Time to move to FSX! Seriously?

[WingZ 547]

Well we've known since day 1 that FSX was a truly 'orrible bit of software, totally vindicated by a statement like

...The Lefteris utility adds the HighMemFix and Stale Buffer tweaks to the FSX config file...

I am soo past grubbing around in machine code to make buggy software work, especially when my existing software is beautiful, and doesn't need a

...QX9650 OC'd to 4.4Ghz system....(and) ATI 4870 also OC'd to 1.1Ghz to get the results...

I am delighted that someone has actually made FSX work, and wish you well rehashing every single thing that is great in FS9.I will spend somewhat less in the next few years, getting brand new stuff for FS9, and am just as delighted...Goodbye.

[N400QW 205]

Been running both sim versions forever...Still don't understand why folks are either or...Why not either and...If perfectly acceptable to run both on the same machine and enjoy both to the fullest...Oh yes, that's without going thru the tweakers paradise unless you enjoy tweaking... :(

[G-YMML1 582]

Copy this post to PMDG forums. I'm afraid to ask about the possibility of FS2004 version, because Ryan and Rob both have some sort of nervousness about this topic. :( Don't forget talented, but very arrogant FSDT folks.

[WingZ 547]

Been running both sim versions forever...Still don't understand why folks are either or...Why not either and...If perfectly acceptable to run both on the same machine and enjoy both to the fullest...Oh yes, that's without going thru the tweakers paradise unless you enjoy tweaking... :(

I'll tell you:1. Time Budget and 2. Money Budget and 3. SlothAs an example, every so often a payware scenery is released where you get the 2 flavours for the price of one.I load it up on my Core2 Duo on which runs (beautifully) my FS9 install, and marvel at at all the goodies.Ere long, I cannot help but give in to temptation, and take the FSX version and install it on the kids' 4GhZ O/C watercooled monster.This machine munches any game in the known universe - save one.I go uh huh as I make the comparisons between the sims.Sure it's high-def but what's the point if you can't crank up the settings to see them?And you can't get it running the way FS9 runs, butter-smooth - no matter what.This is my experience, and so the 3 points above kick in:1. Any time I spend getting FSX to work is time I don't have for my favourite sim2. Because of 1, I would never spend money on FSX if I could find anything to improve my favourite sim3. I could not be fussed to fight off the kids if I optimised the hot box for FSX, and broke their games :( This has all been said before, but I thought I might answer the question, as I am in that frame of mind today. :(

[momtchil 32]

...............1. I was wrong. FL 350 in FSX is crisper and more beautiful than in FS9. FSX is NOT only for light and low flying

I haven't noticed any significant difference at above FL290 or generally at any high altitude between the two sims. Maybe its the tweaks that achieve this?

Yep, I did the unthinkable and deleted FS9 and use FSX as my only sim,...........

I'm glad you're happy with FSX and have got it to run as you want, but I do not see the point of completely deleting FS9 from your hard disk - isn't that a bit extreme. Why not use both? - There's still a lot of fantastic airplanes and scenery available for FS9 that simply isn't for FSX. You'd be putting all your FS9 add-ons and all the resources invested in that sim to waste.

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

I second Ed......Good for you Mike ! :(But still,...I can not see why posting it here. :(

Give it a few weeks and we will get......."Going back to FS9. FSX is pongy pants"Andy :(

[N400QW 205]

I'll tell you:1. Time Budget and 2. Money Budget and 3. SlothThis has all been said before, but I thought I might answer the question, as I am in that frame of mind today. :(

Understood... :(

[psolk 3,037]

It wasn't actually ******* Altuve that provided this file, it was Lefteris of FSlabs. ******* took all the credit though.There's an .exe file on Lefteris's site that does all the changes for you. It's known as 'Texture Fix'. Get the latest version 1.1 file. http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?...turefix-v11zip/

Ummm, all Lefteris did was write an .exe...******* did ALL THE WORK, ALL THE RESEARCH and ALL THE DOCUMENTATION!!! Lefteris then took all the work that ******* did and wrote a little .exe to insert a couple of lines into users .cfg's and Mathijs at Aerosoft went off and posted how Lefteris did all the work which is a load of BS!!!Let's give credit where credit is due...-Paul

[Benjamin J 751]

Once Apple updates its line of iMac models I hope to be in the FSX skies like you, Mike, but until then I wait and use FS9. I'm glad for you that you made it work well for you and I hope I will find the same fortune ;-)Just one question, Mike: what hardware exactly do you have?

