Dash 8 & 737

[Guest Samfc]

I wasn't aware that my single core P4 with 512mb of RAM (delivered in January of 2003) was the standard by which "NASA computers" are judged. From day one I had FSX configured to both look and run better than FS9.Why must so many people perpetuate untruths about FSX? Wouldn't it be easier just to try it yourself? Just remember that full sliders in FS9 is equivalent to about 25% sliders in FSX, and you'll be fine.

I fail to see how FSX could ever run better than FS9 on a system like that; you're saying that if you run it at 25% it will look the same (i disagree, but thats beside my current point). If it looks the same, why upgrade, especially if you already had investments in FS9?Sam Cowan

[MarkRey 16]

Kind of reminds me of the Boeing/Airbus 'argument'. Boeing proponents don't recognize that the very act of 'defending' Boeing is an affirmation of Airbus' prominence. The fact of the matter is there has been no 'argument' or 'split' in fs until fs9/x, and this speaks volumes in favor of fs9.Having said that DUH! of course fsx is superior, but oh please, don't try to tell me that the cosmetic enhancements have not been the major selling point, from day 1 till now. Question becomes, what kind of fs9 user are/were you and what are these enhancements worth to you? Result, split (or dual) user base that has moved uncharacteristically slowly to the new sim, especially among airliner flyers, for whom the default enhancements matter the least. The very fact that PMDG is even remotely considering another major fs9 release this late into fsx says it all imho.As always, I'd never try to tell any dev to support fs9 when there's a better palate to work with, that's just plain obvious. But here's hoping an fs9 NGv2 will still be economically feasible when the time comes.

[Turbine777 13]

It's kind of funny that this is like the third recent thread totally unrelated to FSX/FS9, that has turned into the ole FSX/FS9 war. Go with what you have, if you like it, great, if not upgrade/downgrade. I have FSX and love it, but am actually thinking of trying out 2004 again,,, if I can still buy it of course.

[jnr641802 6]

It's kind of funny that this is like the third recent thread totally unrelated to FSX/FS9, that has turned into the ole FSX/FS9 war. Go with what you have, if you like it, great, if not upgrade/downgrade. I have FSX and love it, but am actually thinking of trying out 2004 again,,, if I can still buy it of course.

If you live in the Uk then Amazon have 4x copies left ,looked today, and with a note next to it saying 'more copies on their way',so Amazon obviously consider it worth restocking ,maybe they've had a run on them!!regards Jim

[1FLIGHTSIMFANATIC 4]

I just think it would be a mistake to not produce any more addons for FS9 thinking it is too old when neather sim is produced.Michael P.

[Cuddly1956 1]

Argue all you wish about which is better as far as I'm concerned lol I use both platforms myself and until the weather is sorted out in fsx I'll continue to do so. It's taken years for fs9 to get to the point it is now and has come to the end of it's proverbial rope hence developers are moving on.There is no pint in developing for fs9 when the sales don't cover the cost of development as is happening now. If it costs say 10k to develop a simulation and you only get back 7k there is no point in doing it for profit.Yes fs9 is better then fsx in some ways but the other way round exists as well; can we leave it at that?Anyway the original question was 'what's happening with the 737 and Dash?' and as usual been hijacked into a pointless discussion about versions so probably the thread will be locked in any event.Happy New Year to ALL simmersJohn Ellison

[january 19]

Some stats from the AVSIM survey-As of Jan 01 2010- For the qestion "What is your primary simulator?"-FS9- 1309 replies or 50.3 %FSX- 1229 replies or 47.2 %I leave any interpretation to others better qualified than me.Happy New Year- Alex Reid

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Some stats from the AVSIM survey-As of Jan 01 2010- For the qestion "What is your primary simulator?"-FS9- 1309 replies or 50.3 %FSX- 1229 replies or 47.2 %I leave any interpretation to others better qualified than me.Happy New Year- Alex Reid

That's neato, but entirely useless data.When talking about which platform a developer is going to support, you should instead look at revenue and profit. Of course, end users don't have access to that data, but PMDG was kind enough to point out several far more pertinent data points with regard to the question at hand:1) The FSX-only MD-11 outsold the FS9 MD-11 by a high margin (3-to-1 or something, wasn't it?)2) The FSX-only J41 outsold the multi-platform MD-11 after only a few weeksHow would you interpret that?

