Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Astradan

This 'FSX only' simmer may revert to a FS9 die hard

Recommended Posts

Just anecdotal really but just to say that I have been running 'FSX only' for over 2 years now, when I uninstalled FS9 and relegated it, (along with my dozens of boxed add-ons for FS9) to the cupboard. (Sad day!).However, a couple of days ago, I re-installed FS9 to run the Airsimmer A320 (I am an Airbus A32X and A33X nut) and although I expected to only 'tolerate' FS9, I am really enjoying being back in the old sim!First thing - load up time. Because of a lot of photoscenery, and tonnes of add-ons, FSX takes ..... wait for it..... 17 minutes to load for me. Tha't 17 mniutes (timed!) of waiting before I can fly, everytime I fire it up.My new FS9 re-install takes ..... wait for it...... 44 seconds from hitting the FS9 shortcut on my desktop, to having the default aircraft on the ramp at Seattle and ready to fly!Next the graphics ..... clearly not as sharp or high def as FSX but certainly not as bad as I was expecting. I am using default scenery with just Instant Enhancer (from Cielosim) and FS Global installed. No other add-ons. I have all settings 'maxed' and the scenery looks absolutely fine, especially when I zoom out to 0.40Next, performance, wow, this was a shock! I have a pretty average system by FSX standard; Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0Ghz, 4Gb DDR2 RAM, 8800 GTS 512Mb, Win XP SP3 ......but lord, how this system laughs at what FS9 can throw at it. I've been able to set up lot's of traffic, proper weather and no doubt will be able to use complex aircraft and add-on sceneries and still see high frames rates.At KSEA, in the deault C172 with all display settings maxed, traffic at 40% and some nice weather, I had (unlimited) frames at 94 FPS. In the same location and with the same settings in the Air Simmer A320, I still had a lovely 51 FPS !Then theres stability, although I don't tend to get as many crashes and CTDs as I once did in the early days of FSX, there is still always an air of uncertainlty ; for example, when I select the map in a flight, I get a pause and an egg timer for a few seconds, before the map displays .... I'm always holding my breath waiting for a CTD. In FS9, every screen, page and option is executed instantly and the platform feels so robust and stable.I had to ask myself, "why would I go back to FSX, where I see less stability and the need to comprimise settings to get acceptable performance?" The answer is, I will go back to FSX for high quality add-ons that are released only for FSX, like the PMDG J41, and the Flight 1 Mustang, and Coolsky Super 80 Pro. I will also use FSX for GA flying in my beloved Orbx FTX Australia and OZx (and PNW when it's released) ....... but I suspect all the rest of my flying (the majority; complex heavy metal) will now be back in the happy home of FS9.Another FS9 die hard is (re)born! but FSX still has it's place for me, and I wouldn't dream of uninstalling it. Both sims will live happily in harmony on my system. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Just anecdotal really but just to say that I have been running 'FSX only' for over 2 years now, when I uninstalled FS9 and relegated it, (along with my dozens of boxed add-ons for FS9) to the cupboard. (Sad day!).However, a couple of days ago, I re-installed FS9 to run the Airsimmer A320 (I am an Airbus A32X and A33X nut) and although I expected to only 'tolerate' FS9, I am really enjoying being back in the old sim!First thing - load up time. Because of a lot of photoscenery, and tonnes of add-ons, FSX takes ..... wait for it..... 17 minutes to load for me. Tha't 17 mniutes (timed!) of waiting before I can fly, everytime I fire it up.My new FS9 re-install takes ..... wait for it...... 44 seconds from hitting the FS9 shortcut on my desktop, to having the default aircraft on the ramp at Seattle and ready to fly!Next the graphics ..... clearly not as sharp or high def as FSX but certainly not as bad as I was expecting. I am using default scenery with just Instant Enhancer (from Cielosim) and FS Global installed. No other add-ons. I have all settings 'maxed' and the scenery looks absolutely fine, especially when I zoom out to 0.40Next, performance, wow, this was a shock! I have a