Hey guys,I´ve been using FS9 for quite sometime now. For a number of years my rig wasn´t exactly up to par with the specs necessary to have a very smooth simulation, specially considering the fact that I only fly Precision Manuals acft. About a year ago I finally upgraded my system to something that can really handle FS9. I used to fly with frustrating low to midrange display settings but took out that frustration in my boxing matches. Apart from PMDG´s NG and Queen for FS9, I now own a number of high-end add-on sceneries. Finally I´ve been flying on FS9 the way it was always meant to be. Flying online in a busy Frankfurt afternoon with the queen, using ASE and Aerosoft´s scenery, my frames never ever drop below 20. And all sliders are pretty much maxed out. Therefore I´m quite happy with FS9 thank you very much.So I´m thinking: apart from the bliss of flying the NGX, is it really worth it to make the jump? Are the graphics so much better? Is there anything else that makes it worthwhile? From the stuff I´ve read here and elsewhere, users have a hard time getting good frames in FSX using rigs that humble my own. Firstly I´d have to go back to usign stock scenery which is pretty hard to do after you´re used to the good add-ons sceneries available out there. For one my system wouldn´t be able to handle the added burden of quality add-on sceneries, and two, I don´t think I´m willing to spend upwards of 200 bucks on stuff I already own for FS9. Couple that with the fact that I´d already have to spend money buying the NGX and FSX and there you have it. From what I can gather in this forum the rigs you guys have set up to use FSX are state-of-the art desktop PCs. And even then I´ve been noticing some of you have trouble with the framerates. It appears for now that I would rather keep FS9 and keep flying the good onl NG in a fantastic and immersive environment rather than start flying the NGX in an environment with no clouds, horrible airports and desertic landscapes. Now I´d like to hear from all of you whether that´s really the case. I am running Windows XP 32 bits on a Quad Core 2 @ 2.33 GHz and 2 GB of RAM. My video card is an Nvidia GeForce 9400GT with 512mb. Pretty lame huh? :)

I would say its woth it for sure.The Graphics are a lot better I think. Especially the water graphics. But as you mentioned, you have to have a good PC to handle it. I built my rig about a year ago, and I have used FSX for a year, before that I was a hardcore fs9 supporter, but only because I did'nt have the machine to run fsx at that time.If you plan to build a new rig, then I would recommend making the switch, but with your system specs, I would not expect to by running fsx at high settings. :)I Would recommend 4 gigs of Ram, a cpu you can overclock to 3.2 GHz or higher, and a good graphics card with 1 gb or more en memory. And not to forget win7 64 bit version.But if you are willing to spend some $ on a new rig it is worth it.

If you have the right PC, it's a better simulator. I've never gone back although FS9 is a very good simulator.

No polar walls, round earth and improved time algorithm ((due to round earth) I still sucks but still :) )

I'm always pretty shocked at how dated FS9 looks now whenever I have to go back and do something in it for support reasons and so on. Even with UT and GE Pro, the texture resolution is just so low compared to FSX. Everything's blurry, it looks like there's hardly any autogen even maxed out etc. Another thing I notice right away is how much better the camera system is in FSX - in FS9 you just have those preset zoom levels in the VC that it snaps between - in FSX you can smoothly zoom between them plus pan around with the mouse while holding spacebar. FSX looks and operates consistently better I think. What we're doing with the NGX isn't even possible in FS9 - the HGS, the crazy texture resolution, a bunch of systems related stuff - none of it.

here a md11 shot flying over englandthis would be impossible with fs9

I am running Windows XP 32 bits on a Quad Core 2 @ 2.33 GHz and 2 GB of RAM. My video card is an Nvidia GeForce 9400GT with 512mb. Pretty lame huh? :)