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

I fail to see how FSX could ever run better than FS9 on a system like that; you're saying that if you run it at 25% it will look the same (i disagree, but thats beside my current point). If it looks the same, why upgrade, especially if you already had investments in FS9?Sam Cowan

1) Despite what you "think", it DID run better. I made several posts about my system around the time that the J41 beta began. Search them out if you're genuinely curious.2) I switched for many reasons:a) Improved flight physics:( Higher texture resolutionsc) Better mesh resolutiond) Better vector data (roads, waterways, etc...)e) Better atmospheric modelingf) A round earth with no polar limitations (other than the weird textures)g) The updated Navdatah) Simconnecti) Missions (and mission based scenery)j) The air racingk) The new multi-engine helicopter supportl) The new sling-load and winch operationsm) A dozen other reasons that relate to the internal abilities of the simulator to support increased fidelity in addonsn) I was on the FSX beta and I watched it progress through it's life cycle, flaws and all.3) I pulled the 25% number from you-know-where, but if you're really curious, the ACES bloggers have explicitly stated on a number of occasions that full sliders in FS9 is equal to some far smaller number in FSX. I'm not making this stuff up, you can find it yourself.The truth is out there, folks.

[Tabs 2,790]

Well not everyone has the NASA computers to run FSX and run the add ons to boot. PMDG would be wise to not forget the FS9 captains that don't have the money for the machines to run it, and don't forget both sims are no longer in production.Michael Pare.

I'm sick of this type of statement. I spent $600 two nights ago at Fry's buying an i7 860, a P55 mobo and 4GB of DDR3, salvaging the rest of the parts from my two year old previous machine. I'm now getting 25-40 FPS near the ground in FSX with UTX, GEX and REX flying our J41 and 60+ FPS away from the city/airport with almost every slider maxed. This argument that you need to spend thousands of dollars on some super computer to run FSX well is a flat out lie and people need to stop repeating it.

[JET 1 0]

I'm sick of this type of statement. I spent $600 two nights ago at Fry's buying an i7 860, a P55 mobo and 4GB of DDR3, salvaging the rest of the parts from my two year old previous machine. I'm now getting 25-40 FPS near the ground in FSX with UTX, GEX and REX flying our J41 and 60+ FPS away from the city/airport with almost every slider maxed.

That's interesting. Not really having spent much time comparing hardware but still making note of the setups which users say perform well, I can clearly see that in FSX use the i7 860 seems to outperform chips like the 975 which is three times more expensive. I wonder what causes that?

[N8015X 0]

It probably has to do with overclocking the CPU. i7's can be overclocked really well and the 860 can easily be overclocked to out perform the 975.

[ryanbatc 13,038]

It probably has to do with overclocking the CPU. i7's can be overclocked really well and the 860 can easily be overclocked to out perform the 975.

Indeed it does. The 975 has an unclocked multiplier, which makes OCing a sinch... You're paying for ease of use in that situation.And I'd like to thank Ryan for making the post above... and I agree with you! FSX came out what 3 years after FS9? Of course it needs better hardware!!! I think the people ######ing about hardware are the guys still running on P4's. That's like six year old hardware people.... Get with the times, or stay with the old software and quit complaining.

[flyingfanatic333 0]

Ryan, would you mind PMing me your FSX xfg file or uploading it to the forums? I just upgraded to a Core i7 920, and currently have it sitting at 4.2GHz, but I can only get 15fps on the ground at Heathrow 2008 with REX and the Captain Sim 757, with all the sliders to the right.

[JET 1 0]

It probably has to do with overclocking the CPU. i7's can be overclocked really well and the 860 can easily be overclocked to out perform the 975.

I didn't see Ryan mention anything about overclocking, nor have I seen it in any of the other i7 860 reports I referred to. That's why I was wondering if the 860 is by design somehow better for FSX use.