. But there are still a lot of aircraft that you can't even get for FSX, and while that continues to be the case, both sims will get fired up regularly. That's one of the reasons why I think add-ons that give you a version for both sims are such a good deal.Al

[Mike T 208]

Was wondering if the opinion of most users is that they would like to migrate to FSX but are remaining with FS9 due to PC limitations and / or their current investment in FS9 add-ons. My current PC specs are: P4 3.6 mhz, 3GB ram, with an ATI X800 XT 256MB vidcard and a pretty basic FS9 installation. I would like to purchase some payware aircraft and scenery enhancements (UTUSA, GE Pro, FS Genesis mesh,etc.) but am not sure whether the investment in FS9 add-ons is worthwhile if I plan to upgrade my PC in approx. 12 months to a more FSX capable machine.Thanks.

It depends on what you are going to do with FSX. If you plan in flying complex airliners at 35000 feet into hyper-detailed airports with 100% AI traffic and demand high framerates even when flying into the most complex airport under full IFR conditions with all sliders maxxed, then stick with FS9. Both sims look the same from the airport and high altitude perspective and FS9 aircraft function exactly like native FSX aircraft. On the other hand, if you plan on flying low and slow over a lake in the Ozarks, with herds of platypus running free across the 1m photorealistic terrain, while realistic bump mapped shadows and bloom dance across your glareshield, and you absolutely enjoy tweaking, then FSX is for you.I own every enhancement for FS9 and with my high end system fS9 is mindblowingly smooth and realistic due to the high framerates + I fly airliners 99% of the time. The differences between a supped up FS9 and FSX are so small, that it boils down to preference. FSX on the other hand shows 'OK' performance on very high end systems, there are many slideshow moments that raise the frustration level. What you will find is that when you buy that high end system, it will make FS9 perform even BETTER and you will find it even harder to move to FSX. It would seem that is also true of the MAJORITY of the fs community who are still flying FS9 three years after the release of FSX.I have FSX on my system, but I use it more as a 3DMark tester to test performance tweaks. IN 3 years, I've completed 1 flight in FSX meanwhile the higher end your system the more attractive and fluid FS9 becomes. I've found that with every upgrade, FS9 becomes a new sim all over again and I am in awe of flying into detailed cities at 50 FPS and the suspension of disbelief it provides. I am spending 10:1 on FS9 vs FSX and am buying every high end FS9 addon the moment they are released.

[kerosene31 349]

Short answer: no.At least for the next few years. I'm about due for an upgrade and I'm planning on building a PC specifically for FS9.Performance is far too important for me, plus with all my old add-ons working, I have no need to make the jump. Maybe in another few years when it is time to upgrade again.

[january 19]

Was wondering if the opinion of most users is that they would like to migrate to FSX but are remaining with FS9 due to PC limitations and / or their current investment in FS9 add-ons. My current PC specs are: P4 3.6 mhz, 3GB ram, with an ATI X800 XT 256MB vidcard and a pretty basic FS9 installation. I would like to purchase some payware aircraft and scenery enhancements (UTUSA, GE Pro, FS Genesis mesh,etc.) but am not sure whether the investment in FS9 add-ons is worthwhile if I plan to upgrade my PC in approx. 12 months to a more FSX capable machine.

--------------------hitter-The recent AVSIM poll shows that the majority of simmers still fly with FS9. I have no plans whatsoever to upgrade? to New Sim(FSX). When you can fly, as in the screenshot with Classic Sim(FS9), anything less would be a downgrade! And definitely, you need UT and GE- the combination of which, with triple views, extends FS9 well into the next decade!Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron on final approach- Kamloops BC- CYKA. (AMD 1.8 CPU/2GB RAM/2-GeForce FX 5200 GPUs= 44" wide/145

[hitter439 4]

I would like to thank each of you for your responses. I do enjoy both GA and airliner flying....was hoping to buy some good payware aircraft in both genres. It appears that the primary differences between the sims are a bit more eye candy in FSX vs. an enhanced FS9, expecially for low and slow GA flying, but with FS9 having superior system performance over the range of aircraft / scenery. System performance is important to me, so it looks like I should give FS9 a bit of a facelift with some good payware and see how it goes....maybe will even extend the life of my current PC a little.Thanks again everyone!

