The good news, is that FS9 is a darn good sim.. but FSX is far superior... Post's like this don't open a discussion that hasn't been thoroughly hashed-out... they just seem like they come from an FSX yearning; knowing what they're missing; needing to sooth themselves... and that's OK to a point. But not in 2011. It's tiring, and leads to locked threads.The funny thing though, is that to someone actively piloting in the real-world at $150/hour; the difference in cost over an average computer life, between an FSX capable computer, and a "normal" replacement computer (FSX has been out for nearly 5 years), is almost an after-thought. And even if you're just a serious simmer, five years into FSX, and still not having an good, FSX computer borders on oxymoronic.I can surely relate to having thousands wrapped up in add-ons, but again, a serious simmer knows that each version is temporary, and add-ons have shelf-life.The DOUBLE good news, is that FSX still has gobs of potential... as add-ons improve, and computers get faster.

Absolutely "Right On", Brett!

You and me, too, Meshman! ... The scenario:- an XT, keyboard and a monochrome monitor (two-color, gold or blank) and the onboard speaker...Meigs an a 150. Man - this is great! I never thought we could fly on a computer!! WOW!! all with five guys over your shoulder - in awe! "Lemme try!

I was "spoiled" then, as my first "flightsim" ran on a Commodore SX-64 "Executive" with a 5' color monitor (although the actual display was green wireframe)... :(

It's not exactly a big secret that FSX doesn't utilize the hardware very efficiently. You're definitely not going to have a good experience running it with a lot of eye candy on mediocre hardware (like the 6870 and Q9650, hint hint). We could have saved you a lot of trouble if you had just asked before investing your time and money.With a decent GPU and the new i7 2600k CPU (which is easily overclocked to over 5Ghz) you'll have a really nice experience though.But of course, as a true simmer you already know this.I run FSX using resolution 5760x1080 (3 screens) with Level-D 767, UTX, REX, GEX, MyTraffic X and the other common addons, plus the fantastic Bojote tweaks, and I rarely see the FPS go below 40.I'm a happy gamer.

It is March, 2011...and I am still batting for FS2004. I have read several posts that people have written asking if they should switch to FSX or not. I have also read many of the answers to these posts. If you have not switched by now, you are probably like me. It is important to understand that many FSX and FS2004 users are not “simmers”…they are “gamers”. There is a difference. A gamer plays a game for the enjoyment purpose rather than the simulation experience. A gamer starts his plane on the runway, takes off, and does loops until he is sick of playing then turns it off, which is great for him/her if that’s what they want to do. A simmer, on the other hand, starts with the plane parked at a gate or ramp, uses real weather, real checklists, real charts, and most likely is flying an upgraded plane in which every system is fully simulated. It is not uncommon for a simmer to spend an hour on the ground before even making it to the runway. I bring up the difference so you (the user) can understand that there are two completely different philosophies with this program. Are you a gamer or a simmer? This software is great for either category...just know which one you are. If you are a gamer- either FS9 or FSX will work provided that your computer is adequate for it. If you are a simmer…read on. I can only tell you my level of experience and offer my advice. Some may disagree with me, but unless they have 15 years of “simming” and 9 years of actual flying like I do then they are likely wrong. I have Owned every MSFS since 1995- great software that continues to impress us serious simmers. I Have had FS2004 since 2004 and have nearly every "quality" upgrade available, over 140 (or $2,500) individual add-ons. My System:Windows 7 Pro 64-bit Q9650 3.0 Core 2 Quad Single Radeon HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 GPU 8Gb DDR3 RAM In FS2004, I have everything set as high as it can go. Traffic, weather, autogen….everything all the way up. On final to ORD in the 2010 Maddog Pro at it’s peak traffic time Im hitting 30+ FPS in FS2004 with everything cranked. With Ground Environment, Flight Environment, REX Extreme, Ultimate Traffic, and an awesome FS Dream Team KORD, the experience is truly very realistic- and that frame rate is certainly welcome given those settings. Wish I could say the same for FSX. I Bought the deluxe version (w/ acceleration pack) after procrastinating since it’s release and installed five upgrades immediately: Ultimate Terrain X Ultimate Traffic II Ground Environment X Imagine Sim KATL X 1 tile of Megascenery Earth I stopped right there. I’m not going to spend another dime. When I went from 30+ FPS in FS2004 on final to a very detailed KORD in a very detailed aircraft with everything cranked to less than 10 fps in FSX without max settings, it was obvious. I just wasted about $150 on FSX and the upgrades. Remember- I am a simmer....what matters to me is different than what matters to gamers. Those FPS are simply intolerable. I tried to make it work, honestly. I tweaked the cfg file, overclocked my CPU, and slashed the settings that didnt matter to me...still not good enough. Us serious simmers demand at least 18 fps at all times and even that’s low. We want the best. We don’t want to settle with 50% ai traffic, half the autogen, and crappy textures in order to get 9 fps. We want the best and the highest FPS right along with it. Sure, FSX has its pros. Animated animals, cars, and jetways along with wet runways are just a few. But if you are a "simmer", you probably dont care about those things. You care more about the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars you have invested in this hobby. This post is aimed at the long-time simmer who has yet to make the switch. Unless you have the best CPU, Main Board, RAM, and GPU (In that order!)...on top of the willingness to kick the majority of your add-ons to the curb- stick with FS2004.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had no idea that with your specs you could experience poor performance when using FSX. It was a real EYE opener.

