Greeting all, just compleated a flight EGKK-LGSA and i thought to myself who needs fsx when here i am with all my addons, a respective rig and a sim that never fails to to dissapoint. I kmow im blabing on but i tried and tried with fsx and always stumbled across some kinda problem that just got me back to flying fs9 and i will carry on as long as developers keep producing and we keep buying.Ive got my fs9 looking superb(in my eyes) watching various videos by other simmers for example edetroit http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=edetroit and realised that you can get fs9 as good as fsx in looks and better in fps but these are just my views, anyway what do you think guys and which addons are you using to make your fs9 as real as it gets???!!!Long live fs2004!!! Chris

Greeting all, just compleated a flight EGKK-LGSA and i thought to myself who needs fsx when here i am with all my addons, a respective rig and a sim that never fails to to dissapoint. I kmow im blabing on but i tried and tried with fsx and always stumbled across some kinda problem that just got me back to flying fs9 and i will carry on as long as developers keep producing and we keep buying.Ive got my fs9 looking superb(in my eyes) watching various videos by other simmers for example edetroit http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=edetroit and realised that you can get fs9 as good as fsx in looks and better in fps but these are just my views, anyway what do you think guys and which addons are you using to make your fs9 as real as it gets???!!!Long live fs2004!!! Chris

I have to agree, although I also use FSX in specific countries with very specific aircraft add-ons.re: fs9, the only thing I have left to sort out is some more realistic water effects at low level. With UT + FSglobal + GEpro +AS6 + FE, then WOAI and some terrific Airport add-ons across the global (also VOZ in Oz is something special) make fs9 unbeatable when considering there are no performance issues to hold you back.In the future we could perhaps look forward to REX for fs9.jlm

and realised that you can get fs9 as good as fsx in looks and better in fps

No.And btw, FSX runs BETTER than FS9 on my machine at much more detailed settings. My computer struggled to hit 35 fps on FS9 but my FSX when unlocked gets into the 50's.Once you can get EVERY city in FS9 looking like thisI will go back to it.

No.And btw, FSX runs BETTER than FS9 on my machine at much more detailed settings. My computer struggled to hit 35 fps on FS9 but my FSX when unlocked gets into the 50's.

I would suggest there is something terribly wrong with your FS9 setup...

I would suggest there is something terribly wrong with your FS9 setup...

Yeah, its going on 6 years old. And looks it too.

Yeah, its going on 6 years old. And looks it too.

Just sayin, if yr having trouble getting better than 35fps in FS9 with less detail than FSX, theres something wrong there. I can pretty much max the FS9 settings with tons of clouds in dense scenery areas and stay well above 40fps...usually above 50.

Just sayin, if yr having trouble getting better than 35fps in FS9 with less detail than FSX, theres something wrong there. I can pretty much max the FS9 settings with tons of clouds in dense scenery areas and stay well above 40fps...usually above 50.

Ditto.Running Fs9 with all - ALL - of the display settings maxed out, with the heaviest airport sceneries and most advanced a/c with real world weather, and still getting playable fps.On the same machine FSX is running the same way only with display settings at 40-50% and default aircraft/sceneries.........It's amazing to hear you (kiwicat) get the inverse thing, if you know a trick pleaepleaseplease enlight us......

All I do is follow NickN's guide and keep my disk defragged. I have my trees autogen set pretty low, though still much higher than FS9 allows. Buildings are set way high. I've got a decent computer and some of the most stable graphics drivers I've ever seen (182.50).I don't know what many of you guys are doing wrong, but FSX runs very well. It even ran well on my 2 year old laptop.And please don't get me wrong. I loved FS9 back in the day. I got thousands of hours on it. For me, FSX is superior in every way, including performance. There's absolutely no reason for me NOT to use it.As long as there are people arguing FS9 is better, I will argue that FSX is better.Enjoy your flights!!! (regardless of the sim)

Yeah, its going on 6 years old. And looks it too.

