Time to move to FSX! Seriously?

[Krister 51]

Jeff,montly updated AIRAC cycles are purchasable from http://www.navigraph.com/www/default.asp and you find them for most of the high end airplanes.

[Egbert Drenth 250]

Jeff,montly updated AIRAC cycles are purchasable from http://www.navigraph.com/www/default.asp and you find them for most of the high end airplanes.

And for FS9 each month there are updated BGL files avaible replacing the old internal FS Nav data (Europe, Africa & South America only) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/hsors/navaids2.html

[AWACS 12]

And for FS9 each month there are updated BGL files avaible replacing the old internal FS Nav data (Europe, Africa & South America only) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/hsors/navaids2.html

Yeah, thanks guys, was hoping to get some updates for the US too. The problem with Navigraph is that it doesn't have any updates for the sim itself or the default GPS.

[Max Kraus 339]

I used both sims in parallel for a long time. Then I moved to FSX. So I can certainly understand why people still use both and I don't disagree with that practice. You have a right to sim how you want.However, the perception that FSX is no good for heavy jet flying is completely false. FSX can now do everything that FS9 can (with better frame rates). The hardware is here now, and it's exciting.

[mackintosh 0]

However, the perception that FSX is no good for heavy jet flying is completely false. FSX can now do everything that FS9 can (with better frame rates). The hardware is here now, and it's exciting.

Not with 100% AI it can't. Show me 30fps on approach to FSDT's KFJK with 300+ aircraft in the immediate vicinity @ 16xQ AA and 16x AF and I might believe you. The best I can get in that scenario is around 10fps and my system's no slouch.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Not with 100% AI it can't. Show me 30fps on approach to FSDT's KFJK with 300+ aircraft in the immediate vicinity @ 16xQ AA and 16x AF and I might believe you. The best I can get in that scenario is around 10fps and my system's no slouch.

Ahhh, I was wondering when the two variables "100% AI" and "KJFK" would be introduced into the conversation, lol.In all seriousness though, buy me a copy of FSDT KJFK and I will test it and let you know what performance I can get. I will say this though as I am enroute to the stock KJFK from FSDT's ORD, using 100% AI (UT2, WOAI, and custom AI mix) and 8xs AA and 16AF, I can get a good 25 to 30 FPS on approach to the stock version. If I had the FSDT version of JFK I wouldn't imagine it would be much worse than what I get going into ORD. Frankly, I cant see how your FPS would be that bad unless the dual video cards and 16xQ AA is hurting you and you have a mulit-monitor setup. I have my card set up pretty similar to NickN's guide and have found that on my system going past 8xS AA doesn't improve my IQ at all.In the end though, the best thing to do is stick to FS9 if you dont get the performance you desire. Personally, I dont fly to KJFK all that often so that senario doesn't matter that much to me. However, if the bulk of your airliner flying is mostly just flying into JFK in the PMDG 747 with 300 AI around you and not being prudent with the sliders then FSX might not fit everyone. For me, I fly to many different airports, and so far I have yet to have any issues with airliners and 100% AI in FSX.@FlyHalf - I agree it is exciting times, for me even more so when the new NGX hits the market. That's the only airliner I have been missing SO much from FS9.

[mackintosh 0]

Ahhh, I was wondering when the two variables "100% AI" and "KJFK" would be introduced into the conversation, lol.In all seriousness though, buy me a copy of FSDT KJFK and I will test it and let you know what performance I can get. I will say this though as I am enroute to the stock KJFK from FSDT's ORD, using 100% AI (UT2, WOAI, and custom AI mix) and 8xs AA and 16AF, I can get a good 25 to 30 FPS on approach to the stock version. If I had the FSDT version of JFK I wouldn't imagine it would be much worse than what I get going into ORD. Frankly, I cant see how your FPS would be that bad unless the dual video cards and 16xQ AA is hurting you and you have a mulit-monitor setup. I have my card set up pretty similar to NickN's guide and have found that on my system going past 8xS AA doesn't improve my IQ at all.

I see a difference between 8xAA and 16xQ AA, but I guess that's down to individual perception (I actually use SLI 16xQ AA, that way there's no performance hit whatsoever or at least none that I've noticed). JFK is just an example, I have pretty lousy approach performance anywhere there is a massive amount of AI present. JFK is just the best example as the NYC area is usually the most AI-traffic heavy airspace in the FS world (assuming one truly does have nearly all of the airline traffic serving the area installed). I'm guessing if I switched off all shadows, moved the sliders down to where I personally perceive the visual quality to be below what I get on FS9 things would be just fine, but then what would be the point of switching to FSX. Maybe I just can't set up my PC properly.In the end, two things will happen, either hardware will come out that will melt my computer case but run FSX the way it runs FS9 or an add-on will be released that will be so desirable, I'll make the switch. Either eventuality is pretty much inevitable in the long run.