[Joseph29 225]

No I would not migrate to FSX even if I got a new PC (the PC I have now can handle FSX). The reason is I do not want to loose all my addon scenery that I have. A lot of the scenery will not work in FSX and there isn't a lot of FSX scenery out there compared to FS2004.

[scoob 18]

built a new computer a little over one year ago. built it for FS9. FSX wasn't puchased until 9 months ago ... only used for support and test purposes. don't use it at all for 'personal flying'.FS9 will remain 'my FS'.--

[ulisses 1]

I upgraded my PC to have a better FSX experience and performance was a little better, but when I tried FS9 again I didn't run FSX anymore. (but it is installed for extra tests)Ulisses

[Guest DAH4062]

I have just got a mega-power PC for FSX, but will not fully convert until there is nothing I don't miss from FS9 (eg. Kai Tak, A340,etc). By the time that happens fully, or almost fully at least, PC standards will have caught up to run FSX beautifully, and with the shutdown of ACES, there will not be a new FS to drag us down even more. I think the switchover is inevitable: we don't use FS2k/98 just because they run easily at 200fps, in the same way we don't use telegraph anymore.

[january 19]

I have just got a mega-power PC for FSX, but will not fully convert until there is nothing I don't miss from FS9 (eg. Kai Tak, A340,etc). By the time that happens fully, or almost fully at least, PC standards will have caught up to run FSX beautifully, and with the shutdown of ACES, there will not be a new FS to drag us down even more. I think the switchover is inevitable: we don't use FS2k/98 just because they run easily at 200fps, in the same way we don't use telegraph anymore.

-------------------I've read recently that MS has now rehired many of the ACES crew. That suggests that the demise of FS may have been greatly exagerated, to paraphrase Mark Twain.The recent AVSIM poll indicates that FS9(Classic Sim!) continues to be the most used sim with over 50% usership.After 2 1/2 years, FSX(New Sim) comes in with 47% usership. It would be reasonable to suspect that this user penetration failure (and adverse publicity) may have some bearing on the shakeup at ACES and need for a new direction. Perhaps an update to FS9 Classic Sim- such as a new ATC and a few other goodies- might be the answer for a sim that works superbly well on todays hardware. And perhaps could be available in the market as FSXI in the not so distant future. Alex ReidPS We still use telegraphic morse for radio nav ident!

[Max Kraus 338]

I have just upgraded. I expected to migrate fully to FSX but FSX is STILL not smooth enough to get the performance I expected.As a heavy system jet flyer (PMDG etc) I can now fly into Heathrow or FT Kai Tak on FS9 with 50+ fps and not one jerk/stutter. It's a divine experience and taken 6 years to get to "liquid" frame rates.In FSX I can do this at both these airports but it's at 15 fps not 50. I could never even attempt it on FSX before the upgrade. I think I will resign to using both sims for different things - FS9 for heavy and FSX for trundling around VFR. Since I mainly fly heavy I'll probably see FS9 used more and that's the way it will stay.

[Guest DAH4062]

-------------------Perhaps an update to FS9 Classic Sim- such as a new ATC and a few other goodies- might be the answer for a sim that works superbly well on todays hardware. And perhaps could be available in the market as FSXI in the not so distant future.

That would be nice, as FSX doesn't really add much apart from visuals and missions, which would be added to FS9/11

-------------------PS We still use telegraphic morse for radio nav ident!

Yes, but I meant that we don't use it in everyday life, as we have cell phones and e-mail. Besides I never use the ident in FS anyway, too hard to tell whether its - or. .

[iainsmith 9]

-------------------I've read recently that MS has now rehired many of the ACES crew. That suggests that the demise of FS may have been greatly exagerated, to paraphrase Mark Twain.

I don't think so january. MS stated, shortly after closing ACES, that their future intention is to launch a flight sim game for on-line players on subscription. More of a game than a sim I suspect but many of the ACES crew would be useful for that. We are not going to see a Flight Simulator of the sort we've been used to for a long long time, if ever.Iain Smith