----------------------------kiwikat- Perhaps there is FSX hope for my 6 yr old 'puter as well! What are your system specs?(I can run FS9 triple monitors/views quite nicely- why not FSX!)Alex Reid

----------------------------kiwikat- Perhaps there is FSX hope for my 6 yr old 'puter as well! What are your system specs?(I can run FS9 triple monitors/views quite nicely- why not FSX!)Alex Reid

I never said my computer was 6 years old, just FS9. Sorry for the confusion.My specs are Q9550 OC'd to 3.4 GHz, a Xigmatek S1283 CPU cooler, ASUS Rampage Formula X48 motherboard, 8 GB DDR2 1066 GSkill ram, EVGA GTX280 1 GB GDDR3 stock speeds, 2 640GB WD Caviar Black hard drives, 1 WD 160 GB backup drive, X-Fi titanium fatal1ty pro sound card, Corsair 750TX PSU, and an Antec 900 case. It is all running on Vista 64 Ultimate SP2. Yes it was a lot of money. Yes it was worth it.I never claimed FSX would run on a 6 year old machine. I claim FSX can run WELL on a 2 year old machine though.

I see a ****ing match coming. Why does this argument always come down to what people see. This is a "flight simulator", not WOW where your walking around looking at the pretty scenery. Lets face it, without spending a fair bit of money on a new system or upgrades, your NOT going to get FSX to run as nice as FS9 with everything maxed, it just won't happen, we have all tried. I have a three year old system that can run FSX just fine with very little detail as long as I fly low and slow, sound familiar. With FS9 I have all the major payware addons for ground textures, sky, water, mesh, aircraft, ASA, Radar Contact, Ultimate Traffic 100%, WOAI to add more traffic, the list goes on, all sliders maxed (everything), and never drop below my locked 24 fps at the busiest airports, and everything looks and runs great. Why would I continue to beat myself up trying to get FSX to match the performance of FS9 on my machine, it's not going to happen. Change your hardware, sure it will happen, but why, so it looks perhaps a little prettier, I could care less. I want to fly, smoothly, not tweak and visit the forums everyday looking for the miracle fix. Visit any FSX forum and see what 90% of the posts are about, that should be enough to tell you what runs better. Glen

I see a ****ing match coming. Why does this argument always come down to what people see. This is a "flight simulator", not WOW where your walking around looking at the pretty scenery. Lets face it, without spending a fair bit of money on a new system or upgrades, your NOT going to get FSX to run as nice as FS9 with everything maxed, it just won't happen, we have all tried. I have a three year old system that can run FSX just fine with very little detail as long as I fly low and slow, sound familiar. With FS9 I have all the major payware addons for ground textures, sky, water, mesh, aircraft, ASA, Ultimate Traffic 100%, WOAI to add more traffic, the list goes on, all sliders maxed (everything), and never drop below my locked 24 fps at the busiest airports, and everything looks and runs great. Why would I continue to beat myself up trying to get FSX to match the performance of FS9 on my machine, it's not going to happen. Change your hardware, sure it will happen, but why, so it looks perhaps a little prettier, I could care less. I want to fly, smoothly, not tweak and visit the forums everyday looking for the miracle fix. Visit any FSX forum and see what 90% of the posts are about, that should be enough to tell you what runs better. Glen

No ****ing match here unless you want to start it.I fly smoothly and not tweak too! Good to hear we have something in common :)

Just by way of comparison...Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue that FSX isn't potentially a more visually impressive sim becuase obviously it is (as it very well should be since as you pointed out FS9 is 6 years its senior). But I doubt very much I'd be running it on my system @ 1680x1050x32 with 4xfsaa/4xaniso, RW weather as in the screen above with that kind of scenery density and maintain anything close to that lovely 60fps...

kiwikat, you are the one that started it, Zevious Zoquis, self64, january, and I finished it.Glen

kiwikat, you are the one that started it, Zevious Zoquis, self64, january, and I finished it.Glen

I believe you should scroll up to the original poster. He is the one who started it by making another thread about FS9 vs FSX. Then I posted MY experience with the two. How are the original poster's opinions any more valid than mine? Please answer me this one question though. Please:Why do so many FS9 users seek affirmation these days; Why do they feel they have to prove their sim is better? You don't see threads like that in the FSX section here. Only in the FS9 area. That trend continues onto other forums as well. It isn't unique to AVSIM.