I wasn't an early adopter of FSX by anymeans but I got a cheap (NB LEGAL) copy about 6 months ago and I'm afraid I haven't touched FS9 since.FSX may not always run faster but it runs considerably smoother on my not too exciting PC (quad core Q9300 2.5ghz processor, Radeon HD3870 x2 video card, 4gb 800mhz RAM, Windows Vista, WoAI traffic, ASX weather, UTX landclass, FSX SP2, DA Cheyenne, DA Fokker F70/100, PMDG MD-11, RealAir Spitfire).I can hold an average of 20+ FPS (probably 25 FPS in fact, limited to 30 with FPS Limiter) in the PMDG MD-11 VC except at the likes of Heathrow, but even there, although I may be in the mid-teens, I don't get the horrible stutters. I can overfly London now which was an unbearably painful experience in FS9.I do have moving road traffic switched off. It's a killer on my rather limited machine. Otherwise, I have most FSX settings at least at medium (which means higher than FS9).It's all very well saying FS9 with all the add-ons looks as good as FSX and that's probably true. However, in FS9 you will have a really complicated set-up whereas the equivalent in FSX would be an almost virgin installation with fewer opportunities for things to go wrong. FSX pros are:Much better airports including increased AI parking as default, airport vehiclesSmoother performanceNot a single CTD in 6 months (wish I hadn't said that)ConsLess utilty type add-ons (e.g. FS Navigator, EditVoicePack doesn't yet do "Check Missing", no ActiveCamera to set panel views in VC)Need to upgrade your favourite payware add-on aircraft to FSXEr, that's it.I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, just relaying my experience, which I have to say, surprised me a lot given what I had read here. If you can get FSX cheaply and have a better machine than mine, I really would encourage you to have a look.

Yeah, I suppose it depends on what yr experience with FS9 is/was as well. You refer to not having had a single ctd in FSX as one of its advantages. For myself, having had FS9 installed on 2 (maybe 3) different systems since its release, I can't recall EVER having had a ctd in it. I never suffered any of the seasonal change ctd issues or the OOM issues. It's always been phenomenally stable for me. Its certainly true that the process of getting FS9 to look its best can be complicated. However, if you are coming at it from the perspective of someone having FS9 installed and loaded-up already with all those great add-ons and then starting up with FSX, all that work isn't really an issue since its already done. I certainly wouldn't argue that FS9 is the better sim and for someone starting from scratch with either FS9 or FSX I'd say go with FSX - unless that person had a pretty old system. But I think for many of us the issue is after spending years tailoring or FS9 installations to look and run superbly and after spending literally hundreds of dollars on add-ons for FS9, is it worth the effort to start again with FSX? It seems for alot of people in that situation the answer has been "not really."

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.

I take it, you never looked at 'Flightzone 01' Portland, then?

35 fps is SLOW on my machine in FS9. 65-100 is what I typically expect, and I only have an average gaming machine.-Pv-

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.

There's room for both on my system.While FSX has undoubtedly matured into a more advanced simulator, there is nevertheless a huge back catalogue of addons available for FS9. I use FS9 for flying airliners between detailed airport sceneries with tons of AI, and I use FSX for GA flying around the fantastic FTX sceneries.

e. Its certainly true that the process of getting FS9 to look its best can be complicated. However, if you are coming at it from the perspective of someone having FS9 installed and loaded-up already with all those great add-ons and then starting up with FSX, all that work isn't really an issue since its already done. I certainly wouldn't argue that FS9 is the better sim and for someone starting from scratch with either FS9 or FSX I'd say go with FSX - unless that person had a pretty old system. But I think for many of us the issue is after spending years tailoring or FS9 installations to look and run superbly and after spending literally hundreds of dollars on add-ons for FS9, is it worth the effort to start again with FSX? It seems for alot of people in that situation the answer has been "not really."

This is a nice thread of posting with people finnaly telling the facts and truth. FSX is a better platform and we FS9ers now that. It is about add-ons, money and performance. We know the new car is faster,looks better(in some cases) and can do more but my car may be old but looks great and goes fast enough for me. She is fully loaded and powerful to handle all the task I throw at her. Times are tough and there is no way I am buying another computer or a FSX version of a payware aircraft I already own. If MS gave away FSX for free and just half of the payware developers sold there product for under $10 US I would jump on that bandwagon. This is not so and that's why most FS9ers stay. Nothing is wrong with FSX other that it is too powerful and costly for the old machines out here.Carl Perry

