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.

More on Realism...The most dangerous part of my job is driving to work.The 2nd most dangerous part of my job, are baron pilots (who rarely fly and follow cars) claiming they know everything. I followed roads not cars when I was 17, and yes, I was a hazard, I just didn't know it...Individuals that claim to know everything are very dangerous. :( RJ

Sesquash- Why bother with FSX for VFR when you can do this with FS9 - on a 6 year old 'puter?? A lot easier on the bank account!Alex Reid

I can hazard two reasons off the top of my head:1. He prefers FSX. Live and let live.2. That's not how the world looks from inside a plane.I'm happy you're happy with your setup Alex, but the constant proselytizing about the three-monitor 2-D panel setup can be a bit much.No hard feelings, I hope.

More on Realism...The most dangerous part of my job is driving to work.The 2nd most dangerous part of my job, are baron pilots (who rarely fly and follow cars) claiming they know everything. I followed roads not cars when I was 17, and yes, I was a hazard, I just didn't know it...Individuals that claim to know everything are very dangerous. :( RJ

I didn't know disagreeing with you is claiming to know everything. I know better now. Thanks for your words of wisdom..

Would you go so far as to say that with ASA FS9 and FSX are equally realistic with regard to air mass simulation and turbulence?

Yes, I would say that is true!!

Sesquash- Why bother with FSX for VFR when you can do this with FS9 - on a 6 year old 'puter?? A lot easier on the bank account!Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron on final for CYKA Kamloops BC.

Hi Alex,Well...FSX does have much better graphics than FS9 when down low. Better water, better wave animation, and when landing upon it. There are lots of things that visually have been improved over FS9 in that regard. The COLORS are not, (personal opinion reins here....) are NOT improved over FS9, though. Quite pastel and cartoonish. FS9's color palette is deep, brilliant and adds to that platform's appeal. If you do a lot of mountain, over-water, near-shore, land-on-water, etc....FSX wins hand's down over FS9. What am I trying to say? Simply this. BOTH sims have many varied appeal points, therefore, use them both to ENHANCE what the user is looking for upon that single flight, IFR or VFR. Personally Alex...I find that I own both, enjoy both, so for myself...they get used without prejudice. :) I pull hard 60's FPS with FS9 and hard 30's with FSX. If you don't have currently a system that can handle FSX, then absolutely the use of it will bum anybody out! On my P4 3.4GHz...it was less-than-marginal. On an i7-xxx platform....most enjoyable. Most usable! On the part about a lot easier on the bank account. That is true, anytime you don't upgrade a computer, a motorcycle, a car...your home, LOL. Just a personal decision for all. Since buying my i7-975/GTX285 system last July, I have not had one moment where I had a second doubt,or that the money was foolishly spent. I have had such pay-out from having upgraded from my P4 3.4, that the money is considered an INVESTMENT in recreation and keeps heart specialists and psychiatrists at bay! :) When you decide to upgrade to a current platform...the first words under your breath when firing up FS9 or FSX will be 'jeez...holy ****! BTW, I have no idea what '****' means...(wink). No idea whatsoever....LOL.Cheers!Mitch

-------------2. That's not how the world looks from inside a plane.-------------No hard feelings, I hope.

Perhaps, but neither is the 45

Sesquash- Why bother with FSX for VFR when you can do this with FS9 - on a 6 year old 'puter?? A lot easier on the bank account!Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron on final for CYKA Kamloops BC.

Hm, maybe I like this way better? :-) And this is with 30fps stable on 3360x1050. (FYI, this is French Riviera, close to Nice, Quest Kodiak - REX, ASA, UTX and GEX. Autogen set to dense, no post processing except reducing image size to 50%)

More on Realism...The most dangerous part of my job is driving to work.The 2nd most dangerous part of my job, are baron pilots (who rarely fly and follow cars) claiming they know everything. I followed roads not cars when I was 17, and yes, I was a hazard, I just didn't know it...Individuals that claim to know everything are very dangerous. :( RJ

-------------------------------------------------------------'The 2nd most dangerous part of my job, are baron pilots (who rarely fly and follow cars) claiming they know everything'You have GOT to be kidding... 'who RARELY FLY and follow cars....' You are kidding, right? Do you know anything about Geofa? What actual air-hours he has under, over, and behind his wings? I suggest you go over to his blog site..and 'take a virtual seat via video' with him as he air-treks all the heck over the continental U.S. of A! I just about spewed my coffee onto my monitor, with having read that comment.... Jeez...Mitch

