Interesting discussion on FlyTampa forums

[Guest fs2004josh]

I have the hardware to run FSX, but I'm not because in my opinion, FSX looks too unrealistic and cartoon"ish" looking. And I don't care if developers stop developing for FS9, I'll still use it. :(

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I am baffled!!!!! :( What are all these FSXer's doing in a FS9 forum???? :( That alone speaks volumes if you ask me. :(

I read more than just the FSX forum because I like to see what a lot of different groups of people are talking about. I don't develope scenery but I also read that forum, lol. Didn't think that we were restricted from reading or posting in forums other than the ones that we actually use.

[january 19]

For what it's worth- Since Oct 5 /09 to Feb 23 /10, on the question- "What is your prime simulator": the AVSIM Survey shows 70 new votes for FS9 & 63 extra votes for FSX.Perhaps suggesting that reports of the death of FS9 may be greatly exagerated?Alex Reid

[Guest deltaflight]

FS 9, out of the box, was garbage! FS X, out of the box, was garbage too!It took patches and the hard work of some great developers to enhance both sims to what they are today.

BINGO! And I guess when all those patches for FSX start rolling out folks will be able to fly actual iron (and not the stock tri-cycle" plane) across the large lifeless pastel wilderness called FSX.Anyone who flies in real life, even once a year, knows just how bad the landscape looks. I enjoy flying at dusk and at night as well and even with UTX and GEX I never get the look like I do with my custom textures in FS9. In FS9 you'd swear it was real. Mitch

[Wolfko 0]

Btw, take a look at the total post count for the FS9 vs. FSX forums here. 69,000 to 420,000. Does that look like a majority are using FS9 to anyone?

:( That is, because when the forum was split into an FSX and an FS9 section all the old posts, also the FS9 related posts stayed in the FSX section and the new FS9 forum started at zero!Wolfgang

[Jean-Paul 167]

... across the large lifeless pastel wilderness called FSX.Mitch

Really ? :(

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Anyone who flies in real life, even once a year, knows just how bad the landscape looks. I enjoy flying at dusk and at night as well and even with UTX and GEX I never get the look like I do with my custom textures in FS9. In FS9 you'd swear it was real. Mitch

So your saying that GE Pro textures in FS9 look better than GEX textures? Or MegaScenery packages for FS9 look better than the same higher res versions do in FSX? Or even REX for FS9 vs. REX for FSX?I fly in real life. So far I only have 35 hours and hold a third class medical and solo, but I would say that FSX looks more like real life than does FS9. It looks more blurry than FSX does that's for sure since it can't display texture in the higher resloution that FSX does. For real world VFR practice in a sim I think FSX does a much better job. Granted FS9 can look good in certain areas like the KPDX package, but once you get out of the scenery area and revert back to the stock or GE Pdo textures its not as good imho.These converations are really pointless though and really not worth the time or energy to continue.At least the guy from PMDG came on and dismissed the FS9 rumor that they were doing it for FS9.

[Dillon 2,197]

What everyone has forgotten here is there's two different worlds now in the game of developing add-ons for both sims.Scenery is easier to do for both platforms versus aircraft. Hence we're seeing many aircraft developers take flight and develop for one sim now that there's a fraction of a chance FSX will run decently on today's latest machines. As complex as PMDG's birds are it actually makes since with the new i7 machines on the market (I'm getting one next year exclusively for FSX). It's double work trying to bring a complex airliner to two different FS platforms. If the day has come where half that effort is achievable why not take a step back which in turn gives you a better chance at getting more product to market.As we see with Caranado there's various FDE issues that arise with each release of their backwards development to FS9 with their latest FSX/FS9 aircraft. The only developer that's been able to efficiently produce dual products without issue is Feelthere (ERJ v2, E-Jet series). Outside of them most developers have a hard time bringing dual products to market. Eaglesoft is all but at a stand still today compared to the volume they once had.Comparing a scenery developer like FlyTampa to a hardcore airliner developer like PMDG is unfair to say the least. Even most of Aerosoft's scenery developers go against Aerosoft's conventional wisdom on the subject and continue to bring FSX scenery into FS9 as it's all but a no brainier and takes little effort. By contrast I haven't seen any of Aerosoft's aircraft developers jumping back and fourth, when they go FSX they stay there.EDIT: I guess Ryan beat me to the facts I pointed out here. He's totally wrong about the post count issue which is odd because he's been around awhile and should know how the FSX/FS9 forum split happened. Makes me wonder in PMDG land how many other important FSX/FS9 facts are being missed... :(