[Gavin 99]

In the end, two things will happen, either hardware will come out that will melt my computer case but run FSX the way it runs FS9 or an add-on will be released that will be so desirable, I'll make the switch. Either eventuality is pretty much inevitable in the long run.

True, but it'll have to be something really amazing to justify me dropping PLN5 or 6K just to run a game. And without the PT TU154m, what use is FSX to me? That's just my personal opinion though, I'm not in any way anti FSX. I have it installed and use it for pottering around in GA - though my machine can't really handle much else with it.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I see a difference between 8xAA and 16xQ AA, but I guess that's down to individual perception (I actually use SLI 16xQ AA, that way there's no performance hit whatsoever or at least none that I've noticed). JFK is just an example, I have pretty lousy approach performance anywhere there is a massive amount of AI present. JFK is just the best example as the NYC area is usually the most AI-traffic heavy airspace in the FS world (assuming one truly does have nearly all of the airline traffic serving the area installed). I'm guessing if I switched off all shadows, moved the sliders down to where I personally perceive the visual quality to be below what I get on FS9 things would be just fine, but then what would be the point of switching to FSX. Maybe I just can't set up my PC properly.In the end, two things will happen, either hardware will come out that will melt my computer case but run FSX the way it runs FS9 or an add-on will be released that will be so desirable, I'll make the switch. Either eventuality is pretty much inevitable in the long run.

I agree New York City is about the most intense city for AI, between JFK, La Guardia, and Newark, that a lot of AI and scenery. I tried an experiment once having FS9 and FSX both installed on the same system. I lowered my FSX settings as far as autogen amount, and texture size and texture resolution to match FS9 to see what performance difference it would make, and truthfully it wasn't much. Then I cranked FSX back to my normal settings and did some equal flights in the LDS 767 in both sims to the same airports using the same conditions, and again, on my system the performance difference wasn't too much different.I think the slider that really effects FSX performance the most is where you set the Scenery Complexity slider. Some addon sceneries aren't effected by that slider like FSDT for example. So you could essentially lower the complexity slider down a bit to drown out some of the stuff that doesn't matter much if flying an airliner and still have the whole airport appear normally once you land. Also the choice of AI makes a difference in dense area. I use a mix of a lot of stuff, but the bulk comming from UT2. I can set it not to display traffic that is farther than X amount of miles from me, like 20 miles. That helps me in areas like NY because I am not getting traffic displayed from all the other airports farther than the distance I set.I think in the end, that you can make either sim act the way you want it to, provided you taylor it to perform to what type of flying you do.Either way, as long as we are all happy with the sim we have, these conversations are really meaningless and usually end up in a debate which goes no where.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same. I remember reading threads in AVSIM many years ago where a lot of members would post why they will not change from fs2002 to fs2004 because of many of the same arguments put forward here. Of course, everyone is entitled to expressing their opinion, but it should be supported by good reasons, not prejudice. To make claims that FSX does not run smoothly with high FPS, in the best planes, over the most concentrated sceneries, with high traffic loads is simply no longer valid.Right now, the modern amended version of FSX is so far beyond the capabilities and visuals of FS9 that they hardly resemble each other, and the spread is getting wider every month as new and exciting FSX advances are made. I am glad I deleted my FS9 files years ago, thereby abandoning dozens of payware sceneries and aircraft, but taking with me thousands of hours of growth and experience in order to be a supporter of, and to benefit from the future. It was, and still is, the right thing to do.Why? Because for too many years the division of FS investment and retail dollars between both FS9 and FSX has held up progress and delayed real advancement, but no more, as FSX is improving itself by leaps and bounds as is the machinery to run it. FS9 should be treated with the respect it deserves and allowed to die a natural death as it's time has come and gone. To hang on desperately to what once was, instead of what now is, can lead to a shared grave technologically. FS9 provided an excellent educational background for understanding and appreciating just how good things now are, and will be in FSX.It is understandable why avoiding new adventures, staying with the old and mastered customs and deep rooted habits, instead of growing and learning is perhaps favoured by many in the flightsim world. Perhaps age has a lot to do with it for many, or aversion to risk, which drives them to fly a computer in pretty much solitary isolation in the first place. Who knows? But one thing for sure, a new and exciting world in flightsimming is there for the taking with FSX for whosoever will.When something better comes along than FSX, I will switch platforms again, no problem. Been doing that since my first flightsim on the Apple 2e. No offence to anyone is meant by this post, but rightly or wrongly, that is what I think about all this resistance to change. To paraphrase Hamlet (Act III, scene 2): "Methinks thou doth protest too much." Then again, what does it matter? It is just a game, isn't it? Guess not...Kind Regards,Stephen

