aye aye all - i was wondering what differences, if any, there are between the FSX demo from the Microsoft website and the retail version available in the shops now? I've just tried the demo on my new rig to see how good it might be, but I wasn't desperately impressed. I mean, it looked nice and all that, but even with the settings pretty close to the far side of right, i didn't think it felt and looked much better than FS9 with the add-ons I have at the moment. I'm open to the idea of buying FSX just for the heck of it - my local computer shoppe has them going cheap, though having invested so much in FS9 over the years in add-ons that would now for the most part be redundant, I am still havering. So aye, have there been significant improvements in FSX (in terms of graphics and performance etc) since that demo came out? I run Windows 7 x64, i7-860, use crossfire ati 5770 cards, have 4gb ram and more hard-disk space than I'll ever need. ./s

I mean, it looked nice and all that, but even with the settings pretty close to the far side of right, i didn't think it felt and looked much better than FS9 with the add-ons I have at the moment.

Yes but imagine what FSX will look like with add-ons installed, its pretty obvious FSX is a big step up if it looks similar to FS9 fully loaded with add-ons.You will find that a lot of the airports by some devs include the FS2004 and FSX version for the same price, so if you have any of these you are at least part way there to populating your new sim.I'm not sure what code line the demo uses now but if its still the same as it was when it first came out, then yes there has been a significant improvement in performance with SP2 and Acceleration.

I've just reinstalled my OS and FSX today, so I've just had a look at what the RTM version was like and, as you've seen from the demo, it wasn't that hot. But I got Acceleration installed with the two SPs before long and things were looking more like what I'm used to seeing - good frame rates on very reasonable settings.I wouldn't judge FSX on the basis of the demo. As I recall back in '06 when it was released it was a pretty primitive thing.

I'm open to the idea of buying FSX just for the heck of it - my local computer shoppe has them going cheap, though having invested so much in FS9 over the years in add-ons that would now for the most part be redundant, I am still havering.

Get the Gold Edition; the price is so good I feel like picking up a couple of copies myself!

I wouldn't judge FSX on the basis of the demo. As I recall back in '06 when it was released it was a pretty primitive thing.

I agree, my version of FSX now looks no where like what the demo looked like and performs much better, and thats without the addons.MS should pull the demo so they dont scare anyone off.

I wouldn't judge FSX on the basis of the demo. As I recall back in '06 when it was released it was a pretty primitive thing.

<start_lethal_assumption> Aha - that's the bit I was after: the demo is (probably) still the original '06 demo, hence the retail version should be better.</end_lethal_assumption>I fly a lot of the Carenado planes which all come with free FSX upgrades, so that's grand. It's more things like the LevelD 767 and the CS757, which I bought for FS9 and neither of which are FSX compatible. I've only got one item of payware scenery (Scotflight, and most of the airports I fly to there are still 'default scenery) so that's not a huge problem. Oh, and not to forget things like REX and GEPro, both of which I bought for FS2004 - that'll be pure useless. Cheers for the info. I'll think about it some more..

<start_lethal_assumption> Aha - that's the bit I was after: the demo is (probably) still the original '06 demo, hence the retail version should be better.</end_lethal_assumption>

Well, that depends on what you call 'better': FSX with SP2 or Acceleration performs better, but the default scenery etc. didn't change. So when you fly above the demo area in the FSX retail version (with the updates) you will still see the same 'not so impressing' scenery... The real difference in scenery (just like with FS2004) comes when you get some scenery addons (specially Orbx is awesome for ground scenery and REX for environment (skies etc.)). BTW You can get REX for FSX with a USD$5.00 discount, but well, that ain't too much of course...

Well, that depends on what you call 'better': FSX with SP2 or Acceleration performs better, but the default scenery etc. didn't change. {snip!}BTW You can get REX for FSX with a USD$5.00 discount, but well, that ain't too much of course...

Yes, 'better' is very subjective. I guess I was expecting some kind of 'wow!' factor when i fired up FSX, but that failed to materialise. Not so much 'wow' as 'ah ... oh ...' As for REX, and for that matter GEPro and every other FS9-only add-on I have, in the idealistic utopia we all crave, it'd be great if there was an upgrade program where I pay, say, 12 euro to get an upgrade from FS9 to FSX, rather than having to fork out another 25 euro to buy the same product twice. I appreciate this is not how business is done (or at least, clever business is done), but it's probably the main reason for me not getting FSX. It may look nice, but I'm not too happy about having to re-purchase everything. Imagine if my co-pilot Mrs G found out ...

As for REX, and for that matter GEPro and every other FS9-only add-on I have, in the idealistic utopia we all crave, it'd be great if there was an upgrade program where I pay, say, 12 euro to get an upgrade from FS9 to FSX, rather than having to fork out another 25 euro to buy the same product twice.

HelloThe FSX version of the Level-D 767 which is completely FSX native not a simple port over cost me $14Not sure where you get the idea that the Level-D 767 is not FSX compatable.Microsoft did not give anyone a 12 euro upgrade price so why should a developer ?, especially as a providing a true FSX model means building a completely new model.I would rather pay twice for true FSX products than pay an upgrade price for something that is hastily ported over and drags my frames down.My view on FSX and FS9 is that if something that I really enjoyed in FS9 is available as a true FSX product then I will buy it again for the new sim, for example the Level-D 767 and the new Eaglesoft B400 when it arrives :( If it is only a port over then it will stay in FS9 and will fly it in that sim, for example The Leonardo Maddog 2010, along with all the favorites that will never make it over to FSX, Dreamfleet stuff , ect.Although I have bought a lot of native FSX aircraft I only have a few installed and it will stay that way, there is no way I can stay current with and fully enjoy more than a few complex aircraft, it is just too much study time when I fly something I haven't loaded up for a while. Airport devs usually provide versions for both sims in the same purchase so I already had a good supply of airport sceneries available.FSX has been the cheaper of the two sims to improve to a decent level as I have found no need for third party mesh and as a side benefit do not have the airport plateaus that I hated in FS9.Ultimate terrain is not the must have product it once was in FS9 as the FSX Navteq data is good enough for me so although I own it I do not presently have it installed.My advice is to continue to run and enjoy your FS9 setup whilst slowly adding to FSX as funds and time allow, view it as an ongoing project.You will soon reach a point where you are flying in FSX the most. And with the benefit of hindsight you already know what you like in your sim so just put in what you will definitely use and enjoy, it will most likely end up cheaper for you than FS9 was.Enjoy both Sims.