Some of you are taking this poll results WAAAYYYY too seriously. This is not an election or a vote on a contract, just a user who put the question out there.

Eat More Fruit!

I would really like to enjoy FSX, but as I fly heavies and my specs are not high enough I much prefer to stay with FS9. In the near future with a good rig I may consider a transition, but not until frames are acceptable with add-ons installed.

My frames are not too bad actually.BUT:No weather radar nor 777 or 757 (PSS) in FSX.Water in FSX looks like a pond!Default scenery in FSX looks like it is all over the place.London, the Thames has rapids!!!!!I love the weather in FSX, but for me I'll need some PAYWARE aircraft of equal quality to PSS (Level D is on FSX BUT no WXR!).I managed to port over the PSS 777 but have issues with engine starts and a few small things that turn you off.I am pretty sure FSX can use the FS2004 add-on scenery, that is nice.My wishlist for FSX. Water and world scenery to be fixed (I have the Gold edition)Payware aircraft for the A330-300, 777 and 757. I know Level D is doing the 757.I will probably get a weather smoother as the textures in FSX for clouds are beautiful already.Daniel

Well, I got FSX as a gift probably two years ago ant thouht this would work as good as FS9 works but I got really disappointed and so I didn´t use FSX for quite a long time. I started flying FSX as I got my new system, but it can´t handle FSX that well as it does FS9. So i´ll stick with FS9 till I´ll get a new system. Flying FSX with G/A and Fs9 for the heavies.

Love both sims. FS9 for my big iron and FSX for G/A.

What he said..... :)Mitch

Same here. The reason FSX forum is so busy is there all trying to FIX IT and resolve their problems, whilst us FS2004ers are flying. Everyone there has a better mouse trap. Unfortunatly you have to convince the mouse to eat the cheese! I use FSX for GA flying quite often and it works well. But for larger more complicated aircraft and scenery. Its FS2004 all the way. I believe "they" just overcomplicated FSX. It is what it is and there is no getting back to good. With any hope. perhaps the next version will incorporate the best of the two. I'm not holding my breath nor greatly anticipating it.

Good statement.Daniel

Flying FS9...FSX is only good for tweaking :(

Do also note the FSX forum used to be the FS2004 forum so there are many archived posts intherethat ideally should have been inhere.Only after the users asked for distinction between the two did Avsim make that distinctionas they like everyone else figured FS9 would soon be gone in favor of FSX.

Hello.I have installed both FS.9 and Fs.X on the same computer.I use fs.9 95% of the time.I rarely use the FSX, just some VFR flying with the cessna, and some of the Posky heavy aircraft with VC. cocpit. The Fs.9 have also so many good gauges and panels, that is not compatible with FsX, and I also miss the 2D sideviews in the cocpits that was removed by FSX.Microsoft Windows 7 ProfessionalVersjon 6.1.7600 Build 7600Systemprodusent AlienwareSystemmodell AuroraSystemtype x64-based PCProsessor Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz, 2668 Mhz, 4 kjerne®, 8 logiske prosessorBIOS-versjon/-dato Alienware A10, 7/30/2010SMBIOS-versjon 2.5Hardware Abstraction Layer Versjon = "6.1.7600.16385"Installed memory (RAM) 6.00 GBTake care.Lars Peter.

Both. FS9 for the Aeroworx King Air 200. FSX for everything else.

Both installed. Right now 90% FS9 10% FSX (FSX for testing) I would fly FSX more often if I had the hardware.Rob

Got both...Loved some of the missions in FSX (I never knew i could handle helicopters!)...But alas, i fly the big birds and my system can't handle FSX with those :( FS9 runs like the wind though...(Loved the james bond theme mish in X...2 hours, boy it was worth it):(

I have both installed on one computer, but two separate drives. I typically use FS9 about 75% of the time.

FS9 is probably the best flight sim that microsoft has come out with.4+ years after FS9 came out Core Duo CPU's were the mainstream virtually eliminating FPS problems. Flying the PMDG 737 or LVLD 767 into FLightZone Portland with steady 30+ FPS maxed out settings feels like a SIMULATION , not some cheap computer game!Now in 2011, 4+ years after FSX came out , you still have issues with stutters, blurries, choppy gameplay, you name itIf history is any indication , a good I5, I7 or Sandy Bridge CPU SHOULD run FSX around 80-90 % settings with 25+ FPS even with complex payware and airports. When you have users complaining that even with CPU's closing in on 4GHZ , GTX 460 and up and 6 Gigs or RAM you still have poor performance, there is a problem with the game design , NOT the hardware running it! Don't get me wrong , FSX when running SMOOTH really looks amazing ( especilaly with ORBX scenery). Plus FSX renders mountain scenery ( espcially the Canadian Rockies etc) much better!) However , it is too bad that the textures used in FlightZone Portland ( my opinion the best Flight sim add-on ever made!) cannot be expanded ( as like Orbx) to include a big regional area. Those textures can give FSX a run for its money with almost flawless performance.

i have both installed, fs9 all the way...

I have both installed but I have not touched fs9 in a very long time, and now that I have orbx I doubt I'll ever use it again, but I do miss the rain on the VC and the snow effects.