[G-YMML1 582]

Give me 5.0 stock CPU and I will switch. If PMDG will release NGX for FSX only, where I'm supposed to fly this baby to have reasonable FPS? In Alaska, with AI- birds and AI-bears? Maybe in Norway fyords? My I7-290 (OC 3.6), P6T, 6GB RAM and Vista Ultimate-64 gives me 8-10FPS from PMDG MD11 VC at FSDT KJFK with 100% traffic, UTUSA/GE/ASA/REX. In contrast, I have strong 24FPS with the same items at FS2004. Now tell me one good reason (assuming benefits exceed costs) to switch to FSX - personally I don't see any except for "PMDG and LDS will no longer support FS2004". So OK - I will no longer support PMDG and LDS. It's been said many time that FSX is fundamentally flawed, unacceptable platform for IFR-simmers assuming current hadrware on the market and nothing will help to improve the situation until raw-powered stock 5.0Ghz CPUs hit the market. Simply speaking, FS2004 = IFR simmers, FSX = VFR simmers. If one flying in FSX to Heathrow with 0% AI, no autogen and says that "I have 25FPS at Heathrow 27L approach in FSX and I don't know what you folks are talking about bad FPS" - that's BS pardon my language. If you don't care about AI and complex addons - switch to FS2000.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Really ? :(

Sublime shots Jean Paul. Couldn't understand what it said but the shots were great. If FS9 looked like that I would go back, lol.

[G-YMML1 582]

As complex as PMDG's birds are it actually makes since with the new i7 machines on the market (I'm getting one next year exclusively for FSX).

That's an illusion that i7 would be the silver bullet (even with OC) and you will understand this pretty soon. I had exactly the same feeling as you currently have when I bought my i7 machine 10 months ago.

[Jean-Paul 167]

Sublime shots Jean Paul. Couldn't understand what it said but the shots were great. If FS9 looked like that I would go back, lol.

Hi Jim,It was basically the same kind of thread as this one going on on the french forum. But in a more friendly manner :(

[Wolfko 0]

Really ? :(

I have to admit FTX does a great job in Image 1 & 3, but I'm not entirly flying in Australia. But Jean-Paul, with all due respect, image 2 (Perpignan) does not look better or worse than what I see within my FS9 with GEPro, AS6.5, UT, detailled mesh, a good land class etc. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...058&hl=fengSorry to disappoint you.Wolfgang

[Jean-Paul 167]

I have to admit FTX does a great job in Image 1 & 3, but I'm not entirly flying in Australia. But Jean-Paul, with all due respect, image 2 (Perpignan) does not look better or worse than what I see within my FS9 with GEPro, AS6.5, UT, detailled mesh, a good land class etc. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...058&hl=fengSorry to disappoint you.Wolfgang

Wolfgang,Try to fly a bit lower. And then compare autogen quality and texture detail and it is certainly not the "large lifeless pastel wilderness" someone mentioned .... :( Anyway I do not want to enter a screeshot competion or a pissing contest with you. Some prefer FS9, others FSX, but please, do it for good reasons : FS9 : less visuals, better framerates, more addons but anything really groundbraking in the last 2 years ?FSX : better visuals, less framerates, less addons, but developpers still pushing the envelope. Neither of them are flawed. They are just different

[JET 1 0]

Anyone noticed a big problem with these type of threads, with the exception that they're really redundant, is that some users pop in them just to dump their opinion on the matter based on the subject line and never even read what was written earlier. So they kind of turn into a string of monologues :(