pretty average system by FSX standard; Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0Ghz, 4Gb DDR2 RAM, 8800 GTS 512Mb, Win XP SP3 ......but lord, how this system laughs at what FS9 can throw at it. I've been able to set up lot's of traffic, proper weather and no doubt will be able to use complex aircraft and add-on sceneries and still see high frames rates.At KSEA, in the deault C172 with all display settings maxed, traffic at 40% and some nice weather, I had (unlimited) frames at 94 FPS. In the same location and with the same settings in the Air Simmer A320, I still had a lovely 51 FPS !Then theres stability, although I don't tend to get as many crashes and CTDs as I once did in the early days of FSX, there is still always an air of uncertainlty ; for example, when I select the map in a flight, I get a pause and an egg timer for a few seconds, before the map displays .... I'm always holding my breath waiting for a CTD. In FS9, every screen, page and option is executed instantly and the platform feels so robust and stable.I had to ask myself, "why would I go back to FSX, where I see less stability and the need to comprimise settings to get acceptable performance?" The answer is, I will go back to FSX for high quality add-ons that are released only for FSX, like the PMDG J41, and the Flight 1 Mustang, and Coolsky Super 80 Pro. I will also use FSX for GA flying in my beloved Orbx FTX Australia and OZx (and PNW when it's released) ....... but I suspect all the rest of my flying (the majority; complex heavy metal) will now be back in the happy home of FS9.Another FS9 die hard is (re)born! but FSX still has it's place for me, and I wouldn't dream of uninstalling it. Both sims will live happily in harmony on my system. :)
I too have recently re-installed FS9 because I just can't wait to try the A320, and I'm going to download it tonight. It's certainly nice to see healthy framerates but the whole FS9 world does seem less bright and more 'closed in'. I much prefer the sense of 'openness' and space that FSX has. Scenery in the distance looks so much better in my opinion. Do you know what I mean? Yet I also remember being bowled over when I upgraded from Fs2002! Anyway, I'm going to have a play with the 'Bus in my newly-reinstated FS9 world, and see how it goes.IanPS. Sadly, I sold all my FS9 add-ons - including FS Global. Bad move!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't go back to FSX for the Coolsky pro.Just get the Leonardo Maddog2008 for FS9 and experience a realistic flight model, and FULL systems modelling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought often about installing FSX on my system. No problem, I can run FSX and FS9 together. But I am content with FS9 for the moment, especially since I found out that Real Environment (REX) is about to release REX FS2004 (http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/fs9features.html ). Looking at the screenshots, it just blew me away. Being No.1 on my list of upcoming addons REX FS2004 should continue to keep me nicely tucked away in my FS9 world for a while longer. Regards,Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too have recently re-installed FS9 because I just can't wait to try the A320, and I'm going to download it tonight. It's certainly nice to see healthy framerates but the whole FS9 world does seem less bright and more 'closed in'. I much prefer the sense of 'openness' and space that FSX has. Scenery in the distance looks so much better in my opinion. Do you know what I mean? Yet I also remember being bowled over when I upgraded from Fs2002! Anyway, I'm going to have a play with the 'Bus in my newly-reinstated FS9 world, and see how it goes.IanPS. Sadly, I sold all my FS9 add-ons - including FS Global. Bad move!
Hey Ian, Yes I do know what you mean. FSX is certainly a 'brighter' world. But I'm being reminded that the cost (performance) is quite high, and it's a blast getting let's say 80% better performance, with only say a 20-25% reduction in graphics. (many would argue those percentages!).I sold tonnes of FS9 add-ons too; but they tend to be really cheap these days to buy back, as FS9 get's 'older' !Definately recommend the AS A320 in FS9. I'm having a blast with it, and will almost certainly not buy it for FSX, when it looks so good in FS9.
