Although the PSS 777 and Captain Sim 757 are good products they are not really what you would call a classic, like for example the level-d 767. I actually was hoping that PMDG would develop a 777 for FS9 but that's most likely not going to happen. I do agree with the fact that FSX is more incomplete than FS9. I guess FSX will catch up later on.

Unfortunately, new PMDG designer has never had any experience in making complex commercial jetliners (as far as I know), so I assume there will be some pain and a couple of SP before it will take a good shape. It took Lefris to make PMDG737 in 2003 first, then the update for 738/739 in 2004 to finally come up with the flawless beauty called PMDG 747. That's why I'm so cautious about new NGX release and do not share all this excitement about the screen shots. Visuals are fine, but reliability, systems' depth and the product performance + stability will be critical. PMDG MD11 is a piece of cake, but I assume there was completely different team of designers behind that product.

In another four years we'll all be using FSX exclusively (those of us that are still around). :( All concerns are rendered mute when the day comes affordable machines can run FSX with max options and no performance issues. The videos I'm seeing today on the i7 machines are just outstanding to say the least. After my little stint in a real level-d 744 simulator last weekend we have allot to be thankful for in terms of visuals concerning both FSX and FS9 but especially FSX. The i7 machines have made me a believer that FSX will be every much what FS9 has been over the last few years. With the visuals it has I'd much rather have FSX in my sights for a future sim than nothing at all. Once we all have the right hardware we'll all be glade if any version of FS had to be the last thank God it was FSX. Imagine if FS98, FS2000 or FS2002 were Microsoft's last efforts in the series. Imagine that then look at some of the latest FSX shots and videos today. FSX was released ahead of it's time with a high amount of doubt it would ever run right (like FS2000). Seeing that there's light at the end of the tunnel I can deal with FSX until Microsoft's get's smart again and realizes there's a demand for the product for professional use and otherwise (FSX compared to Elite is just laughable to say the least). Putting even FSX aside, I'm glade FS2k2 wasn't the last version and we have FS9. FS9 alone is a better alternative than the FS versions we had before but FSX kicks it over the top with it's visual representation. I'll take FSX any day over any other preceding version but only with the right hardware (which seems to have took 5+ years after FSX's release to become a reality for the common simmer). :(

In another four years we'll all be using FSX exclusively (those of us that are still around). :(

There might still be one guy still flying FS9. :(Probably best not to waste everyday wishing and just get on with flying.My Fs9 rig improves every day ...so much so I don't think FSX will ever get a look in. :(

There might still be one guy still flying FS9. :P Probably best not to waste everyday wishing and just get on with flying.My Fs9 rig improves every day ...so much so I don't think FSX will ever get a look in.

I dont think I will ever be going to FSX. with the bloom effect on my FS9 and with all of the add-on's....sorry, but FSX just doesnt cut it for me

I was flying a BA Level D B777 earlier this year.....FS9's graphics were far better.There are some improvements in FSX ...but there are also some unimprovements.FSX simply is not the sim we were all waiting for regardless of whether on GA or heavy. IMHOI believe that sim will arrive one day.Meantime less talk and more flying of the sim of your choice.The FS sim's are different animals to each and every one of us.

This strikes me as funny, as I just reinstalled FS9 to purchase and learn the PMDG MD-11. I wanted to assure myself an environment with fluid performance at addon airports with heavy traffic and heavy, heavy real world weather.We are all going after unique, moving targets with our simming preferences, so my guess is that no one sim will ever do it all.I even have x-plane installed to practice taildragger takeoffs and landing, which I am learning in real life. Either way, I am glad to see a happy and satisfied simmer. :(

Good to hear about your experience Mike and that you are able to experience what many of us have been enjoying for the past few years. Although I have never needed to use the tweaks from *******, we are fortunate to have fellows like him in the community that have been able to find tweaks and adjustments that make the sim usable and enjoyable for a wider range of people and hardware.Enjoy your new sim.BTW, can you tell us how you have converted your FlyTampa sceneries to work in FSX?

