I have been thinking about the best option when flying very high (above normal airliners altitude) and in heavy Jets. Is FS9 the simulator to use or should I buy planes for FSX? Heavy Jets would realistic mean flying into big cities so performence could be a problem in FSX. But I think I have read that FSX is more realistic for airmass simulation at very high altitudes but I'm not certain. For example the very high flying Concorde is now available for both FSX and FS9. Would you buy the Concorde for FS9 or FSX? And the Blackbird SR 71 also flighs at extreme altitudes. Do we miss something with regard to realism by using FS9 instead of FSX? One example I come to think about is the Level D 767 which I think have some additional features in the FSX version like for example tillers. I might point out that I have many addon Jets for FS9 (not Concorde) but only one for FSX (Maddog). So question for me is to either use what I have (FS9) or buy new planes (FSX).Also I don't have a very powerful system onlyAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 Gb RAMNVIDIA GTS250 I GbWin 7 64bit

I have been thinking about the best option when flying very high (above normal airliners altitude) and in heavy Jets. Is FS9 the simulator to use or should I buy planes for FSX? Heavy Jets would realistic mean flying into big cities so performence could be a problem in FSX. But I think I have read that FSX is more realistic for airmass simulation at very high altitudes but I'm not certain. For example the very high flying Concorde is now available for both FSX and FS9. Would you buy the Concorde for FS9 or FSX? And the Blackbird SR 71 also flighs at extreme altitudes. Do we miss something with regard to realism by using FS9 instead of FSX? One example I come to think about is the Level D 767 which I think have some additional features in the FSX version like for example tillers. I might point out that I have many addon Jets for FS9 (not Concorde) but only one for FSX (Maddog). So question for me is to either use what I have (FS9) or buy new planes (FSX).Also I don't have a very powerful system onlyAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 Gb RAMNVIDIA GTS250 I GbWin 7 64bit

I would probably say that the answer is wether or not fsx runs nice on your system, if not then i would stick to fs9, if fsx runs without issues then i would reconsider. Just my opinion though.

There's really no difference in the Flight Model of both sims. Though some would argue with this point in the FSX forum but the fact remains the main attention Aces gave to FSX was in the graphics department. Because of the included 'Head Latency' some feel FSX has something more to offer over FS9. In FS9 the same effect can be had with the add-on 'Active Camera' (heck you can even go a step farther with 'TrackIR'). If your really shooting for 'As Real as it Gets' then get yourself a Yoke/Peddles setup (I use CH Product's controllers). Like what's been said above if you can run FSX with most if not all sliders maxed out without framerate issues then FSX is the sim to get. With the latest hardware available today it's been said that's possible. With FSX maxed out you get a world very close to real life. You add things like Orbix, Flight1's Ground EnvironmentX, REX, and a host of photo scenery you can't beat FSX. Any hair of a performance issue means you need to stick with FS9 as it will give you the best bang for your buck on todays new bargain bin machines. Now FS9 with 'REX for FS9', 'Zinerteck's Water', 'Flight1's Ground Environment for FS9' will give you in sim looks that rival FSX...Another big selling point of FS9 (since your into airliners) is almost every major airport in the world has been covered in some fashion in FS9 (most reasonably detailed). We might be able to count out regions like Africa but all the first world locations have detailed scenery for their major airports. Case in point I've just started to discover Central and South America. With Mesh and detail airports these locations are a sight to behold, I had no idea how cool South America looked from above. Some of the approaches are either a visual feast or a challenge. Two notable airports come to mind in this region of the world and they are SEQU and MHTG which rivals Kai Tak in Hong Kong (I watched an AA pilot's retirment flight in which he chose the MHTG approach for his final landing with the airline). Much of this area is not covered in FSX, it's all default scenery. In FS9 by contrast you can fly from a detail KJFK to a detailed LLBG. You can then fly from there to a detailed OMDB. You can literally fly around the world with multiple options for detailed airports along your route and with Flight1's Ground Environment the different areas stay true to how they actually look. A third world city is not going to look like your flying over New York. You'll need the latest updates for Ground Environment to really see the world in all it's glory. So again unless you have a tricked out i7 machine (or better) FS9 'still' has the biggest bang for your buck if your a round the world flier. You can't beat FSX for GA but FS9 has the greatest detailed locations the world over...

I use the SSTSIM Concorde in FS9 with Active Skyand am very happy with the performance at FL600 !

