well, its worth pointing out that this is the FS9 forum. I mean its not like this thread was posted in the FSX forum...Otoh theres certainly nothing wrong with you posting your experience. I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be some possibility yr experience is skewed by a badly configured FS9... :shrug:

well, its worth pointing out that this is the FS9 forum. I mean its not like this thread was posted in the FSX forum...Otoh theres certainly nothing wrong with you posting your experience. I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be some possibility yr experience is skewed by a badly configured FS9... :shrug:

You're fine. I'm actually impressed by your responses. You even responded with an example. Most people wouldn't bother.Yes it is possible that something wasn't configured correctly. I only installed it to see what it looks like on my new rig. I didn't spend any time tweaking it because I have no intentions to use it, even if it gave me 5000 fps.

FSX has not matured into a viable heavy jet sim yet. For bush flying out in the hills it is stunning. I don't doubt that. Look at all the FSX screenshots on various forums - 90% of them are GA shots. Whenever someone finds a great visual improvement. What do we see? - a screenshot or video of sea plane sitting on some shiny water. If I see another Beaver sitting near a jetty I will flip out.But to run realistic simming experience in a payware jet, using TrackIR VC, into a large city airport, FSX still cannot cope with a level of detail and smoothness that FS9 will deliver faultlessly. For the first time we have two sims, each being perfect for very different styles of flying, and we should be grateful for that.My rig runs FSX fine within reason. But why don't I use it? Until the performance level increases so the above can happen, then a lot of people won't spend money on buying payware addons - again - that they already own, just to use on an updated sim when their 6 year old sim does it better.

Man, I hate getting suckered into these threads.My experience is not skewed. I run both simms without any addons. FS9 gives more fps. Big deal. There is so much more. I upgraded my computer so I could run FSX. As a result,I run everything better and faster. I do video editing,so cpu and gpu power are very important. It took almost two years to get what I have now. I don't have a lot of money. If I did I would have a i7 ddr3 system. Most of the posts you see about FSX problems are by people who don't have the hardware or don't know how to use it.Bob

My experience is not skewed. I run both simms without any addons. FS9 gives more fps. Big deal. There is so much more. Bob

Thats great. Whatever works for you. I think what some of us are suggesting is that if you were to decide to start adding some add-ons, you might find that you could actually get FS9 to do alot of the things you feel FSX currently does better, and that FS9 might still perform better in the end. Most of the folks I see complaining about FSX seem to be people who've got alot of experience with FS in general and who have spent years loading up FS9 with great stuff they've downloaded or purchased and who find that they can't get FSX to give them the same experience. I don't think many people buy FSX hoping to be dissappointed by it...

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

In terms of sky environment (which can really count in the flight levels) I lean towards FS9. However in terms of photoreal ground textures, due to the outstanding Tileproxy add-on, FSX is just as much on my flying agenda. Tileproxy does work with FS9, but the resolution of the textures isn't even close compared to what FS-X delivers. Water also shines in FSX for me.Still, FS9 offers me entertainment in many different areas. Even though they are not as sharp, I tend to prefer FS9's default ground textures. Highly detailed cities and airports are wonderful for me in FS9--with a mid range rig by today's standards, I can crowd my skies with almost every commercial flight in the air and have an immersion feast with a locked 30fps on an evening flight. Sometimes I just park at my virtual gate and watch the jets line up on approach into airports like SFO and ORD.The other thing that vanished in FS9 with my rig upgrade was the dreaded "dynamic blurry" caused by flying through FS9's scenery too quickly. Blurries just don't happen anymore. To be fair to FSX, they don't happen there either but again, unless I am flying over photoreal scenery I prefer FS9's ground textures even over the sharper ground textures of FSX.What I don't people should fear is trying FSX out. If you examine my system specs below, such systems today can be assembled on a fairly decent budget. FSX is worth it for Tileproxy alone. I have the new Duke add-on, and that also adds a huge value to FSX. And there's a freeware ultralight out there that is the best UL I've ever seen for any sim (and I've contributed a few UL's of my own over the years).Here's several threads in the screenshots forum I've posted that share ways FSX impresses me. That doesn't diminish my joy in flying FS9, but does share ways in which FSX appeals to me. P.S.--the ultralights in the pictures are my own projects or projects I've shared with someone--the FSX ultralight I refer to isn't shown in the screenshots--it's an add-on by a team which specializes in payware, but I am sorry to say their name escapes me at the moment.Edit: For some who wonder about fps in each of the series of shots, with the exception of the Venice shots fps are locked and stay at 30. Venice hovered about 22-23 fps with the water reflections full on. Setting water reflections equal to FS9's best setting Venice was closer to 28-29 fps.My system specs:Intel

In terms of sky environment (which can really count in the flight levels) I lean towards FS9. However in terms of photoreal ground textures, due to the outstanding Tileproxy add-on, FSX is just as much on my flying agenda. Tileproxy does work with FS9, but the resolution of the textures isn't even close compared to what FS-X delivers. Water also shines in FSX for me.Still, FS9 offers me entertainment in many different areas. Even though they are not as sharp, I tend to prefer FS9's default ground textures. Highly detailed cities and airports are wonderful for me in FS9--with a mid range rig by today's standards, I can crowd my skies with almost every commercial flight in the air and have an immersion feast with a locked 30fps on an evening flight. Sometimes I just park at my virtual gate and watch the jets line up on approach into airports like SFO and ORD.The other thing that vanished in FS9 with my rig upgrade was the dreaded "dynamic blurry" caused by flying through FS9's scenery too quickly. Blurries just don't happen anymore. To be fair to FSX, they don't happen there either but again, unless I am flying over photoreal scenery I prefer FS9's ground textures even over the sharper ground textures of FSX.What I don't people should fear is trying FSX out. If you examine my system specs below, such systems today can be assembled on a fairly decent budget. FSX is worth it for Tileproxy alone. I have the new Duke add-on, and that also adds a huge value to FSX. And there's a freeware ultralight out there that is the best UL I've ever seen for any sim (and I've contributed a few UL's of my own over the years).Here's several threads in the screenshots forum I've posted that share ways FSX impresses me. That doesn't diminish my joy in flying FS9, but does share ways in which FSX appeals to me. P.S.--the ultralights in the pictures are my own projects or projects I've shared with someone--the FSX ultralight I refer to isn't shown in the screenshots--it's an add-on by a team which specializes in payware, but I am sorry to say their name escapes me at the moment.Edit: For some who wonder about fps in each of the series of shots, with the exception of the Venice shots fps are locked and stay at 30. Venice hovered about 22-23 fps with the water reflections full on. Setting water reflections equal to FS9's best setting Venice was closer to 28-29 fps.My system specs:Intel

Whilst I think people certainly have a point with regard to FS9 being something that certainly will run faster on maximum graphics settings than FSX, I'm not sure I completely agree with the notion that FSX is unusable with anything other than GA aircraft. I do agree that GA aircraft are a much more entertaining proposition in FSX, since it has better atmospheric modeling, and so it does lend itself to making them more fun than in FS9, but I fly airliners a fair bit in both sims and definitely don't limit myself to GA craft in FSX.It's true that FSX doesn't hit the same frame rates as FS9, but it's by no means unusable, and that includes flying into big cities with a complex airliner. And if I thought FSX was a terrible performer with complex airliners, I certainly would not have bought several of them for it, and I most certainly have done so. I will continue to use FS9 because I have a lot of really cool airliners for it which I either cannot get for FSX (Supranov Yak 40 for example), or am disinclined to buy twice when I already have them for FS9 (PMDG 747-400 for example), but if it comes to a choice of buying for either sim these days, whether it's a big or a small aircraft, if there's a choice, then I'll pick FSX over FS9 most, if not all of the time.I don't see myself stopping using FS9 for a long time, as I have lots of really great aircraft for it and it is still a very capable sim, and when a good add-on comes out for FS9 alone, I still tend to buy it (FS Elemental for example), but at some point when I have all those craft for FSX that I can at present only fly in FS9, then FS9 will be on the shelf along with FS95, 98, 2000, 2002 etc.That is just my own take on things however, and I don't really see why people have to allow such preferences to descend into arguments. If either sim works for you, or even if both sims work for you, then just enjoy them, because it doesn't really matter if someone else prefers the other one to your own favourite.Just to prove it aint GA only in FSX, here's one of my big ones flying into Manchester UK in FSX with the autogen on and the real weather definitely on type for Manchester (i.e tipping it down with rain):Al

I have to step in right now, because I want to bring something to your attention (which I'm sure all of you know already, but just to remember).There is one enormous problem with FSX: There are addons out there that are not compatible with FSX. It just doesn't work. Some of them do work, but there always is a gauge that refuses to function correctly, or a texture that isn't loaded. It's exactly that, the prospect that I wouldn't be abe to use the Tinmouse 2 panel, the PT Tu-154, some of the great sceneries I have, that have kept me from going to FSX.Mind you, I'd very much like to go to FSX right now, but the lack of freeware addons, and the fact that I'll have to rebuy half of my hangar, always kept me from really taking the plunge. That, and the fact that FSX requieres too much from my computer. My computer is now 1 year old, and I can run FSX with settings at medium, but it's just not what I want. This does mean I\m already preparing for a potential jump to FSX: when I get a new computer (in, say 2 years?) I'll obviously install FSX again and hope for the best. I'll run it alongside FS9, and use the aircraft I have on the sim they are made for, although I will be trying to get them working in FSX.So, that's just my take on things. I don't blame FSX for anything, just for the lack of aircraft that I love and fly.

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'He' didnt start anything,'he' just wanted to know what others where using on there fs9 setup and stated a fact that fs9 runs better for me than fsx not a i hate fsx thread so chill your beans, i'd love to be able to run fsx like you apparently can after all the

Wow I am shocked to see a thread like this get to 2 pages without going awol. Awesome. It is good to see some actual conversation on this subject instead of the usual fighting. I've still not got a response from Muskoka1 yet regarding my question for him...btw Geof, have you see the new addon that Scenery Solutions is making for FSX? It will work alongside UTX to add realistic buildings and building placement. It will bring true GA and VFR flying to FS. I think it will revolutionize flight simming to be honest. Being able to see a 3D representation of a house where one is in real life is a huge step forward. It will also use POI's for other types of buildings. I think it could even get more people into FSX. We will see though.I do somewhat agree that FS9 may be better for commercial flights. However, I have no problems using the LDS 767 and PMDG MD-11 on my system. I average over 30 FPS even in major cities with them. The major upside to commercial flying in FS9 is the selection of planes. I really really really miss not having a decent 737 for FSX. Hopefully PMDG can release theirs sometime this year.Keep up the good conversation.

Wow I am shocked to see a thread like this get to 2 pages without going awol. Awesome. It is good to see some actual conversation on this subject instead of the usual fighting. I've still not got a response from Muskoka1 yet regarding my question for him...btw Geof, have you see the new addon that Scenery Solutions is making for FSX? It will work alongside UTX to add realistic buildings and building placement. It will bring true GA and VFR flying to FS. I think it will revolutionize flight simming to be honest. Being able to see a 3D representation of a house where one is in real life is a huge step forward. It will also use POI's for other types of buildings. I think it could even get more people into FSX. We will see though.I do somewhat agree that FS9 may be better for commercial flights. However, I have no problems using the LDS 767 and PMDG MD-11 on my system. I average over 30 FPS even in major cities with them. The major upside to commercial flying in FS9 is the selection of planes. I really really really miss not having a decent 737 for FSX. Hopefully PMDG can release theirs sometime this year.Keep up the good conversation.

Agreed, lets not get out our prams about this, we all just want to enjoy our flying and share our thoughtsChris

kiwikat, read Christos reply, that sums up my feelings. The only difference being that I don't need advice on how to get it to run better, I know the answer, money.

'He' didnt start anything,'he' just wanted to know what others where using on there fs9 setup and stated a fact that fs9 runs better for me than fsx not a i hate fsx thread so chill your beans, i'd love to be able to run fsx like you apparently can after all the

FSX has not matured into a viable heavy jet sim yet. For bush flying out in the hills it is stunning. I don't doubt that. Look at all the FSX screenshots on various forums - 90% of them are GA shots.

Yeah I agree with that, though I completely uninstalled FS9. I use GA 90% of the time anyway...It is tough to get the LevelD 767 VC in FSX in bad weather at EGLL with max settings.... but if you could it would look better than FS9 lol

Yeah I agree with that, though I completely uninstalled FS9. I use GA 90% of the time anyway...It is tough to get the LevelD 767 VC in FSX in bad weather at EGLL with max settings.... but if you could it would look better than FS9 lol

Agreed! I have two laptops and one runs FS9 with all the addons beautifully and the other runs FSX with GA aircraft only with the wonderful FTX demo scenery for Australia. It depends on the mood I am in as to which one I use. Some times both with the FS9 machine running a PMDG 744 from Singapore to Amsterdam overnight and the other for taking a PA28 around Tasmania. Can things be any better?Gerry