Do we give up on realism by staying with FS9 ?

[jfri 42]

With that question I'm in the first hand thinking about flight modelling and system simulation and not eyecandy. Also the question is for a system that is not highend. My reason for asking is that I wonder if it's worthwile to spend money on more FS9 addons. Do I gain something with regard to realism if I spend the money on FSX instead? Assume we have Ultimate Terrain GEX GEPRo and ASA and like to use advanced addons. From what I have heard FSX is more realistic in these cases1) Better simulation of airmasses and turbulence. But my impression is that with ASA FS9 feels more like FSX. Or am I imagining thing. 2) Wet runways looks better in FSX but is it more realistic in simulating groundhandlingSo if I wan't the best realism where should I put my time and money.My systemAMD X2 60004 Gb PC6400 RAM8800GT 512M DDR3 videocardWin 7 Home Prem x64

[out 769]

IMHO choosing between FS9 and FSX has nothing to do with realism. They are just as real as MFS gets.The main difference is visuals (in favour of FSX) plus some new addons (e.g. being made for FSX only).The realism depends on the level of your addons and, first of all, the way you treat your simflying (knowledge, skills, procedures).The choice between FS9 and FSX seems to be based on your computer specs and your financial decisions.Having a lot of top quality addons for FS9 will keep it on a similar level of 'realism'.

[Glynn 405]

HelloThe wet runways may look better but the rain and snow in FSX are a bad joke compared to FS9Ground textures aside, the fluid frames in FS9 win everytime for me.I have spent a lot on FSX but am back in FS9 and buying addons again for it.I have just reinstalled everything on XP64 and FSX is not on this machine anymore.Newer is not always better, Windows 7 and FSX are proof of that.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,1. Not your imagination.2. No.

[Guest fs2004josh]

IMHO choosing between FS9 and FSX has nothing to do with realism. They are just as real as MFS gets.The main difference is visuals (in favour of FSX) plus some new addons (e.g. being made for FSX only).The realism depends on the level of your addons and, first of all, the way you treat your simflying (knowledge, skills, procedures).The choice between FS9 and FSX seems to be based on your computer specs and your financial decisions.Having a lot of top quality addons for FS9 will keep it on a similar level of 'realism'.

Agree. I myself have fs9 and even if i did have an ultra high end system, i would still not go to fsx.

[jfri 42]

HelloThe wet runways may look better but the rain and snow in FSX are a bad joke compared to FS9Newer is not always better, Windows 7 and FSX are proof of that.

What do you mean by rain and snow being a bad joke in FSX compared to FS9?Isn't Win 7 what Vista was supposed to be? That's what I have heard?

[jfri 42]

IMHO choosing between FS9 and FSX has nothing to do with realism. They are just as real as MFS gets.The main difference is visuals (in favour of FSX) plus some new addons (e.g. being made for FSX only).The realism depends on the level of your addons and, first of all, the way you treat your simflying (knowledge, skills, procedures).The choice between FS9 and FSX seems to be based on your computer specs and your financial decisions.Having a lot of top quality addons for FS9 will keep it on a similar level of 'realism'.

If I put this way then. Can FSX + addons give us realism we can't have in FS9 + its addons?One thing comes to my mind. Does not FSX simulate Tillers in the LD767-300 for example which can't be implemented in FS9 (got FS9 version of LD767)What about missions in FSX? Any potential to give us something that can't be given with FS9 addons?

[Chuck_B 2]

Oh, great. ANOTHER FS9 vs FSX thread. :( I have been toying with the idea of going to FSX just because I know my system will handle it, but I have no other compelling reason to. FS9 is gorgeous, and great, for me. IMHO, FSX is just fundamentally broken at some basic cyber-level, and I don't believe it will ever run right on most systems, high end or not -- we've been expecting the hardware to "catch up" to it ever since it first came out 4 years ago. I can't imagine that didn't come into play when Microsoft fired the ACES team, and I firmly believe that if Microsoft had kept the franchise alive they would have tossed it out completely by now and come up with a more hardware friendly version.

[Glynn 405]

What do you mean by rain and snow being a bad joke in FSX compared to FS9?Isn't Win 7 what Vista was supposed to be? That's what I have heard?

