this aint bad either :)Apple Cinema 30" screen running FS9 at 2560x1600 res! Those gauges are almost life size. A second 23" screen provides maps, GPS, etc.And of course Track IR and the HOTAS setup...this feels *almost* like the real thing...at least for me.-feng

Feng so many people are asking what your using for ground textures, mesh, sky textures, and bloom effect. Can you once again share with everyone interested your setup as you more than anyone have proven FS9 can look just as good as FSX in most cases? This is not a competition between the two but more so validation. Yes the ground clarity and water is better in FSX but outside of that you've proven what some have considered impossible.

this aint bad either :)Apple Cinema 30" screen running FS9 at 2560x1600 res! Those gauges are almost life size. A second 23" screen provides maps, GPS, etc.And of course Track IR and the HOTAS setup...this feels *almost* like the real thing...at least for me.-feng

Hi Feng- beautiful setup! Love that 30" monitor- now if I only had 3 of those----! What airport/runway is that pic? I'd like to try a comparison pic.Alex Reid

Feng, that setup looks amazing!Like someone already asked, please share your settings, as I have a capable match, yet for some reason my sim doesn't look as good as your screens :(

Looks like my setup, Alex. Save for the Saitek X52 and tons of NACO approach plates between my speakers. :(

Feng so many people are asking what your using for ground textures, mesh, sky textures, and bloom effect. Can you once again share with everyone interested your setup as you more than anyone have proven FS9 can look just as good as FSX in most cases? This is not a competition between the two but more so validation. Yes the ground clarity and water is better in FSX but outside of that you've proven what some have considered impossible.

I second this. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a guide? If people don't have time, I could write it up, and also host it?But first, weed need the info as to what to put into the guide ;)Ian

I second this. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a guide? If people don't have time, I could write it up, and also host it?But first, weed need the info as to what to put into the guide ;)Ian

i've actually written up many articles about this before...... :)ok, give me a few days and i'll put up a new guide thing.... -feng

Where can I get this SmoothHorizons? I've heard and got the majority of the others, but haven't come across this before.

i've actually written up many articles about this before...... :)ok, give me a few days and i'll put up a new guide thing.... -feng

Excellent! nice one, thanks!Ian

this aint bad either :)Apple Cinema 30" screen running FS9 at 2560x1600 res! Those gauges are almost life size. A second 23" screen provides maps, GPS, etc.And of course Track IR and the HOTAS setup...this feels *almost* like the real thing...at least for me.-feng

feng- I don't want to be a pest- but what airport/rwy is shown in your gorgeous pic you posted above?The chart on display looks like my home turf- Strait of Juan de Fuca/ Strait of Georgia/ Vancouver Island?Alex Reid

Where can I get this SmoothHorizons? I've heard and got the majority of the others, but haven't come across this before.

Give me an email if you dont find it. I'll send it over to you. I got it here I believe before the library went down. You may want to try and look at flightsim.com first though.

feng- I don't want to be a pest- but what airport/rwy is shown in your gorgeous pic you posted above?The chart on display looks like my home turf- Strait of Juan de Fuca/ Strait of Georgia/ Vancouver Island?Alex Reid

oh no problem...i actually missed your question before.the airport is Orcas Island by Geo Render (KORS). This is my home base for small bush-flying GAs. It's located perfectly between B.C. to the north, and the Washington State mountains to the South.-feng

oh no problem...i actually missed your question before.the airport is Orcas Island by Geo Render (KORS). This is my home base for small bush-flying GAs. It's located perfectly between B.C. to the north, and the Washington State mountains to the South.-feng

feng- I guessed right- based on your GPS display! Here's my shot of the 2D Baron at Orcas with default scenery.Quite a difference. Points up the value of upgrading scenery/airports!(Orcas is about 5 minutes flying time from my home! Can see it every morning on my waterfront stroll!)Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron at Orcas Isl airport. Default FS9 scenery- outer mons are actually angled 40

If you enjoy flying the big iron etc I'd probably stick with FS9, I've read all the posts in this thread. I use FSX for GA and don't really fly the iron so I hardly fly FS9 anymore. I think the best atmospheric addons for FS9 were Ground Environment Pro, Active Sky, Flight Env 2004, and Ultimate Traffic. Sorry if I missed some.I also had all the Dreamfleet and Flight1 aircraft. The DF Baron is still one of the greatest addons of all time.One thing that keeps me from staying with FS9 is the fact that some of my favorite addons dont work in Vista x64, namely the DF stuff using Reality XP avionics....unfortunatelyMy system isn't l33t and stuff like Kiwi's but I still tweak things so it looks good. The superior ground textures in FSX are probably the main reason I use FSX. Also, the visuals in FSX tend to be a little better than FS9, things like bump mapping and higher resolution textures/clouds available in FSX.Finally some addons developers are making FSX only planes, like RealAir and Flight1 with their Mustang. I would say 75% of my FSX time is spent in the Duke or the Mustang.To answer the OP question, or to make my answer more clear hehe if you don't have 1000 bucks for upgrades to hardware stay with FS9, and spend 200 on addons and you will really enjoy it I think.p.s. if RA made this bird for FS9 I might go back

