Dido! Sorry Alex.

Zach & Maddog- when driving my car, I prefer multiple glass windows: driver side, driver windshield, passenger windshield. I suspect the authorities would take a dim view (pardon the pun!) of a single LCD replacing all the glass!And the IMAX WIDE Screen movie system sure beats the old small movie screens- where the camera panned back and forth to simulate a wide view.Now if I had a newer 'puter I would add fourth & fifth monitors to better replicate what we see in real life.(Present computer is 6 years old- says it will go on strike if I add more mons!!)Alex Reid

Whilst I agree with you that FS9 can be made to look very good, and is indeed a very good sim, I don't think the above points you make are particularly accurate. FSX offers a lot of things outside of the graphics over FS9. To list just a few: the capability to have two people in one aircraft via a lan or internet connection, aerotowing, the mission system, higher resolution default terrain mesh, support for higher resolution textures and DDS, self shadowing on aircraft, reflective textures in the rain, light bloom, DX10 capability, improved audio, better default aircraft including a much better default glider that is actually useful, moving vehicles in autogen by default, natural thermal visualisations, better animation capabilities, etc, etc. That's not what I would call very little by any stretch of the imagination, although it is true some of it has limited appeal to some users, so it perhaps isn't as big a gap for everyone as that list might suggest.However, the flight dynamics being better in FSX is not really open for debate, there really is little doubt that it is better, because of the more realistic simulation of the medium through which your aircraft flies. After all, at the end of the debate we are talking about Flight Simulator, not Look Pretty Simulator. Buy the same aircraft for both FSX and FS9 and you can tell it is better in FSX when it comes to how it rides the air. If that were not so, I probably wouldn't be that bothered about all the other stuff, and I'd stick with FS9 alone, but it is, so I don't. Essentially that makes FSX a better GA/light aircraft sim than FS9 in my opinion, and the mission capability is something else that I would not wish to be without, as it has a huge amount of potential that developers are only just starting to tap into.I don't disagree with you that FS9 can be made to look and act great in most respects, which is why I still use it, along with the fact that I have a lot of great add-ons for it such as the Supranov Yak-40, which you can't get for FSX, but I would not pretend that FSX offers little advantage over it as a base package, because that is simply not true. I really wish it wasn't, because FS9 runs like a rocket sled on rails compared to FSX, which does run okay on my system but cannot have everything on full throttle like it can in FS9.I'm still a big fan of FS9, but it isn't a better sim than FSX in terms of ultimate capability, unless you count frame rates as the number one factor, in which case, as everyone knows, it blows FSX out of the water.Al

Here's where the rubber meets the road with these examples of FSX's validity. I fly for real so I know good flight dynamics in a sim... FS9 more than fits the bill when using it for practice for the real world. Using planes like Caranado's birds along with CH's Yoke/Peddles and TrackIR 5 there's no better option on the market than FS9 for the simple fact it runs so smooth (X-Plane can't compare when where talking about VC's). The pics I show above more than fit the bill visually but let's go further here. FSX offers an Active Camera head latency effect that fools one into thinking the dynamics is that much more than what was there in FS9. Now maybe a little work has been done in this area but a marker for me was to try water landings which is virtually unchanged from FS9. If dynamics were that much different we'd have better turbo prop modeling for example, landing on a moving body of water would have been better realized for the simple fact work was done on the overall FDE (it wouldn't feel exactly the same). The feeling of the plane moving through the air is no different in FSX than what I get in the VC with Active Camera in FS9. Maybe if FSX got better frames the new fidelity would be more apparent.Your selling points for FSX: higher resolution default terrain mesh, support for higher resolution textures and DDS, self shadowing on aircraft, reflective textures in the rain, light bloomDX10 capability (I had no idea FSX was fully DX10 compatible)moving vehicles in autogen by default, natural thermal visualisations, better animation capabilitiesIn short who the hell cares about all this when I already have visuals like I've shown above that are smooth as silk in the sim...Things that matter to a prospective pilot and serious simmer:The capability to have two people in one aircraft via a lan or internet connection - This could be helpful in training for sure.Aero-Towing - Great pointBetter default aircraft including a much better default glider that is actually useful - Another great pointMissions - Yea whatever, this could be usefulThat's about it in the 'what matters' department. I can't get on board with graphics when the darn thing can't run to it's fullest potential. Marginal settings has it looking pretty much comparable to my FS9 shots above with the exception of water and ground texture resolution.Everything else in FSX I could care less about since things like ATC, FDE modeling, and weather simulation isn't that much different than FS9. Speaking of weather the snow effects actually look worse in FSX than FS9. For those that like 2D panels they have no side view option with FSX. Aces was gearing this thing to appeal to gamers which didn't work but was obvious in how the missions were done and other little nuances present. The example most people give in their case for FSX is graphics which without add-ons (like FS9) is lacking especially where performance is concerned. Another perfect example is the global warming present throughout the default sim. FSX's saving grace it may very well be the last true version of Flight Simulator released. I'll bite the FSX bandwagon in another three years when hopefully it runs fluid as FS9 today. Right now there's no incentive which as you can see from the shots above for a real world pilot who just wants to fly in the sim to switch... :(

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

See the shots above and you be the judge... :(

Here's a little taste of FS9 today by request:

What ground textures and clouds are these?

What ground textures and clouds are these?

Ground is Flight1's Ground Environment and the clouds are FE.The first two shots are from Feng... I have yet to add all his configs to my install.

I use FS 9.1, Ultimate Terrain Europe, Ground Environment Pro, FS Genesis Europe, Active Sky 6.5, SHD clouds from Flight Environment X, Real Environment Pro and SmoothHorizons.Am I missing something here? I thought Flight Environment X was for FSX only.