-------------------------------------------------------------'The 2nd most dangerous part of my job, are baron pilots (who rarely fly and follow cars) claiming they know everything'You have GOT to be kidding... 'who RARELY FLY and follow cars....' You are kidding, right? Do you know anything about Geofa? What actual air-hours he has under, over, and behind his wings? I suggest you go over to his blog site..and 'take a virtual seat via video' with him as he air-treks all the heck over the continental U.S. of A! I just about spewed my coffee onto my monitor, with having read that comment.... Jeez...Mitch

:( Forgot to mention the 3rd most dangerous part of flying.... coffeeThe topic of this thread is "realism by staying with FS9". RJ

I would think that if realism is achieved by the flight model, reaction to the environment, and systems/instrumentation, both versions are pretty much equivalent. In this scenario you can turn down the terrain sliders in FSX and achieve pretty much equivalent (or at least, acceptable) performance on reasonable systems.If realism for you includes how the world is depicted, then I would say if you fly mainly in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia there are easily obtained addons for both versions that will achieve roughly similar results. For the rest of the world, though, FSX is much more complete than FS9. A lot of airports outside of those areas in FS9 are little more than runways on a flat chunk of ground with a sort of approximation of the terrain around them. scott s..

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? ...

Honestly, I think of a lot of it comes down to what kind of flying you do. If you do mostly high and fast in large jets, FS9 is the ticket. Frame rates are better. Motion is smoother. End of story. The instruments work just the same in FS9 as they do in FSX.However, if you prefer small planes, low and slow, good scenery and accurate air modeling, FSX is so far superior to FS9 that it isn't even funny. I have several smaller planes that install for both FS9 and FSX: the Lionheart Quest Kodiak, the Flight1 Cessna 441, and the PMDG Beech 1900C. When you fly these identical small planes in FS9 and FSX, you will notice a distinct difference in the way the air is modeled between the two versions. FSX is just more realistic on small planes. If you fly a 737, you won't notice it. On the smaller planes, they feel heavier in FS9, as if they were much larger. In FSX, they respond to the air currents and temperature much more realistically.I don't think I will ever uninstall my FS9. I spent years developing it to where I want it to be and I love it. But when I want to fly low and slow across the Tongass Fjords in my Beaver, the sim I load is FSX.

Honestly, I think of a lot of it comes down to what kind of flying you do. If you do mostly high and fast in large jets, FS9 is the ticket. Frame rates are better. Motion is smoother. End of story. The instruments work just the same in FS9 as they do in FSX.However, if you prefer small planes, low and slow, good scenery and accurate air modeling, FSX is so far superior to FS9 that it isn't even funny. I have several smaller planes that install for both FS9 and FSX: the Lionheart Quest Kodiak, the Flight1 Cessna 441, and the PMDG Beech 1900C. When you fly these identical small planes in FS9 and FSX, you will notice a distinct difference in the way the air is modeled between the two versions. FSX is just more realistic on small planes. If you fly a 737, you won't notice it. On the smaller planes, they feel heavier in FS9, as if they were much larger. In FSX, they respond to the air currents and temperature much more realistically.I don't think I will ever uninstall my FS9. I spent years developing it to where I want it to be and I love it. But when I want to fly low and slow across the Tongass Fjords in my Beaver, the sim I load is FSX.

-------------------------------------------------------------------Very well stated, and succinct! Excellent! The above is really what it's all about. That is how I approach using both,------ FS9 for the FL's and FSX for 7,000 ASL and below. Simple rule-of-thumb.Mitch

-------------------------------------------------------------------Very well stated, and succinct! Excellent! The above is really what it's all about. That is how I approach using both,------ FS9 for the FL's and FSX for 7,000 ASL and below. Simple rule-of-thumb.Mitch

I used to be the same. FS9 for the FL's and FSX for GA....Then I upgraded and overclocked. Now FSX runs better in the FL's with heavy addons than FS9 ever did. FSX is off the leash now.

I know I will...but I hope I never see a FS9/FSX post again.It is quite obvious some people will never understand. It is NOT .....NOT a frame rates problem.I will say it again just incase it did not sink in.The reason for a lot of FSniners not using FSX is NOT because of frame rates. :(

:( Can't we all go back to our respective corners?