There's really no difference in the Flight Model of both sims. Though some would argue with this point in the FSX forum but the fact remains the main attention Aces gave to FSX was in the graphics department. Because of the included 'Head Latency' some feel FSX has something more to offer over FS9. In FS9 the same effect can be had with the add-on 'Active Camera' (heck you can even go a step farther with 'TrackIR'). If your really shooting for 'As Real as it Gets' then get yourself a Yoke/Peddles setup (I use CH Product's controllers). Like what's been said above if you can run FSX with most if not all sliders maxed out without framerate issues then FSX is the sim to get. With the latest hardware available today it's been said that's possible. With FSX maxed out you get a world very close to real life. You add things like Orbix, Flight1's Ground EnvironmentX, REX, and a host of photo scenery you can't beat FSX. Any hair of a performance issue means you need to stick with FS9 as it will give you the best bang for your buck on todays new bargain bin machines. Now FS9 with 'REX for FS9', 'Zinerteck's Water', 'Flight1's Ground Environment for FS9' will give you in sim looks that rival FSX...Another big selling point of FS9 (since your into airliners) is almost every major airport in the world has been covered in some fashion in FS9 (most reasonably detailed). We might be able to count out regions like Africa but all the first world locations have detailed scenery for their major airports. Case in point I've just started to discover Central and South America. With Mesh and detail airports these locations are a sight to behold, I had no idea how cool South America looked from above. Some of the approaches are either a visual feast or a challenge. Two notable airports come to mind in this region of the world and they are SEQU and MHTG which rivals Kai Tak in Hong Kong (I watched an AA pilot's retirment flight in which he chose the MHTG approach for his final landing with the airline). Much of this area is not covered in FSX, it's all default scenery. In FS9 by contrast you can fly from a detail KJFK to a detailed LLBG. You can then fly from there to a detailed OMDB. You can literally fly around the world with multiple options for detailed airports along your route and with Flight1's Ground Environment the different areas stay true to how they actually look. A third world city is not going to look like your flying over New York. You'll need the latest updates for Ground Environment to really see the world in all it's glory. So again unless you have a tricked out i7 machine (or better) FS9 'still' has the biggest bang for your buck if your a round the world flier. You can't beat FSX for GA but FS9 has the greatest detailed locations the world over...

There is noway I can max out the sliders in FSX but I can set them so I have better ground and water textures compared to the best I can get out of FS9. Already got most of your suggested addons for FS9 but the free Real Enviroment Pro instead of REX (which btw I have for FSX).Regarding flight model wasn't there a difference in the simulation of the atmosphere where in FSX the sky was no more the limit but we got all the way out to space?

At airliner cruise levels you won't see any difference in scenery between FS9 and FSX because of the altitude; so it's just the ascent and descent - and flying airliners, you might be too busy to worry about the scenery! So, my perspective is FS9 for airliners, FSX for GA.;)

jfri,Rather than think about how much better the ground scenery looks in FSX I would instead consider your frame rates when landing a complex aircraft at a complex airport with lots of Ai. Fluidity is essential. Given your system I would stick to FS9 for another 2-3 years and by then maybe the hardware will be up to the task of making FSX fluid.I was lucky enough to be on the ConcordeX beta team and there's no doubt it is a superb piece of work. But at airports like Aerosoft Ultimate Heathrow it was very taxing on fps as any aircraft probably would be. You need a state-of-the-art machine for a complex aircraft at a complex airport in FSX.I agree with dillo. Invest in FS9 if you fly high and fast. FSX is best low and slow and Concorde can be described as many things but never slow! :(

jfri,Rather than think about how much better the ground scenery looks in FSX I would instead consider your frame rates when landing a complex aircraft at a complex airport with lots of Ai. Fluidity is essential. Given your system I would stick to FS9 for another 2-3 years and by then maybe the hardware will be up to the task of making FSX fluid.I was lucky enough to be on the ConcordeX beta team and there's no doubt it is a superb piece of work. But at airports like Aerosoft Ultimate Heathrow it was very taxing on fps as any aircraft probably would be. You need a state-of-the-art machine for a complex aircraft at a complex airport in FSX.I agree with dillo. Invest in FS9 if you fly high and fast. FSX is best low and slow and Concorde can be described as many things but never slow! :(

Do you know what diffrence there is between the ConcordeX fos FSX and the SSTSIM Concorde for FS9?

Do you know what diffrence there is between the ConcordeX fos FSX and the SSTSIM Concorde for FS9?

Eye Candy... Both are excellent... You won't loose anything by going with FS9 and the FS9 version...

Do you know what diffrence there is between the ConcordeX fos FSX and the SSTSIM Concorde for FS9?

Sorry, no. I have the PSS Concorde in FS9. You can ask the question on the forum here.

Do you know what diffrence there is between the ConcordeX fos FSX and the SSTSIM Concorde for FS9?

Far far more than just plain Eye Candy. Far more systems were modelled with the FSX version than were with the FS9 version.(Air Con & Pressurization,Air Bleed control, Temp Control) Just to name a few.She was compleatly remodelled from the ground up for the FSX version.Both are beautiful to fly and demand more than a quick read through of the AOM. You can't go wrong here, The Question is which version can you run smoothly.

Far far more than just plain Eye Candy. Far more systems were modelled with the FSX version than were with the FS9 version.(Air Con & Pressurization,Air Bleed control, Temp Control) Just to name a few.She was compleatly remodelled from the ground up for the FSX version.Both are beautiful to fly and demand more than a quick read through of the AOM. You can't go wrong here, The Question is which version can you run smoothly.

Or what slider settings would I need to use in FSX to run ConcordeX smoothly? And with that settings how does it compare to maxed out FS9?

I have the "Pilots" SR-71. Once you get that high there is not much to see. I fly FS9 so I cannot comment on FSX. One thing that occurs is FS9 in the SR71 at high altitude and speed is oscillation of the aircraft. I don

Flying the SSTSIM Concorde at 50k-60k, or AlphaSim's SR-71 at 85k in FS9, I'm too busy managing the fuel and monitoring the systems, just to keep the plane stable, to spend much time viewing the outside world. And as others have said, what's to see at that altitude?

Flying the SSTSIM Concorde at 50k-60k, or AlphaSim's SR-71 at 85k in FS9, I'm too busy managing the fuel and monitoring the systems, just to keep the plane stable, to spend much time viewing the outside world. And as others have said, what's to see at that altitude?

The curvature of the Earth? Oh, hang on, they didn't model that in either version. :( Pity.