Trisager, you completely missed my point. As already said, not interested into FS9 vs FSX disucssion. And for the 3rd time, interested into why there are only GA posts of FSX. I enjoy looking at screenshots, even if myself not flying FSX.I started a discussion with intent to get some opinions of what people today think, not what they thought 1 year ago or more.Geofa, thank you for your observation, it definitely puts some light on the perspective. It's the first time now, since I got the new machine, that I left FSX installed, if I ever wish to fly (s)low(er).G-YMML1, what PMDG decides is going to be a pure business decision I think. But let's hope you are right and if there indeed are more high-alt-FS9-simmers, as it sure looks like, that they consider it a good business decision to still develop for FS9.What about this scenery development troubles that Gary Summons was writing about?You can read about it here: http://www.uk2000scenery.org/forum/index.php?topic=4013.0

If all you want is confirmation that your "observation" is right, I suggest you post in the FS9 forum insted.

:( Only after you convince Mr. Randazzo to kill entire FSX development.

Funny, I frequently visit a Dutch forum where there is a HUGE FSX topic (for several years now, it's almost a forum on its own :( ) and a week or two ago I asked why nobody posted GA screenshots or talked about GA because ALL they talk about are big airliners...! :( It has nothing to do with FS9 vs FSX over there: those people simply like airliners more. I am all into GA btw.

No matter what, I still think FS KPDX is the best FS scenery ever made. FTX OZ is much much larger and comes a very close second.....

A little bit offtopic, but just out of curiosity - is it the same guy who developed FS2004 KPDX (Vauchez, if I'm not mistaken) responsible for FTX product line?

I'd venture to guess the majority of people who use the FSX forum fly GA more than heavies. Not because of performance, but because of the subject material. Many people find airliners to all be the same and find programming a FMC over and over again boring. Whereas hand flying a 172 or a bush plane is a bit more interactive. I like to shoot the gap and fly business jets and turboprops that can be flown by hand or with a FMC.

If all you want is confirmation that your "observation" is right, I suggest you post in the FS9 forum insted.

That's one of the most intelligent things I've ever read on this forum.

Funny, I frequently visit a Dutch forum where there is a HUGE FSX topic (for several years now, it's almost a forum on its own :( ) and a week or two ago I asked why nobody posted GA screenshots or talked about GA because ALL they talk about are big airliners...! :( It has nothing to do with FS9 vs FSX over there: those people simply like airliners more. I am all into GA btw.

Hm, interesting! So maybe the fact that AVSIM has more GA flyers although we used to see very much airliner shots?

When you all refer to GA aircraft do you mean standard issue fsx planes or addon planes such as cessna etc.I use addon cessnas, pipers etc and have never used standard fsx planes and I find the experience fantastic. Fsx defaut stuff is too simple for me.Heavies are fun but I for time being they ate parked up until I get the urge again Tom

That's one of the most intelligent things I've ever read on this forum.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't drag the debate down by making negative comments at a personal level, so I'll take that at face value and thank you for it.

When you all refer to GA aircraft do you mean standard issue fsx planes or addon planes such as cessna etc.I use addon cessnas, pipers etc and have never used standard fsx planes and I find the experience fantastic. Fsx defaut stuff is too simple for me.Heavies are fun but I for time being they ate parked up until I get the urge again Tom

GA = General Aviation, meaning all that its not jet or heavy (Boeing, Airbuses etc). Meaning flying low and slow: doesn't matter if MS aircraft or addon, all count as GA.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't drag the debate down by making negative comments at a personal level, so I'll take that at face value and thank you for it.

Not being sarcastic at all. It was actually one of the most intelligent things I've read on this forum. :(I couldn't have said what you said better myself.

Not being sarcastic at all.

I'm glad I chose the right interpretation :(FWIW, personally I enjoy flying anything from the Cub to the 747 in FSX. There have been a lot of very good GA aircraft released recently, as well as some truly astonishing addon scenery, maybe that accounts for the high number of GA screenshots.Nothing wrong with FS9, I still use it for the 737 and the Concorde from time to time. I just don't buy the argument that is frequently made that FSX is somehow not suitable for flying the heavies.

Nothing wrong with FS9, I still use it for the 737 and the Concorde from time to time. I just don't buy the argument that is frequently made that FSX is somehow not suitable for flying the heavies.

I actually rarely read that argument. I follow both FSX and FS9 forums, I visit AVSIM daily and I only see general complaints about slowness but not directly connected to GA. Thus my post.Only possible explanation, what everyone already said, that major hubs cause slowness, since they are big. But we should remember 2-3 years ago, KJFK was also causing slow FPS since hardware wasn't totally up to it. Today you can throw at it what you wish for.

This is definitely turning into an fs9 vs fsx thread whatever happened to the screenshots.

Please refrain from suggestions on how to run FSX better, I read through tooooooo many posts about that to know more than I want about it. This isn't what this thread is about.

If you have read all the posts, you will recognize that FSX offers up much more scenery, cockpit, and traffic detail, which comes at a cost...Sooo, if you want to have absolutely no performance impact, even at busy airports, you'll have to dial down some "eye candy" to giveyourself a safety margin of performance.It is all a trade-off, and as many posts attest, this trade-off is somewhat different for different folks, and for different situations.FS9 starts off from a much smaller performance "footprint", so you can load it up with traffic and airports without getting in trouble...FSX gives you about 20X more scenery detail and fancy clouds and smooth gauges in the VC, airport traffic and cars on roads etc - so the outcome is predictable.Why not just use FSX for your low and slow adventures and FS9 for your heavy airliner / traffic / airport trips?PNW has just given us all a reason to go flying VFR in a beautiful part of the world, so enjoy!!

Why not just use FSX for your low and slow adventures and FS9 for your heavy airliner / traffic / airport trips?PNW has just given us all a reason to go flying VFR in a beautiful part of the world, so enjoy!!

Makes sense to me! That's just what I do!L.Adamson