[windycloud 30]

And for FS9 each month there are updated BGL files avaible replacing the old internal FS Nav data (Europe, Africa & South America only) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/hsors/navaids2.html

Am I the only one who thinks this is a huge deal? How great would this be to include north america and then be made into a package up to payware standards. Forget about blah blah 9 vs. x. To be able to update navdata of FS itself is big.

[Dillon 2,197]

Ahhh, I was wondering when the two variables "100% AI" and "KJFK" would be introduced into the conversation, lol.In all seriousness though, buy me a copy of FSDT KJFK and I will test it and let you know what performance I can get. I will say this though as I am enroute to the stock KJFK from FSDT's ORD, using 100% AI (UT2, WOAI, and custom AI mix) and 8xs AA and 16AF, I can get a good 25 to 30 FPS on approach to the stock version. If I had the FSDT version of JFK I wouldn't imagine it would be much worse than what I get going into ORD. Frankly, I cant see how your FPS would be that bad unless the dual video cards and 16xQ AA is hurting you and you have a mulit-monitor setup. I have my card set up pretty similar to NickN's guide and have found that on my system going past 8xS AA doesn't improve my IQ at all.In the end though, the best thing to do is stick to FS9 if you dont get the performance you desire. Personally, I dont fly to KJFK all that often so that senario doesn't matter that much to me. However, if the bulk of your airliner flying is mostly just flying into JFK in the PMDG 747 with 300 AI around you and not being prudent with the sliders then FSX might not fit everyone. For me, I fly to many different airports, and so far I have yet to have any issues with airliners and 100% AI in FSX.@FlyHalf - I agree it is exciting times, for me even more so when the new NGX hits the market. That's the only airliner I have been missing SO much from FS9.

Reading this gives me a headache. I remember with FS9 all the tweaks needed to get things running smoothly. With enough time on the market all that was rendered mute in terms of getting more performance. With my current rig all I had to do was install it, apply the SP, and away I went. I don't have time for the tweaking game but I'm sure 'now' (as far as FSX is concerned) it won't be too long machines will be out able to run FSX with whatever add-ons you throw at it like FS9 (with the two SP's applied of course). That's what many 'smart' FS9 simmers are waiting on. First the machine that can run FSX without all the headaches of tweaks and second for that machine to be affordable. I believe with the creation of the i7's we're finally are on our way. Maybe the machine for FSX is the 'i9-300' or whatever it will be called. Until then like what was said before if you have to compromise things like AI and scenery options leaving FSX looking no better than FS9 now is not the time to switch. The i7 has got us running the default incarnation of FSX 'well' now we need an i9 that'll run FSX with add-ons and that'll be the time to take a serious look at it. Like others I don't have the money to constantly update hardware for FSX. I'd rather wait until the hardware arrives on the market then buy it. Buying one computer versus two or three over the 6 years FSX has been out is a far better use of my money.

[edetroit 933]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a huge deal? How great would this be to include north america and then be made into a package up to payware standards. Forget about blah blah 9 vs. x. To be able to update navdata of FS itself is big.

It would of course be wonderful.....which is why I learnt to update navdata myself.As for spirit flyer in the post above this one......let's all have a guess as to what type of aircraft he is likely to fly?1. Tupolev TU-1542. Cessna 152

[windycloud 30]

It would of course be wonderful.....which is why I learnt to update navdata myself.

Ed, are you saying you update FS2004 navdata yourself? Would you ever consider stepping into the payware field one day with wonders like that? Not to lure you with potential gain, I get the feeling that you don't care about that. I'm just asking for the benefit of the rest of us. :(

[SpiritFlyer 987]

As for spirit flyer in the post above this one......let's all have a guess as to what type of aircraft he is likely to fly?1. Tupolev TU-1542. Cessna 152

It's not hard to find out if you really want to know... :( Just check out the "Member Profile" section. They are listed:Spirit Flyer ProfileKind Regards,Stephen