Hi,your system seems to be a little bad for FSX but i think if you don't want that much 3D buildings on the ground than your computer should be able to handle FSX with about 20frames per second. (I think, no guranteeYou say that u use Aerosofts EDDF? That runns on FSX as well as on FS9 as far as i know. But you should get more RAM. 4BG should be there at least. Otherwise you could get trouble with crashes of the sim saying that there isn't any cache left and then the sim closes without even giving you the possibility to save your flight. Win XP 32bit isn't a problem. I've been running my FSX for 1 1/2 year on Win XP 32bits and i've switched only because i wanted to run the FS labs Concorde. And just to inform you: There are a few other planes for FSX avaleble out there which have a PMDG like systemdepth as the Flight Sim Labs Concorde, the CS 707 or the VRS F/A 18 if you're also interested in military flying. Everything only for FSX but very worth it's money.So if i'd be you then i would switch to FSX.And by the way: I have an Dual Core @2.6 GHz, 4GB Ram and a GeForce 9500GT and i'm a happy FSX flyer even though it's a bit slowly sometimes, but there are many programms out there which you can use to increase your frames.It's worth it beleave me. And just for the case that you'd like to use FS9 again, you don't need to delete it because you want to use FSX :( Many RegardsEmi

Your system would run FSX with things turned down from a graphics standpoint, but you'd probably want to beef some bits up to make it an enjoyable exercise.That said, if you want realism, it's fairly clear even at this point prior to release that the PMDG FSX 737 is going to be in a completely different league to any other PC-based flight sim aircraft you will be able to get your hands on, so if realism is your thing, rather than pretty graphics, FSX would certainly be worth a look with PMDG's new NG.The best things in life may be free, but the best desktop-based 737 won't be, although if you like system fidelity, I suspect you'll find it will be worth the price.Al

I immensely enjoy FSX, but find it hard to recommend what to do as there are many different answers to this question. FSX is amazing from a graphics standpoint, and although it does have its hiccups it is a large leap (to me anyway) over FS9. Especially when you look at the things PMDG, A2A, VRS, and FS Labs (among others) have done. A lot of these developers themselves are amazed at what can be done, and are continually pushing the limits of what can be done. As well as scenery developers (just look at Fly! Tampa, Aerosoft, and ORBX). I think FSX is worth it, but his is my primary hobby so I do not have money going to any other kind of hobby. To a lot of people it is not financially justifiable, and I respect that point as well. I know myself I am crazy, but I love aviation. FSX is the closest I will ever come to actually flying a lot of the planes I want to fly, and to fly as close a replica as I think is physically possible without spending millions of dollars.

Really Victor only you can answer that one.....Yes fsx has better graphics, round earth, etc but if you are happy with fs9 then stick with it until you feel like replacing your pc. Only then consider the change to fsx... and by the way fs9 will still run on a more speedy pc.John Ellison

Hey guys,I´ve been using FS9 for quite sometime now. For a number of years my rig wasn´t exactly up to par with the specs necessary to have a very smooth simulation, specially considering the fact that I only fly Precision Manuals acft. About a year ago I finally upgraded my system to something that can really handle FS9. I used to fly with frustrating low to midrange display settings but took out that frustration in my boxing matches. Apart from PMDG´s NG and Queen for FS9, I now own a number of high-end add-on sceneries. Finally I´ve been flying on FS9 the way it was always meant to be. Flying online in a busy Frankfurt afternoon with the queen, using ASE and Aerosoft´s scenery, my frames never ever drop below 20. And all sliders are pretty much maxed out. Therefore I´m quite happy with FS9 thank you very much.So I´m thinking: apart from the bliss of flying the NGX, is it really worth it to make the jump? Are the graphics so much better? Is there anything else that makes it worthwhile? From the stuff I´ve read here and elsewhere, users have a hard time getting good frames in FSX using rigs that humble my own. Firstly I´d have to go back to usign stock scenery which is pretty hard to do after you´re used to the good add-ons sceneries available out there. For one my system wouldn´t be able to handle the added burden of quality add-on sceneries, and two, I don´t think I´m willing to spend upwards of 200 bucks on stuff I already own for FS9. Couple that with the fact that I´d already have to spend money buying the NGX and FSX and there you have it. From what I can gather in this forum the rigs you guys have set up to use FSX are state-of-the art desktop PCs. And even then I´ve been noticing some of you have trouble with the framerates. It appears for now that I would rather keep FS9 and keep flying the good onl NG in a fantastic and immersive environment rather than start flying the NGX in an environment with no clouds, horrible airports and desertic landscapes. Now I´d like to hear from all of you whether that´s really the case. I am running Windows XP 32 bits on a Quad Core 2 @ 2.33 GHz and 2 GB of RAM. My video card is an Nvidia GeForce 9400GT with 512mb. Pretty lame huh? :)