I have thought often about installing FSX on my system. No problem, I can run FSX and FS9 together. But I am content with FS9 for the moment, especially since I found out that Real Environment (REX) is about to release REX FS2004 (http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/fs9features.html ). Looking at the screenshots, it just blew me away. Being No.1 on my list of upcoming addons REX FS2004 should continue to keep me nicely tucked away in my FS9 world for a while longer. Regards,Tom
Wow, I didn't know Tim was working on REX for FS2004 ! ....... I remember installing Real Environment Pro (the freeware prelude to REX by the same developer) and being blown away. But REX is in a different league again to REP, so would definately buy the FS2004 version, as I love the FSX verison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Dave!I have tried to become an FSXer two or three times already. Without success. I always quickly reverted to FS9.I won't list the numerous reasons for that, as it has been done to death by many (plus I could be accused of 'whinning again' by some)Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one to have tried both and eventually stayed with FS2004.I won't say I will never switch but for now I really see no good reason to do it.Or maybe, since the MFS series seems to be ultimately dead, I might not find enough reasons to switch any time.The only four moments when some tiny doubts give me some itching are when:- I see some quality addons released for FSX only (Madeira X, OrbiX Melbourne, Level-D 757 and just a few more)- I see the improved ground textures / autogen on low altitude final approaches in best FSX videos- I think of Earth's curvature at altitudes- I think to myself PMDG might not release 737NG v2 for FS9 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and Coolsky Super 80 Pro. Another FS9 die hard is (re)born! but FSX still has it's place for me, and I wouldn't dream of uninstalling it. Both sims will live happily in harmony on my system. :)
Trust me if you like the Airsimmer A320 and look forward to the advanced version you really need to try Leonoardo's MD80. The most realistic simulation available for the PC period. I'd be interested to see your comparison to the Coolsky Super 80 once you get it. I was soo mad CoolSky opted their model to be FSX only but that was a blessing in disguise as the Leonardo MD80 blows everything away I ever owned. I've been simming since 1986 so I know what I'm talking about, you need to check it out since your giving FS9 a second shot.For the record I have tons of scenery and payware add-on aircraft (all the high quality payware aircraft that has been sold over the years for FS9 is on my machine) and my FS9 load time is under a minute. It's amazing FSX takes 17 minutes to load. The only way FS9 would load that slow is if I was long overdue for a hard drive defrag and even then it would load quicker than 17 minutes. Load times at 17 minutes is insane... That's why I made the point that people can complain about Airsimmer with the product being out for such a short time yet embrace the years and current aggravation of being an FSX user (all the while convincing themselves it's a great product). No sim in the history of the Flight Simulator franchise has loaded up that slowly with or without add-ons let alone all the other issues surrounding FSX...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rafal,I'm with you! I will keep FSX for exactly those moments when it does have superiority in some area. But generally for complex airliner flying, I am finding I am so pleased to be back in FS9. Many things seem to 'work better', including network-related (WideFS) addons, Hardware compatibility, etc.Hey Les,I done the AVSIM Commerical Review for the Leonardo MD-80 2006 for FS9 and gave it a great write up. Loved it but at that point, it did not have a VC, which is why I've tended to favour the Coolsky Super 80. From what you're saying, I'll have to take a look at the most current version of the Leonardo!My FSX load time has been the bane of my life for months. Tried all the de-fraggers under the sun and nothing can get it down. I think it can only be that I do have literally 100s of add-ons for FSX (including tons of wide-area photo scenery). It's such a contrast when, as you say, FS9 loads up in under a minute!Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, Dave!I have tried to become an FSXer two or three times already. Without success. I always quickly reverted to FS9.I won't list the numerous reasons for that, as it has been done to death by many (plus I could be accused of 'whinning again' by some)Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one to have tried both and eventually stayed with FS2004.I won't say I will never switch but for now I really see no good reason to do it.Or maybe, since the MFS series seems to be ultimately dead, I might not find enough reasons to switch any time.The only four moments when some tiny doubts give me some itching are when:- I see some quality addons released for FSX only (Madeira X, OrbiX Melbourne, Level-D 757 and just a few more)- I see the improved ground textures / autogen on low altitude final approaches in best FSX videos- I think of Earth's curvature at altitudes- I think to myself PMDG might not release 737NG v2 for FS9 :(
Couldn't agree more Rafal!!! I am in the exact same boat!Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had FSX installed way before I even tried FS9. I have a boat load of add-ons that I purchased for FSX. It wasn't until I decided I wanted to fly PMDG's 737 so I purchased FS9. I was amazed at how smooth it ran compared to FSX. Now as you can see in my sig, my PC is no joke and is fully capable of running FSX, but once you get all the add-ons installed for it, it starts to bog down a bit, and it shows. I have to sacrifice eye candy to get a smooth running simulation. With FS9 I can max everything and run full AI and depart or approach a huge busy payware airport in a payware airliner and my PC won't even blink. Its a beast for FS9 and it shows. I already bought quite a few add-ons for FS9 and am shocked at how much more quality freeware there is for it. FSX can't hold a candle to it in the freeware department. Now I probably fly mostly in FS9 for airliners when flying for my VA. I load up FSX sometimes when I need to see some nice graphics, but to be honest, FS9 loaded w/ the right stuff can look almost as good. I just find out about Pablo Diaz's HD clouds and WOW!!!myfav.jpgFullscreencapture11132009125047AMbm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just find out about Pablo Diaz's HD clouds and WOW!!!
I'd not heard of them either, and have just had a look at some screenshots on the Simviation forums. They're amazing! By the way, on the subject of the new Airbus, a real A320 skipper has posted a mini-review on the Airsimmer forum. He seems pretty chuffed! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites