I have both FSX and FS9, but FS9 seems to be more cooperative with my recent camera (DBS), aircraft, and scenery downloads. So, I'm wondering if I should continue upgrading it so it's comparable to FSX. Do you think this is possible?I've already downloaded Real Environment Pro, which made some improvements. What about Ultimate Terrain (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=utusa)?Please send me your suggestions. Thanks!

So, I'm wondering if I should continue upgrading it so it's comparable to FSX. Do you think this is possible?

No, it is not possible.Even with Ultimate terrain, and whatever other addons, you WILL NOT get FS9 looking like this in every major city. The FS9 engine can't support it. Click the little emoticon for the full res pic... :( (shown with ground textures from GEX USA/Canada, elevation data from FSGenesis USA mesh, Landclass and vector data from UTX USA, and aircraft from Classics Hangar)BTW in case someone comments on the roofs- Since I took the screenshot, a fix has been released that fixes all of the roofs on autogen so they dont look weird like a couple of the buildings in my shot.Oh, and if anyone posts pics of FS9 scenery of a certain area (like flytampa's St. Maarten for example) and says it is better than the pic I showed of an urban area outside of Chicago, be prepared to compare FS9 to the likes of orbx sceneries or the posted scenery's FSX equivalent (if available).

I switched to FS9 from FSX recently, I got a Matrox Triple Head 2 Go and it just killed my framerates in FSX.In comparing the two the prior poster is correct, FS9 can't look as good as FSX there are less detailed textures and less autogen. However I enjoy flying FS9 more than FSX because I don't have to worry about frame rates (locked at 30) and above 3000 feet they look pretty much the same anyway.I fly in real life and the experience that most simulates my real life experience is FS9 with high frames and smooth head movements with Track IR. My FS9 is pretty heavily modified, GE Pro, Active Sky 6.5, Ultimate Weather, Ultimate Terrain, and some sceneries and addon planes but right now I wouldn't switch back to FSX until the next generation of hardware comes out that runs it smoothly. You can check the screenshot section for examples of what I am seeing.

Ultimate Terrain is great. My favorite part of this add-on is the roads added.With FS Elemental and a little bit of tweaking with Nhancer, you can get old FS9 looking very pretty. I have FSX installed and can run it pretty smoothly with autogen and traffic toned down, and no bloom. But FS9 is still the principle sim I use because of the shear number of add ons still out there for it.

-------- However I enjoy flying FS9 more than FSX because I don't have to worry about frame rates (locked at 30) and above 3000 feet they look pretty much the same anyway.-------

And at 1800 feet, FS9 looks not bad also!Alex ReidTurning Final for R09 CYYJ (with UT & GE) (Runway just visible- left monitor upper right/centre)

I have both FSX and FS9, but FS9 seems to be more cooperative with my recent camera (DBS), aircraft, and scenery downloads. So, I'm wondering if I should continue upgrading it so it's comparable to FSX. Do you think this is possible?I've already downloaded Real Environment Pro, which made some improvements. What about Ultimate Terrain (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=utusa)?Please send me your suggestions. Thanks!

C'mon your in the FS9 forum what do you think the overall consensus is going to be... :( Seriously as a person who flies in the real world you can't beat FS9. It may not be the prettiest (even though it get's darn close with add-ons like Flight1's Ground Environment and ASV) but if your going for 'As Real as It Get's' stutters isn't in the equation. Flight is smooth as silk and that's what FS9 is all about. Well worth a second look if I were you...