Well you could get away with 3 gigs of ram minimum without issues (I know this because I had a stick go bad and I run PMDG 747-4 and many other aircraft just fine without any stuttering). To answer your question I would have to say it's more than worth it. And not just because of any one thing in particular but the whole realm of changes within the sim. The moment you load up say one of the Red Bull missions in the VC for the first time you'll see what I mean ;)>. But you will want to get your sim 'tweaked' asap even before firing it up. *******'s (Hey-sus) ( bojote on forums) tweaks are what you will need to do to get it running good. His online tool can be located here http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html Make sure to use the FPS limiter too - it works wonders.

I am a die hard FS9 fan but I thought I cannot criticise FSX without looking at it at least. Initial impression is that the scenery is definitely better and the stock aircraft return good frame rates with smooth flying. However I have not been able to get past that because of the constant CTDs when accessing menus. I googled this problem and found that there is really no known cure.It has killed it for me. I am not going to shell out $500 odd dollars to get FSX to where I have FS9 now with it crashing around my ears all the time and then , it seems, with good payware aircraft and scenery to see the frame rates plummet. It seems that whenever anything to do with FSX comes up in these forums it has to do with CTDs, poor frame rates or fixes that rarely seem to work in sorting out the inherent flakiness of the programme. I would love the NGX but cannot live with with FSX. I want to fly the thing not spend all my time fiddling with the insides of it.Gerry

Yes.Get FTX NA BLUE (PNW, NRM, PFJ), then there Lancair IV-P and top it off with REX 2.0. That will keep you busy for awhile (more than a few months, if not years!). If GA is not your button pusher, grab some PMDG stuff aswell as the latest from Captain Sim with some international airports from FlyTampa, FSDreamteam or the orbx oz international airports. :)

I am a die hard FS9 fan but I thought I cannot criticise FSX without looking at it at least. Initial impression is that the scenery is definitely better and the stock aircraft return good frame rates with smooth flying. However I have not been able to get past that because of the constant CTDs when accessing menus. I googled this problem and found that there is really no known cure.It has killed it for me. I am not going to shell out $500 odd dollars to get FSX to where I have FS9 now with it crashing around my ears all the time and then , it seems, with good payware aircraft and scenery to see the frame rates plummet. It seems that whenever anything to do with FSX comes up in these forums it has to do with CTDs, poor frame rates or fixes that rarely seem to work in sorting out the inherent flakiness of the programme. I would love the NGX but cannot live with with FSX. I want to fly the thing not spend all my time fiddling with the insides of it.Gerry

Come on, the CDT accessing menus has a very well known fix. The UIAutomationcore.dll fix. It's explained in this same section here (see issue #1): http://forum.avsim.net/topic/280688-graphics-corruption-in-fsx-update-possible-solution-found/

Question for you computer savvy guys,I currently have a pretty decent pc:CPU: Intel Quad Q8200 (2.33Ghz)GPU: Nvidia 9800 GTRAM: 8GBOS: Vista 64xNow, as some of you know, the Intel Quad Q8200 (2.33Ghz) is a slot 775 or something processor, meaning that upgrading my processor would probably lead me down the road of getting a new CPU/RAM/Mobo/PSU.I am asking what sounds like the best course of action, were you in my shoes: Would you upgrade your Intel Quad Q8200 to an Intel Quad 9950 (2.83ghz) at $330 and stick with the older slot 775 motherboard/ram, or upgrade the entire PC and go for an i7 with newer RAM?FSX is really the only reason I'd have to upgrade. I do play other PC games, but I find FS to be the only game I ever play that gives a damn about what type of processor I have. Thoughts?