This is a nice thread of posting with people finnaly telling the facts and truth. FSX is a better platform and we FS9ers now that. It is about add-ons, money and performance. We know the new car is faster,looks better(in some cases) and can do more but my car may be old but looks great and goes fast enough for me. She is fully loaded and powerful to handle all the task I throw at her. Times are tough and there is no way I am buying another computer or a FSX version of a payware aircraft I already own. If MS gave away FSX for free and just half of the payware developers sold there product for under $10 US I would jump on that bandwagon. This is not so and that's why most FS9ers stay. Nothing is wrong with FSX other that it is too powerful and costly for the old machines out here.Carl Perry

Very nice post, true and to the point, Chris

Here's my take on the whole FSX vs. FS9 debate.I was an FS9 user from the time it launched. I was running it on a P4 2.53ghz/ 2gb RAM machine with every addon scenery/plane that I could get my hand and wallet on. I had it tweaked to the max and ran really great on my system, but I am one of those people that when it comes to flight sims specifically I have to always try to get the next best or newer thing.I had a whole new rig built in April '08 for the use of FSX since I knew that FSX wouldn't perform the way I wanted on my old machine. I didn't use Nick's tweak guide at the time because I don't think it was out yet, or if it had been I didn't know about it. So, I spent the few bucks and used the pay service FS-GS to do the whole operating system/FSX set up. Up to this point I had still planned to use FS9 because of some off the addons.Once I fired up FSX for the first time and used it with a range of GA and more complex a/c like the LDS 767 I was sold and haven't even used FS9 since. To me there is just no comparison as far as looks and feel goes. For me the biggest improvement in FSX is the overall look, namely the ground textures (GEX) and I really like the imersion factor with the cars, boats, and sometimes birds.I understand that a lot of people who have spent loads of money on FS9 addons don't want to have to repurchase in most cases the newer verions of those addons for FSX. I completely understand that, I normally wouldn't want to either. I guess that due to my line of work I am used to losing sometimes hundreds or thousands of dollars a day, so I was pre conditioned to know that going to FSX was going to mean having to write off the majority of money spent on FS9 addons and rebuy them for FSX.As far as the debate on FPS in FS9 and FSX. My experience in FSX is that I get about the same fluidity and blurry free experience in FSX with 20 FPS as I got in FS9 with 30 to 60 FPS. Although I can keep it locked at 20-28 fps in most situations flying a heavy into a major.In the long run I am really happy with FSX and have absolutely no desire to go back to FS9. I know that there are some places in FS9 like with the KPDX addon that you can make it look FSXish, but the problem is that after you leave the area then your back to FS9 looks.Now that AES is available for FSX, plus the new UT2 that actually injects the AI into FS you can get even better AI performance than you could prior, I am super happy with FSX.Just my .02 on the whole thing. I know that my experience is probably unique to me in regards to how FSX works/looks, but I thought I would share anyway.Regards.

Here's my take on the whole FSX vs. FS9 debate.I was an FS9 user from the time it launched. I was running it on a P4 2.53ghz/ 2gb RAM machine with every addon scenery/plane that I could get my hand and wallet on. I had it tweaked to the max and ran really great on my system, but I am one of those people that when it comes to flight sims specifically I have to always try to get the next best or newer thing.I had a whole new rig built in April '08 for the use of FSX since I knew that FSX wouldn't perform the way I wanted on my old machine. I didn't use Nick's tweak guide at the time because I don't think it was out yet, or if it had been I didn't know about it. So, I spent the few bucks and used the pay service FS-GS to do the whole operating system/FSX set up. Up to this point I had still planned to use FS9 because of some off the addons.Once I fired up FSX for the first time and used it with a range of GA and more complex a/c like the LDS 767 I was sold and haven't even used FS9 since. To me there is just no comparison as far as looks and feel goes. For me the biggest improvement in FSX is the overall look, namely the ground textures (GEX) and I really like the imersion factor with the cars, boats, and sometimes birds.I understand that a lot of people who have spent loads of money on FS9 addons don't want to have to repurchase in most cases the newer verions of those addons for FSX. I completely understand that, I normally wouldn't want to either. I guess that due to my line of work I am used to losing sometimes hundreds or thousands of dollars a day, so I was pre conditioned to know that going to FSX was going to mean having to write off the majority of money spent on FS9 addons and rebuy them for FSX.As far as the debate on FPS in FS9 and FSX. My experience in FSX is that I get about the same fluidity and blurry free experience in FSX with 20 FPS as I got in FS9 with 30 to 60 FPS. Although I can keep it locked at 20-28 fps in most situations flying a heavy into a major.In the long run I am really happy with FSX and have absolutely no desire to go back to FS9. I know that there are some places in FS9 like with the KPDX addon that you can make it look FSXish, but the problem is that after you leave the area then your back to FS9 looks.Now that AES is available for FSX, plus the new UT2 that actually injects the AI into FS you can get even better AI performance than you could prior, I am super happy with FSX.Just my .02 on the whole thing. I know that my experience is probably unique to me in regards to how FSX works/looks, but I thought I would share anyway.Regards.

