As a real world pilot and enthusiast it's FS9 all the way plain and simple... I'll dive into FSX in another three years. :(

As a real world pilot and enthusiast it's FS9 all the way plain and simple... I'll dive into FSX in another three years. :(

..and as a rw pilot, beta tester for fs since fs2000 and enthusiast since 1981 I'll use fsx. :( Enjoy the sim that turns you on-that is what is all about-no one has to "win"..I loved fs9 when I beta tested it! I assume "Water Mango" did too?

I've taken a long hard look at this, and just spent some thousands to build a fairly cutting-edge simming PC (core i7-975 at 4.4 GHz, GTX285 video, 6GB, and FS running off an SSD).This drill has not convinced me to abandon FS9. But I do have FSX up and running as a useful platform for the first time, and the lines between the two have been blurred somewhat.FSX is the hands-down champ when it comes to visual quality below 2000 ft AGL. Above that altitude there is little difference.FS9 is the hands-down winner when it comes to a stable and predictable weather engine, thanks to ActiveSky v6.5 and a very well-developed FSUIPC v3 interface. The state of the art in FSX weather, ActiveSky Advanced, is still a convoluted schizophrenic mess of wind shifts, S-turns, and other unhappy surprises. And the SimConnect interface is still a distant second place to FSUIPC--and unlike FSUIPC, which is still actively developed and supported, FSX's preferred external add-on interface will get no better with time as a result of the disbandment of ACES Studios.Just three add-on airplanes draw my attention to FSX: the Real Air Duke, the Flight1 Cessna Mustang, and the PMDG MD-11, mostly because of the exceptional-looking, well-performing VC and complete nature of each.No less than 20 add-on airplanes keep my attention on FS9, among them the PMDG 737 & 747, Level-D B767, MAAM Sim DC-3 and B-25G, Leonardo SH Maddog MD-80, Dreamfleet B727, PSS 757 777 and Dash 8, ACDesign Howard 500, Ready for Pushback B742, Flight1 ATR 72-500, Hilmersby DC-9, Cloud9 F-104, Jordan Moore's Bell 412, Eaglesoft Cirrus SR-22, Aeroworx King Air 200, FeelThere ERJ145, and of course my beloved pet project the TinMouse II B737-200.My coast-to-coast network of FS9 add-on airports--from FlyTampa, ImagineSim, FSDreamTeam, TropicalSim, Cloud9 et al and many enhanced by AES--just can't be rivalled in FSX at the present time.My basic premise still holds true, that a flight conducted low and slow where enroute scenery makes the most impact is the favored domain of FSX. But in a high-performance plane, where I will cross that 2000' AGL scenery equivalence boundary less than two minutes from brake release, and not cross it again until 3-4 minutes from touchdown, FS9 is still my favored platform of choice, a rock stable locked-at-60 fps platform where a severe 180-degree wind shift or bogus outside air temps 100 deg above standard won't shoot me out of the sky like an SA-2. I like to do both kinds of flying (other than the getting shot down part).And for someone whose budget or interest level doesn't enable spending thousands of dollars, FS9 will run on a much more modest system, and the available array of good freeware offerings for FS9 positively eclipses what's out there for FSX. Some point out that FS9 is six years old...forget not that FSX is already pushing three years from its 2006 release. I think both will be with us for some time to come, and those developers that abandon FS9 for FSX will simply be opening an opportunity for another to step in.I honestly can't say I'm moving towards FSX as much as I am taking it off the shelf after years up there gathering dust, and adding it to my tool chest.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I've taken a long hard look at this, and just spent some thousands to build a fairly cutting-edge simming PC (core i7-975 at 4.4 GHz, GTX285 video, 6GB, and FS running off an SSD).This drill has not convinced me to abandon FS9. But I do have FSX up and running as a useful platform for the first time, and the lines between the two have been blurred somewhat.FSX is the hands-down champ when it comes to visual quality below 2000 ft AGL. Above that altitude there is little difference.FS9 is the hands-down winner when it comes to a stable-predictable weather engine, thanks to ActiveSky v6.5 and a very well-developed FSUIPC v3 interface. The state of the art in FSX weather, ActiveSky Advanced, is still a convoluted schizophrenic mess of wind shifts, S-turns, and other unhappy surprises. And the SimConnect interface is still a distant second place to FSUIPC--and unlike FSUIPC, which is still actively developed and supported, FSX's preferred external add-on interface will get no better as a result of the disbandment of ACES Studios.Just three add-on airplanes draw my attention to FSX: the Real Air Duke, the Flight1 Cessna Mustang, and the PMDG MD-11, mostly because of the exceptional-looking and well-performing VC in each.No less than 20 add-on airplanes keep my attention on FS9, among them the PMDG 737 & 747, Level-D B767, MAAM Sim DC-3 and B-25G, Leonardo SH Maddog MD-80, Dreamfleet B727, PSS 757 777 and Dash 8, ACDesign Howard 500, Ready for Pushback B742, Flight1 ATR 72-500, Hilmersby DC-9, Cloud9 F-104, Jordan Moore's Bell 412, Eaglesoft Cirrus SR-22, Aeroworx King Air 200, FeelThere ERJ145, and of course my beloved pet project the TinMouse II B737-200.My coast-to-coast network of FS9 add-on airports--from FlyTampa, ImagineSim, FSDreamTeam, TropicalSim, Cloud9 et al and many enhanced by AES--just can't be rivalled in FSX at the present time.By basic premise still holds true, that a flight conducted low and slow where enroute scenery makes the most impact is the favored domain of FSX. But in a high-performance plane, where I will cross that 2000' scenery equivalence boundary less than two minutes from brake release, and not cross it again until 3-4 minutes from touchdown, FS9 is still my favored platform of choice, a rock stable locked-at-60 fps platform where a severe wind shift won't shoot me down like an SA-2. I like to do both (other than the getting shot down part).And for someone whose budget or interest level doesn't enable spending thousands of dollars, FS9 will run on a much more modest system, and the available array of good freeware offerings for FS9 positively eclipses what's out there for FSX. Some point out that FS9 is six years old...forget not that FSX is already pushing three years from its Oct 2006 release. I think both will be with us for some time to come, and those developers that abandon FS9 for FSX will simply be opening an opportunity for another to step in.I honestly can't say I'm moving towards FSX as much as I am taking it off the shelf and adding it to my tool chest.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Go for it!