Ground is Flight1's Ground Environment and the clouds are FE.The first two shots are from Feng... I have yet to add all his configs to my install.

i have Ground Environment installed and it dont look as good as that! What landclass is it?

Here's where the rubber meets the road with these examples of FSX's validity. I fly for real so I know good flight dynamics in a sim...

Yup, lots of simmers fly for real, including me. I mostly fly gliders, since I prefer the skill it asks of me, and that really is where the rubber meets the road in terms of knowing what the air mass is doing, because how long one stays up there depends on that, and every landing you make is a dead stick one - there aint no 'going around' in a glider LOL. It is in fact one of the reasons why I seek very realistic visual as well as physical representations of what the sky is doing in a sim.With a glider you really have to know what the air is doing, especially with the adverse yaw you get from the huge wingspan of a typical glider; circuit planning has to be very careful, bank angles of sixty degrees or more at high speed are commonplace when turning onto finals, rearward CoGs for less aerodynamic drag and both high speed straight line flight as well as lower speed turns at just above stall are normal fodder. A lot of the subtlety of what is felt and indeed required in that kind of flying is is missed when flying powered aircraft, but stick that glider up in FS9 and then stick the one in FSX up, and if you can't see, and indeed feel the difference, then I'll be very surprised indeed.To be honest, if I want to sim a glider flight, I'll generally use Silent Wings, since it has a vastly better flight model than FS-anything and is more geared toward soaring obviously, but I still think that the more convincing showing gliders make in FSX is indicative of the more believable flight characteristics it can impart. We might not make a habit of going for thermals in a Cessna or a 747, but we can still feel them in our asses with every bump of the air. Since that feeling is lost in a PC sim, anything which attempts to get it back - even just visually - is of tremendous value.I'm not disagreeing with any of the overall points you make with regard to FS9 incidentally (for the most part I completely concur with what you say), I just think that if we are comparing the sims, then a fair comparison cannot gloss over the relative merits of each one. Nevertheless, as it stands, and as you indeed say, the FPS people get in FS9 is a very big merit, and one of the reasons I have not abandoned it, because I can live without thermals when flying a 747 in a sim.Al

I use FS 9.1, Ultimate Terrain Europe, Ground Environment Pro, FS Genesis Europe, Active Sky 6.5, SHD clouds from Flight Environment X, Real Environment Pro and SmoothHorizons.Am I missing something here? I thought Flight Environment X was for FSX only.

You can use SHD textures up to 1024x1024 from Flight Environment X in FS9. When the installer asks for the path to fsx.exe just choose fs9.exe instead. Works a treat!Btw, in the videolink I posted I didn't have the SHD clouds installed yet, but if you browse my YouTube channel you'll find a video that shows them too.

Nice screen shots Dillon...they look great and that

Hey Dillon, I was there before and went there again. There is a download for FS9 RE-Pro but no reference to RE-X for FS9. The only reason that I'm belaboring the point is that the screen shots posted had RE-X listed at the bottom of them. So can I get those clouds from RE-Pro then? I am confusion personified :)Mark

Hey Dillon, I was there before and went there again. There is a download for FS9 RE-Pro but no reference to RE-X for FS9. The only reason that I'm belaboring the point is that the screen shots posted had RE-X listed at the bottom of them. So can I get those clouds from RE-Pro then? I am confusion personified :)Mark

Contact Feng who usually post in the screenshot forum. I'm still working on getting my setup like what's pictured above myself. I posted the shots to show what's possible in FS9. I'm 90% there as to my setup looking like what's pictured above (my setup looked great as it was but what can still be accomplished in FS9 is amazing). I'm currently using ASV's clouds... RE-X for FS9 hasn't been released yet...

*FS ELEMENTAL* * FS ELEMENTAL* Looks incredible. I know my signature's small but there it is!

Contact Feng who usually post in the screenshot forum. I'm still working on getting my setup like what's pictured above myself. I posted the shots to show what's possible in FS9. I'm 90% there as to my setup looking like what's pictured above (my setup looked great as it was but what can still be accomplished in FS9 is amazing). I'm currently using ASV's clouds... RE-X for FS9 hasn't been released yet...

Thanks Dillion...I thought you were going to say that there is an FS9 version brewing somewhere. The clouds, haven't heard of ASV. Did you mean Active Sky Advanced by any chance? By the way, keep up the good work with this, it's really helpful!Mark

Zach & Maddog- when driving my car, I prefer multiple glass windows: driver side, driver windshield, passenger windshield. I suspect the authorities would take a dim view (pardon the pun!) of a single LCD replacing all the glass!And the IMAX WIDE Screen movie system sure beats the old small movie screens- where the camera panned back and forth to simulate a wide view.Now if I had a newer 'puter I would add fourth & fifth monitors to better replicate what we see in real life.(Present computer is 6 years old- says it will go on strike if I add more mons!!)Alex Reid

I'm glad you're happy with your setup, Alex. I just get the same sensation when I can move my head with the Trackir. I've used a multi monitor setup, too, and loved it. But Trackir fits my taste, room, and hardware setup. I also find that 3 monitors makes for a terrible looking setup on my desk. It's enough that I have my Laptop setup as a client PC through WideFS! But I do appreciate your point of view. You're obviously the TH2G advocate around here, as I'm Trackirs'!;)

You're obviously the TH2G advocate around here, as I'm Trackirs'!;)

Zach- NO: I DON'T use TH2Go. Just 2 video cards: 2 mons on one AGP GeForce FX5200 GPU and third mon on a PCI same type card. Cheap & simple!The beauty of this arrangement is that you get three separate views- LFwd,Fwd,RFwd for a Field of View of 135