Thank you this post proves my point again. I upgraded from my old PIII to a dell XPS400 Dual core just for FS9. I can not afford to upgrade my computer with every new FS Simulator and the way it looks now I will not have to anymore. That is also why some FS9 users are slow to change to FSX. Looks like we will have time before any new Sim from anybody is released. We FS9ers will eventually buy FSX and payware for it but for right now I suggest the developers retrack their steps and start trying to make some residual money off FS9.Carl Perry

Thank you this post proves my point again. I upgraded from my old PIII to a dell XPS400 Dual core just for FS9. I can not afford to upgrade my computer with every new FS Simulator and the way it looks now I will not have to anymore. That is also why some FS9 users are slow to change to FSX. Looks like we will have time before any new Sim from anybody is released. We FS9ers will eventually buy FSX and payware for it but for right now I suggest the developers retrack their steps and start trying to make some residual money off FS9.Carl Perry

I'm running FSX on a Dell XPS400 dual core myself, and took FS9 off completely over two years ago. Today, I get better performance that what I ever got in FS9. I am also not going to be buying a new computer myself for a while, as the (my) residential architectural business is very much hurting right now, and extra cash on hand is not at my disposal as it was a couple years back. My computer works just fine with FSX, and the newer products available not only make it better, but seem to 'tax' my old computer less than many of the earlier FSX add-on programs and products.cmpbellsjc made some very valid points in terms of the improvements of FSX over FS9, specifically the 'look, improved fluidity, and the blurry free experiance; I agree with her post almost completely. So, as far as proving your point in respect that you do not want to spend on further upgrades, you then call for third developers to once again begin making products that you will purchase to make 'your' FS9 better. It seems there is a contradiction in that point, as that money would be better spent on FSX products if you are going to eventually move to FSX anyway. Some of the new scenery and aircraft being released today for FSX are really incredible in comparison to their FS9 counterparts, and I find it highly unlikely, as time goes on, that these developers will take twice the time to create two distinct releases as I would imagine there is a diminishing return to do so. I believe you are seeing that happen now.

you then call for third developers to once again begin making products that you will purchase to make 'your' FS9 better. It seems there is a contradiction in that point, as that money would be better spent on FSX products if you are going to eventually move to FSX anyway

Here I gently disagree, but that is exlusively my own point of view and I don't have a feeling of representing anyone else or any group.So, I also belong to the guys who for years have spent A LOT of money on various FS9 addons. Plus I also gave FSX a few tries (to know what I could be losing or not). So the problem is that AT THIS MOMENT I don't need FSX and anything it theoretically offers over FS9 (I liked the better ground textures, but not much else). And though I've been in this hobby for many years, I don't know what my life is going to be like in the years to come. I've made my FS9 so good, that it completely satisfies MY (let me repeat: MY) virtual aviation needs. Therefore I still buy FS9 addons to add new places to fly and new planes to use in these flights. Moving to FSX and starting from scratch could mean that I would finish my simming career one sunny day not even being in a 25% of building my FSX world (are there any of you, guys, who really enjoy the default FSX?). Thank you, I'd rather spend this time flying and spend some extra cash on my family and on making my life a bit safer in these not very safe times.Best regards

One tiny voice here who flies the default FSX. Works great for me. I also have the default FS9, but I seldom use it. Just never gone down the path of addons.Bob

Just never gone down the path of addons

It's sooo fortunate for you walet, Bob! I think you wife loves your hobby. :( Getting into addons is an addiction. You never have enough. Especially when something top notch is released.But evidently there are guys who resist it. Respect, Bob, respect!Best regards

I am delighted with my FSX experience. But, as it has been stated, it is an expensive upgrade.FSX is just OK with SP2. When you add GEX, UTX, REX, and Orbx, and all the great payware airplanes from Carenado, Realair, etc, you will experience simply the finest simulation ever created. In terms of visuals only Portland (KPDX) comes a little close. But, it has a long way to go before it can looks as good as Orbx.Did I mention that you might also need to upgrade the system. I did and I don't see a reason to have FS9 on my system.If you want FS to look about 20% as good, you need UT, GE, FE, KPDX, Manhattan, and maybe all the Fly Tampa sceneries. There are others. But those were my favorites.

I still use FS9 and i don't plan to change it. NO WAY!