[Raul87 0]

Hello,I want to bring a different perspective into this debate about FS9 and FSX. I use both of them and I have add ons for both simulators. First, I agree that technology moves forward and with it so do people and developers; however, in doing so we have to admit we sacrifice a few things(which is not necessarily bad). Right now on FS9 we could say we have a selected group of top level add ons that we like to fly and enjoy like level-d 767, pmdg 737, 747 and so on but for me it is kind of "incomplete". There is not a really good airbus out there for FS9 nor 777 and 757. FSX comes out and developers start focusing on this platform, which is normal and we have new models that are developed for this platform and updates to make FS9 products compatible with FSX but not always. Dreamfleet for example, has made several great add ons for FS9 that are very unlikely to make it to FSX and is a big shame, maybe in the future those will be developed again for FSX. I heard that Aerosoft is planing on releasing a Simulator for 2012. What is going to happen then? Developers start focusing on that platform and the same story repeats itself. Now, FSX has been around for a long while giving time for companies to produce a great quantity of add ons, but is it going to be enough time to have a really good collection of airbus, boeing and general aviation airplanes? The point I am trying to make is that we are going to have our favorite airplanes dispersed all over different platforms without the chance of having all of them concentrated in one single simulator. Some of you may be ok with that, some of you might feel a bit annoyed by that, but apparently we are going to have to live with that. FSX is the future (is it?), so we have to embrace it but I always have to go back to FS9 to fly some of my favorite add ons. Regards,Raul.

[Guest fs2004josh]

FSX is the future (is it?)Raul.

Disagree. Anyone can make that same claim if and when Aerosoft comes out with there 2012 simulator. I view it this way, whichever sim you enjoy..have fun

[Raul87 0]

Maybe you can look at it this way. FSX is already 4 years old. It still stands today only because Microsoft stopped creating Flight Simulators. It's what we use because it's the most recent plataform we have until now but fsx technology it's already a bit outdated. Cheers,Raul.

[momtchil 32]

Right now on FS9 we could say we have a selected group of top level add ons that we like to fly and enjoy like level-d 767, pmdg 737, 747 and so on but for me it is kind of "incomplete". There is not a really good airbus out there for FS9 nor 777 and 757........

Not entirely true.I have found that the FS9 CaptainSim Boeing 757 is actually pretty impressive (for all the criticism it initially received). There's the older PSS B757 and also the one from Quality Wings, which I am told is also pretty good. For the B777 there's the older PSS model which has very good systems, panel and VC. As for the Airbuses, well there have been some attempts from Wilco (v1 for the A318, A319, A320 A321; and v2 for the wide bodies). I only own v1 and frankly don't like it - so there is definitely a gap there, but somehow I have never found this so disturbing as some other simmers. Maybe its because I'm not that big a fan of Airbus or because there have been so many other brilliant aircraft available for FS9 to keep me occupied.In all honesty, I think that FSX is more incomplete than FS9, as there are more scenery and airplanes available for FS9. That's why I find myself still using FS9. There are many things that keep me with it but the real clincher is that the PT Tu-154 does not work in FSX, the places where I fly to are not available for FSX, and the freeware available for FS9 is simply unbelievable both in terms of volume and quality.

[ErnieAlston 33]

In all honesty, I think that FSX is more incomplete than FS9, as there are more scenery and airplanes available for FS9. That's why I find myself still using FS9.

Agreed, FS9 is definitely more complete than FSX,there are more aircraft available, more addon scenery, and more freeware available for FS9than FSX.Just look on the main avsim page today at the files being uploaded, still today there are more freeware files being uploaded for FS9 then for FSX.FSX's advantage is the latest and greatest. There are more products taking advantage of the latest features and technology available for FSX than for FS9.Regards.Ernie.

[G-YMML1 582]

Seriously,I guess when the critical mass of payware jetliners in FSX will be established, we will switch. As of now, the converted versions of LDS767, all current PMDG stuff (except for BAE) are trully FS2004 products and I have no intention to install FSX to run FS2004 stuff. Let PMDG NGX/777, LDS757, DA CRJ with all the service packs be released and the transition will be natural, painless and enjoyably as it was for FS2002/FS2004. In the meantime, I'm simply too lazy to be a beta tester for FSX products (for my own money) - I'd rather enjoy my flights in FS2004. Then, we will see.