Personally, I use both FSX and FS9. But to answer the original question. I reckon Active Sky, Ultimate Terrain and FS Elemental will do a pretty fine number on FS9 to get it prettied up and a bit more capable without bankrupting you.In some ways, the demise (or at least apparent demise) of the FS franchise has thrown FS9 a lifeline. It made sense for developers to start moving away from it with FSX being the current version and another one expected. That's all changed now and the move away from FS9 is not such an obvious one for developers when it is apparent that many will be staying with it, because that's an awful lot of customers to be turning your back on. Things really are not so very different between FS9 and FSX to mean a huge gulf, and what gulf there is, is not going to widen any further with no new sim in the FS series in the pipeline.You can certainly make FS9 comparable to FSX, but such a comparison will favour each sim in different areas. There is no doubt that you can make aeroplanes look prettier in FSX, but a pretty aeroplane is not quite so important as a pretty good frame rate, and that's where FS9 is going to win in the comparison stakes much of the time. The air mass simulation is certainly better in FSX, but quite a few FS9 add-ons can make FS9 match most, if not all of that, so if realism is what you are after, that'd be the priority for me when it came to 'FSX-ising' your FS9. Ultimately FSX has more capabilities it is true, and you simply aren't going to be able to match it in every respect, but unfortunately for many (and fortunately for FS9 advocates), one of its chief capabilities appears to be the the ability to bring a computer to its knees.I think the situation can be best summed up by the typical threads you see in the FSX and FS9 forums. In the FSX forums it is 'how can I get more frame rates now that I've installed this add-on?' and in the FS9 forums, it is 'what else can I add to make it look better?' That really tells you all you need to know about the relative differences.Al

Main add-ons I cant live without..UTUSA/CanadaFSGlobal 2008FSGenesis (freeware parts)Flight EnvironmentActive SkyTrackIRAdd-on AI trafficAny Carenado planePMDG 737/747Dreamfleet Baron 58Aeroworx King AirAlong with those, I have countless number of freeware files that I got from this library when it was up to replace a bunch of small things. In the end, it might not look as pretty as fsx, but as a complete simulation, you can't beat it.

How would you compare Real Environment Pro to FS Elemental?

Personally, I use both FSX and FS9. But to answer the original question. I reckon Active Sky, Ultimate Terrain and FS Elemental will do a pretty fine number on FS9 to get it prettied up and a bit more capable without bankrupting you.In some ways, the demise (or at least apparent demise) of the FS franchise has thrown FS9 a lifeline. It made sense for developers to start moving away from it with FSX being the current version and another one expected. That's all changed now and the move away from FS9 is not such an obvious one for developers when it is apparent that many will be staying with it, because that's an awful lot of customers to be turning your back on. Things really are not so very different between FS9 and FSX to mean a huge gulf, and what gulf there is, is not going to widen any further with no new sim in the FS series in the pipeline.You can certainly make FS9 comparable to FSX, but such a comparison will favour each sim in different areas. There is no doubt that you can make aeroplanes look prettier in FSX, but a pretty aeroplane is not quite so important as a pretty good frame rate, and that's where FS9 is going to win in the comparison stakes much of the time. The air mass simulation is certainly better in FSX, but quite a few FS9 add-ons can make FS9 match most, if not all of that, so if realism is what you are after, that'd be the priority for me when it came to 'FSX-ising' your FS9. Ultimately FSX has more capabilities it is true, and you simply aren't going to be able to match it in every respect, but unfortunately for many (and fortunately for FS9 advocates), one of its chief capabilities appears to be the the ability to bring a computer to its knees.I think the situation can be best summed up by the typical threads you see in the FSX and FS9 forums. In the FSX forums it is 'how can I get more frame rates now that I've installed this add-on?' and in the FS9 forums, it is 'what else can I add to make it look better?' That really tells you all you need to know about the relative differences.Al

Well said Al. This is the most intelligent and accurate summary of the fs9 v fsx comparison I've seen.We should all keep in mind that REX for fs9 will, when it is released, likely narrow (or bridge) the beauty gap between fs9 and fsx.