I think that until everyone has the rig to run FSX, the debate between FSX and FS9 users will never end, and the only thing that they will do is agree to disagree. However, I feel that there are a lot of unjust rumors spread about each sim based on what each user has for equipment. If we all had top notch systems the debate wouldn't rage on in my opinion.For example:1. If you are a realworld pilot FS9 is better because it is smoother and there is no difference between the fde's.FALSE - I am a real world private pilot, not professional and with a little less than 100 hours, however I have both, and on my rig they are equally as "smooth". I can't comment on the fde's since I am not a builder of sim aircraft, but "smoothness" being equal on my rig, I prefer FSX, but I had to spend some money for the computer to say that.2. FS9 gets better FPS.TRUE - However, 60 to 100 FPS aren't necessary in FSX to get a "smooth" flight with no blurries. 20+ FPS are all thats required in FSX.3. FSX is only good for GA, FS9 is better for airline flying.FALSE and TRUE - False if you don't have the power/rig to run FSX at the levels you require. True if your rig is a little older and most likely under 3.0 ghz per core. Having both FS9 and FSX, I find no need to use FS9 for airline flying. I can do it all on one rig with most settings maxed and it looks better and is as "smooth" as FS9.4. FS9 can look just as good as FSX.FALSE - FS9 can look a lot better than is does in it's default form after adding GE, UT, a weather and cloud texture package, but since it can't display the same resolution of textures it will never look as clear as FSX, unless you don't have the power to run the hq textures that are available for FSX. All you need to do is go to the GE/GEX site on Flight1 and compare the difference in the screen shots or compare the freeware VOZ package for FS9 to the ORBX package for FSX.5. There are a lot more addons for FS9 than for FSX.TRUE - FS9 has been around a lot longer and there are a lot more freeware packages available for it.6. FS9 loaded with after market testures looks better than default FSX.FALSE and TRUE - IMHO, FSX default ground textures still look better than after market FS9 ground textures, however where FSX in default is messed up is with the land class that adds world wide desert, although this is easily and cheaply fixed in adding a landclass package. Ground textures aside, FS9 with after market cloud textures and weather program will look better than the default FSX weather and clouds. Although default water in FSX looks better than default water in FS9. Aftermarket water in FSX looks better imho than aftermarket water in FS97. You need a lot of memory and a powerful CPU to run FSX well.TRUE - Nothing to be said about that.8. The FS9 people are always wonder how to make FS9 look like FSX, and the FSX people are always wondering how to make FSX run like FS9.TRUE - Because not all the FSX users have the needed components to make it run well and the FS9 guys don't have the rig to run FSX good enough to switch to FSX.My final opinion between the two sims is simple. If you got the money to get the correct system and either the knowledge or willingness to setup your operating systemm, drivers, and FSX itself by either using NickN's guide or a pay service like FS-GS, then FSX is way better in terms of look and feel for either GA or airline. If you don't have all of the above then you will be greatly disappointed in FSX as a lot of people here are. For me I am lucky to have all of the above and I find no use for FS9, except for the fact that FSX doesn't have the PMDG 737 available yet. However when I do use it I much dislike the look of it when I am outside of a photoscenery area or the KPDX addon.All in all, the debate will continue to rage on. Happy FSX users will continue to tout how great it is and the ones that tried it and hated it because for them the performance was not up to par with FS9 will continue to talk about how much of a waste it is compared to FS9. FengZ is a great example of someone who has maxed out their FS9 because FSX, if I remember right, didn't work well with his current system. His pics look great and I wish when I was using FS9 full time mine looked like that, but now with an FSX than runs pretty much perfect on my rig, I wouldn't trade his FS9 for my FSXFor me, if I had to choose one to use for the rest of my life, it would have to be FSX because it runs like a champ on my system. If I only had my "old" system then it would have to be FS9 because FSX was a load of junk on that system.Just my .02Regards and happy debating, but I think we should all just get along regardless of which sim we prefer due to our individual computer equipment and financial status which enables us to have the said computer. :(