HelloRain and snow in FSX look like thousands of javelins being thrown at the cockpit windows.Trust me it is funny the first time you see it , after that it is sad.Still there are at least two FSX aircraft with VC raindrops, everything else your out of luckIf what Vista is supposed to have been is what you want , then yes Win 7 is all that.As a platform to run FS9 on it is not that great, I have yesterday deleted it because of various issuesSuch as not reliably being able to drop to the desktop to launch Radar contact and be sure of getting back into the Sim.Flickering screens as FS9 loads.Black mouse pointer in the VC Screen corruption when accessing the menu.Life is way to short to try every Nvidia driver to fix most of these.Back on XP64 and steady as a rock, 50+ fps in the PMDG 737 over seattle with all sliders to the rightand this on a E6600@3.2 with a GTX260 216, hardly a powerhouse machine these days but running really smooth.The wife likes Win7 because it is "pretty" so at least I have some use for it.

[sluggy 3]

My heavily modded FS9 runs better on Win7 x64 than on XP SP3 x86. Don't know why, but it does. Got an 9800GT as well.Cheers, SLuggy

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

With that question I'm in the first hand thinking about flight modelling and system simulation and not eyecandy. Also the question is for a system that is not highend. My reason for asking is that I wonder if it's worthwile to spend money on more FS9 addons. Do I gain something with regard to realism if I spend the money on FSX instead?

Why not do what many of us do? Have both FS9 and FSX installed on our system.If you feel like going for an enjoyable flight, power up FSX with the RealAir Duke or the Carenado Seneca.For something more serious, power up FS9 with the Eaglesoft CitationX, PMDG 737NG, or Flight1 Piper Meridian.In either case, you get the best that flightsim has to offer.. and at a fraction of the price of a real world flight.No need to fret about which sim is better... at the price, fly them both! :(

[3Green 80]

Do we give up on realism by staying with FS9 ?

NO! Realism is NOT eye candy. One day eye candy might be included as "realism", but TODAY, no real world simulator will focus on moving cars, or your home street. Realism is instrument flying, and procedures PERIOD. Flight Simulator will NEVER give you a realistic feel for flying. The only thing that a real world pilot can gain from Flight Sim, is the use of instruments, and IFR flying. For GA pilots, flight sim is good for your first flight into a "new" airport.RJ

[Geofa 108]

NO! Realism is NOT eye candy. One day eye candy might be included as "realism", but TODAY, no real world simulator will focus on moving cars, or your home street. Realism is instrument flying, and procedures PERIOD. Flight Simulator will NEVER give you a realistic feel for flying. The only thing that a real world pilot can gain from Flight Sim, is the use of instruments, and IFR flying. For GA pilots, flight sim is good for your first flight into a "new" airport.RJ

I'd almost agree except the whole sim is "eye candy". Without motion sensation that is all there is...(except also "ear candy" which can also add greatly to reality). The "eye candy" thing is the most useless term around imho.....and thru the imaginative use of "eye/ear candy" by great 3rd party add ins-one can also add to reality beyond just instruments...I happen to fly by cars and my home street all the time-and when I see it on the sim-that "eye candy" does contribute to reality along with the instruments. It is all part of the whole reality picture-period...and for this GA pilot the sim is good for much more than my first flight into a "new" airport..I gain daily by practicing engine outs on a twin (doesn't matter if it is ifr or vfr)-didn't make your list but makes mine.

[altstiff 71]

I tells ya. :( A couple years back I took a lesson from KTTD near Portland. I used flight sim (and FZ02) to get an idea of what was up before I even left for my trip out west. The instructor was blown away with how familiar I was with the airport and the area. I don;t think he really believed me when I told him I had never flown there before (or been in Portland before for that matter). For me flight sim is an excellent tool for the real world. It may not have the seat of your pants feeling like you get in the real deal but it does help to practice good habits and resource management under stressful situations (like an engine out for example).BTW I'm a hardcore FS9 fan. But I got Orbex FTX recently and the visual realisim is mind blowing. Better than Vauchez's FS9 stuff if you can imagine that! Would love to see what that guy could have done with FSX.

[3Green 80]

I happen to fly by cars and my home street all the time-and when I see it on the sim-that "eye candy" does contribute to reality along with the instruments. It is all part of the whole reality picture-period...and for this GA pilot the sim is good for much more than my first flight into a "new" airport..I gain daily by practicing engine outs on a twin (doesn't matter if it is ifr or vfr)-didn't make your list but makes mine.

Good for you Geofa. thanks for sharing... Are you a FS9 fan? or FSX fan?I've noticed every time I post, you Geofa wanto to create an argument with me. Why?Thank you Geofa for not banning me... Listen, let it go,,,, You love FSX, and I like FS9.RJ