No, it is not possible.Even with Ultimate terrain, and whatever other addons, you WILL NOT get FS9 looking like this in every major city. The FS9 engine can't support it. Click the little emoticon for the full res pic... :( (shown with ground textures from GEX USA/Canada, elevation data from FSGenesis USA mesh, Landclass and vector data from UTX USA, and aircraft from Classics Hangar)BTW in case someone comments on the roofs- Since I took the screenshot, a fix has been released that fixes all of the roofs on autogen so they dont look weird like a couple of the buildings in my shot.Oh, and if anyone posts pics of FS9 scenery of a certain area (like flytampa's St. Maarten for example) and says it is better than the pic I showed of an urban area outside of Chicago, be prepared to compare FS9 to the likes of orbx sceneries or the posted scenery's FSX equivalent (if available).

lol, what do you do - hang around the FS9 forum waiting for an opportunity to flash that screenie? :)I'm curious, do you happen to have a screenshot taken from the same spot under the same conditions - with real world weather too perhaps? - but from the VC with the framerate showing?

I'm curious, do you happen to have a screenshot taken from the same spot under the same conditions - with real world weather too perhaps? - but from the VC with the framerate showing?

I could grab one next time I'm on my rig. I can tell you now it would be 36 FPS. I was just flying the realair SF260, IRIS F-20, and Dodosim 206 around San Francisco. 36 FPS VC and exterior at the airport, downtown, and around the urban area. I was using Active Sky X too. It'd take something like the PMDG MD-11 or LDS767 to hit my FPS any. Even the Super 80 pro doesn't touch the FPS.I have that screenshot handy because it shows the definite improvements in FSX. It also shows that you can get more than acceptable FPS in an urban area with a quality addon aircraft.You may be able to load FS9 down with a ton of scenery addons and make it look decent, but do the same in FSX and it looks EXCELLENT.

You may be able to load FS9 down with a ton of scenery addons and make it look decent, but do the same in FSX and it looks EXCELLENT.

Looks EXCELLENT and runs like crap... :( As they say you pick your poison.

I could grab one next time I'm on my rig. I can tell you now it would be 36 FPS. I was just flying the realair SF260, IRIS F-20, and Dodosim 206 around San Francisco. 36 FPS VC and exterior at the airport, downtown, and around the urban area. I was using Active Sky X too. It'd take something like the PMDG MD-11 or LDS767 to hit my FPS any. Even the Super 80 pro doesn't touch the FPS.I have that screenshot handy because it shows the definite improvements in FSX. It also shows that you can get more than acceptable FPS in an urban area with a quality addon aircraft.You may be able to load FS9 down with a ton of scenery addons and make it look decent, but do the same in FSX and it looks EXCELLENT.

-How much does the system cost?-Quality add ons? How about COMPLEX ones? (You answered that)-What are the Flight Sim's graphic settings at? Bloom? High anti-aliasing and texture filtering?-What kind of tweaks, if any to your FSX.cfg and your system? OS?I can set my AI traffic add on to full, full weather with high resolution clouds, and fly through a very dense scenery with aircraft such as the LDS 767 or the like and never dip under 30 FPS. None of them "touch FPS". :( We all know FSX is prettier, if you have the system/money. The thing is, my maxed out, heavily modified (and may I say VERY PRETTY) FS9 installation runs SMOOTHER than my FSX installation at mostly medium settings. I also don't have thousands of $$$ to drop on a new motherboard/Processor/etc. Neither do a majority of simmers. Until I get my moneys' worth with this system (around $1600), I will stick with FS9 happily and visit FSX for a few exclusive add ons occasionally.Case in point, I get better performance than you with better IMMERSION; for cheaper :( . It's more robust, I can throw the heaviest of aircraft at it and it chugs along never stuttering. :(