I was flying a BA Level D B777 earlier this year.....FS9's graphics were far better.There are some improvements in FSX ...but there are also some unimprovements.FSX simply is not the sim we were all waiting for regardless of whether on GA or heavy. IMHOI believe that sim will arrive one day.Meantime less talk and more flying of the sim of your choice.The FS sim's are different animals to each and every one of us.

Well said, even though I am now a full blown FSX'er. I find some things they did to be a bit strange, like going into great detail to get the water effect on the runways and taxiways but then skipping things like not having any rain effects on the VC windshield, plus the rain and snow in fsx is just horrible.

Well said, even though I am now a full blown FSX'er. I find some things they did to be a bit strange, like going into great detail to get the water effect on the runways and taxiways but then skipping things like not having any rain effects on the VC windshield, plus the rain and snow in fsx is just horrible.

Isn't there fixes for the weather effects in the sim including FSX specific add-on aircraft that have VC rain effects on the windows (I saw icing effects on a few models let alone rain simulated on the windows)?

"FSX simply is not the sim we were all waiting for regardless of whether on GA or heavy. IMHO"As a GA flyer only I disagree. The fs series since the early 1990's I felt always left out GA completely-why I went to Pro Pilot, Fly , Xplane and Flight Unlimited during that decade while the fs guys were flying their airliners thru ice cube clouds and hand drawn point to point terrain with instruments that did not resemble anything real-but they had nice cabin announcements... Fsx was the first version that changed that for the fs series and for the first time went somewhat to the GA side. I thought it was refreshing for a change since I had been so disappointed for years- much like you and others have been about fsx -I've been disappointed for the entire fs series since fs4 though I bought every version (and beta tested since fs2002) and basically just lived with it e.g. didn't use it.If I only flew heavy metal I'd still be using fs9 even now-I think in this area fs9 definately has an up on fsx even now-but I don't simulate heavy metal button fms/autopilot pushing aircraft....different strokes for different folks...If I did I'd still fly fs9 for the heavies and fsx for the GA as each sim has a sweet spot-though increased computer power seems to be making that even a moot point and I think that is what we are seeing..As pointed out-why does there have to be a winner? I am glad we all have choice-use both or one depending on what you want to simulate. Me-I have had a clear choice since day one-and so have you. That is great for all of us-and for a lowly GA flyer which is still at least in the United States majority of the air traffic it is welcome and way overdue! http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom/stats/activity.html

Yes ok Geofa, FSX is the sim for GA (especially for the ones with floats)I was thinking along the lines of if I was a GA only pilot (I do like GA too BTW)I would want a tile proxy style sim .... one that would augment/aid my real world flying.Oh I am envious of your F33 and would really love a FS9 version. :(

I have FSX, but the Computer I'm using isn't strong enough to run it. I have to agree with the comments already posted that FS9 does have more add-ons than FSX. Glad it works for you mike. Until I get a stronger computer, I'm staying with fs9

I guess I have the hardware to run FSX and while I've invested thousands of euros in FS9 add ons, many of them are also offered as FSX versions so from that point I have plenty to keep me occupied also in FSX. However, with two small kids what I don't have is time! I know how to make FS9 work good enough for me and I have no problem setting AI traffic at 100% and getting literally hundres of aircraft at eg EDDF and still having a fluid experience. Perhaps I could do that also with FSX but not out of the box. Granted, FS9 also takes a little bit of tweaking but I know what to do and don't have to experiment.Since I rather spend my precious free time flying than tweaking and don't see that much of an improvement in FSX over FS9, it's too esy for me load up FS9 and start flying instead of chosing FSX and trying to find the sweetpoint with the graphics settings and the fsx.cfg. Of course, the release of PDMG737NG for FSX will probably drag me into the FSX world forcing me to understand it and then perhaps there is no looking back. I did download that Shader mod by ******* that Mike T referred to and I also have a ATI card, so the change perhaps is just around the corner!

Hmm, both sims would be really great if some payware developer would create nav updates for the sim, nothing like trying to fly a gps approach from real charts and its not available in the sim, or even updated waypoints to fly a gps flight plan.