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

Tell me where i can get these textures on ground?

Yeah what are those ground textures? They look good!Ian

'Ultimate Terrain and Howards Mix' makes my FS9 like this ;)

Tell me where i can get these textures on ground? Im waiting so hard REX for FS9!!

Yeah, i'm waiting for it too. They said that they are "on final" for two months. I hope that they are not goin' to run out of fuel soon.

Yeah what are those ground textures? They look good!Ian

Textures are from "France VFR", and clouds from "FS Elemental", which is very good replacement for REX, till we waiting to come up for fs9....and it look like this in FS9:

I just have a hard time understanding what the debate is about. Both sims are useful. FSX is just better than FS9, if you have the system to run it in.Both sims were crap at the beginning. As the technology improved and the add-ons came along, so did the joy.As a real GA Pilot & real Flight Instructor, there are only two ways that I fly; VFR & IFR. To me this is not a game, but a real simulator that can help me improve as a "real" pilot.When fs 2004 came out and for years it did not run that well. FPS were low and the scenery left much to be desired. Fast forward to 4 years later. Everyone knows what happened.FSX out of the box was useless to me. But, with SP 2 and all the new add-ons, new system, VFR and IFR flights are more realistic. FS9, visually, just doesn't cut it for me.I can run both sims and 30fps in FSX is significantly better and 100fps in FS9.As a "real" pilot I enjoy looking out the window. I don't enjoy setting up an auto pilot and letting it fly me to a destination airport and letting the jet land itself. It's not what I call fun.FS9, in the beginning it wasn't fun. FSX wasn't fun either. But with today's add-ons and new technology, both sims have matured. FSX is just superior.

------------As a real GA Pilot & real Flight Instructor, there are only two ways that I fly; VFR & IFR. To me this is not a game, but a real simulator that can help me improve as a "real" pilot.------------FS9, in the beginning it wasn't fun. FSX wasn't fun either. But with today's add-ons and new technology, both sims have matured. FSX is just superior.

-----------------------DJ- FS9 ran perfectly for me right out of the box nearly 6 years ago on the same computer that I use today- other than I have added RAM, Ultimate Terrain, GE and several airplanes. This old AMD 1.8 Ghz XP2200, 2GB RAM and 2 GeForce FX5200 GPUs with triple monitors- still runs so smoothly that I see no merit in the agony of upgrading to FSX! (And losing my sanity in the process- to say nothing of my bank balance!) The pics show why I'm pretty happy with the status quo.Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron 58- Engine Out on takeoff in 1/2 m vis. (Can you get the bird home? Sweaty armpits are permissible!) Anderson Lake ahead in the BC Coast mountains. Having 4x4'd through here several times, this scenery looks much as I remember it from logging roads! (outer monitors are actually angled @ 40

January, I still think your setup is really cool :)Mark

January, I still think your setup is really cool :)Mark

------------Thanks Mark- happy to help if you want to try it. Pretty simple & cheap to set up.For starters- just add an old, giveaway CRT. Your existing GPU should be capable of running 2 mons.Alex Reid

Alex,That's a pretty 3 monitor set-up. I'm so glad that you did not experience any agony with fs9.I do agree that with your current system, you might experience a slight drop in performance when using fsx.But, you first have to invest $25 in the program to see if your current system will hold up. Maybe you might get lucky.

Alex,That's a pretty 3 monitor set-up. I'm so glad that you did not experience any agony with fs9.I do agree that with your current system, you might experience a slight drop in performance when using fsx.

---------------DJ- thanks for the compliment. Anything I've read about FSX hardware requirements leads me to believe that my trusty old AMD XP2200 would likely declare a general strike if asked to run FSX with triple monitors/views! I would make the point, however, that with triple synched views, my FS9 total resolution of 3072 x 768 is probably comparable to the higher detail resolution in FSX on a single monitor. It's a question of natural, wide vision vs squinting!!Alex ReidDescending thru' the Seton Lake canyon into Lillooet BC. Airport- CAR3. Would FSX be any better?

... EditVoicePack doesn't yet do "Check Missing" ...

Correct, but it does do adjustable voice acceleration, fast updates of changes to the voicepack and it supports an API allowing third party developers to include callsigns etc with their products (no one has done so yet, but that will hopefully change).While there are certainly useful features in EditVoicepack 3.1 I still need to implement in EditVoicepack X (including View Missing, though I would prefer making something better), I now find the 3.1 version just as lacking towards EditVoicepack X as the other way arround... and one of them is in active development :)