-How much does the system cost?-Quality add ons? How about COMPLEX ones? (You answered that)-What are the Flight Sim's graphic settings at? Bloom? High anti-aliasing and texture filtering?-What kind of tweaks, if any to your FSX.cfg and your system? OS?I can set my AI traffic add on to full, full weather with high resolution clouds, and fly through a very dense scenery with aircraft such as the LDS 767 or the like and never dip under 30 FPS. None of them "touch FPS". :( We all know FSX is prettier, if you have the system/money. The thing is, my maxed out, heavily modified (and may I say VERY PRETTY) FS9 installation runs SMOOTHER than my FSX installation at mostly medium settings. I also don't have thousands of $$$ to drop on a new motherboard/Processor/etc. Neither do a majority of simmers. Until I get my moneys' worth with this system (around $1600), I will stick with FS9 happily and visit FSX for a few exclusive add ons occasionally.Case in point, I get better performance than you with better IMMERSION; for cheaper :( . It's more robust, I can throw the heaviest of aircraft at it and it chugs along never stuttering. :(

My system was about 2200 dollars new, with everything down to the the monitor, gaming mouse, keyboard, power strip, and ethernet cable. Specs are Q9550 @ 3.4 (1600 FSB), 8 GB DDR2 1066, ASUS Rampage Formula X48 mobo, EVGA GTX280 stock speeds, X-Fi titanium fatal1ty sound card, 2 WD Caviar black 640 GB hard drives, 1 160 GB WD hard drive for storage and backup, Corsair 750TX power supply, antec 900 case, and Xigmatek S1283 CPU cooler. Monitor is a Samsung T220 at 1680 x 1050 x 32. OS is Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP2 and occasionally a flavor of linux. Also in the mix is a pair of hundred dollar speakers and Track IR4 with track clip.I should make a note, prices have come down quite a bit since I built my computer. You could build an i7 tower for under a thousand dollars if you do it right! NOWHERE did I say FSX was cheap.As for "quality" addons. I consider all the ultimate terrain series, all the orbx regions, REX, GEX usa/canada, FSgenesis USA mesh, and freeware mesh for the rest of the world to be "quality". Most of the time I am running Active Sky X and more recently, Ultimate Traffic 2 when not on multiplayer (75% commercial, 25% GA). I own most native FSX addon aircraft, including all the big sims (except ariane...).Most of my graphics settings are maxed out. The ones that aren't are completely off- like the in-game bloom, self shadowing (which looks stupid due to no AA), lens flare (which I think looks stupid too), and all default traffic (boats, planes, cars- not important to me, this is a flying sim). I use the bloom DLL that was released a few months ago. I have 8xQ AA and 8X AF enabled in nhancer. If I set either of those higher, I notice no visual difference. I guess it is worth mentioning I use Direct X 9. The cfg tweaks I use are what nickn suggests in his popular guide, except for the autogen trees value, which I manually set lower. I value my building count much more than the horribly out of proportion trees in MSFS. I don't have any exact values because I'm on my little EEE right now.As for traffic, I'm not going to argue there. I don't fly often with traffic as I spend about 95% of my time on multiplayer. When I do use traffic, it is with Ultimate Traffic 2. Depending on the plane I am in, WITH UT2 ENABLED, my FPS fluctuates between 25 and my locked value of 36. However, in multiplayer, even with 5 other planes in close proximity (and on my screen), my FPS stays pegged at 36.I don't believe that you have better immersion than me, but maybe different immersion. The only thing you have better is more traffic, which I don't care about anyways because I'm always on multiplayer. If you spend ALL your time taxiing at an addon version of KJFK with 100% traffic, your experience might be marginally better than mine. But as soon as you takeoff, everything changes.

Looks EXCELLENT and runs like crap... blink.gifAs they say you pick your poison.

Speak for yourself. 36 FPS solid in downtown San Francisco isn't crap. Not by a long shot. Some of you guys are bragging you have FS9 locked at 30...IMHO, THAT is crap.Please, show me or explain to me how 36 FPS (silky smooth with FSX, absolutely ZERO stutters) in some pretty respected addons in one of the larger metropolitan areas on Earth is crap. If you'd like, we can compare screenshots of the SFO bay area... ;) Please, enlighten me.Now I fully realize about 90% of you guys who read this will completely ignore what I say and just stick to your OPINIONS about FSX's performance (see a really excited user). Wait, probably more like 98% of you. Maybe that last 2% will see the light, or at least read what I said.