No wait, let me get this straight: a simmer is somebody who flies a plane with every setting crancked to max? Because that's how you make it sound right now... Before you start dissing FSX, get a better computer. Wants you ahve done that, liek many of us, your eyes will pop out when you fly into KJFK. I have REX, I have FSDT's KJFK, I have Aerosoft's Manhattan, I have +/- 482 WoAI packages, I have MegaSceneryEarth NYC Citypack and I have several high quality aircraft (Leonardo Maddog, PMDG 747, LDS 767 etc etc). Try all of that together, and you will go "wow". FS2004 will never be able to rival that. The added visuals for these kind of approaches are defeintely worth the FPS drop.Agh, why do I even bother. Some people will just always keep complaining that they can't run FSX, and in doing so, will insult FSX users, just so they themselves will seem to be the "better" party, saying stuff like "we're real simmers, because we won't sacrifice performance for eyecandy". Irritates me to no end.Brett, you're absolutely right. Have you checked out Flightbeam's KSFO? Great addon!

Why do these arguments always hinge on not being able to max out all the sliders? I find that graphically, FSX looks about like FS9 (with maxed sliders) with the sliders on average about 1/4 to 1/3. At those levels, FSX performs very well. Sure, it drops if you put them all the way to the right. However, at that point, FSX is just jaw dropping compared to FS9. Add a few add-ons like GEX and REX (which FS9 users almost certainly use their FS9 equivalents...sometimes freeware equivalents) and FSX is really quite immersive. We'll see what MS Flight looks like, but with the amount of potential left for 3rd party developers in FSX, I think there are many years left. On the other hand, FS9 is largely maxed out. Sure, new airports and aircraft can be made, but little in the way of new features (i.e. the VRS F/A-18E has reached the poly maximum in FS9 and FSDT's new GSX can't even be made for FS9 for technical reasons).

For the mature adults here- I hope my original post helps you decide weather or not you have a capable enough rig to make the switch. After all, preventing you from making a bad decision and wasting money is my intent. For everyone else-Seriously? This is not "You Tube". I would like to think we are a community of individuals who share the same common interest- Aviation. Grow up.

"Some may disagree with me, but unless they have 15 years of “simming” and 9 years of actual flying like I do then they are likely wrong"I have 40 years of actual flying and too many years of simming to count, and FSX has it all over FS9. Its obvious you dont have your system set up correctly, but by all means, enjoy FS9

Well congratulations to you.

Why do these arguments always hinge on not being able to max out all the sliders? I find that graphically, FSX looks about like FS9 (with maxed sliders) with the sliders on average about 1/4 to 1/3. At those levels, FSX performs very well. Sure, it drops if you put them all the way to the right. However, at that point, FSX is just jaw dropping compared to FS9. Add a few add-ons like GEX and REX (which FS9 users almost certainly use their FS9 equivalents...sometimes freeware equivalents) and FSX is really quite immersive. We'll see what MS Flight looks like, but with the amount of potential left for 3rd party developers in FSX, I think there are many years left. On the other hand, FS9 is largely maxed out. Sure, new airports and aircraft can be made, but little in the way of new features (i.e. the VRS F/A-18E has reached the poly maximum in FS9 and FSDT's new GSX can't even be made for FS9 for technical reasons).

This was not meant to be an argument at all. However, this is a forum in true form. People take an original post, spin it the way they want to, and bam- all of a sudden it turns into a slamfest. Thank you for your insightful reply though....

For the mature adults here- I hope my original post helps you decide weather or not you have a capable enough rig to make the switch. After all, preventing you from making a bad decision and wasting money is my intent. For everyone else-Seriously? This is not "You Tube". I would like to think we are a community of individuals who share the same common interest- Aviation. Grow up.

How generous of you to take away from your serious simming time and post *your* opinions about FSX and the hardware required to make it look it's best. After all, FSX has only been on the market for almost 4.5 years...I make this comment as an adult, mature is for others to decide, but please try FSX again at the settings outlined in my prior posting and let us know how your system does. I suggest this not to denigrate FS9 in any manner, but as a means for you and maybe others to realize that there is more to FSX then just setting all sliders right to be a "serious simmer". FSX offers capabilities that just are not possible in an of the previous versions. To be locked in primarily on where the sliders are suggests a myopic view of what a serious simmer should be seeing.

A game is a competition that has a goal, where it is possible to win. That is the definition of a game. A simulator can be a game (for example in the case of a simmer playing one of the scenarios / missions). The biggest advantage FSX has over FS9 in the simulation department is SimConnect in my opinion. SimConnect makes it possible to vastly increase the complexity and accuracy of the simulation, unfortunately FS9 does not have this feature and this will limit FS9 when it comes to the simulation aspect of the game. FSX simply has the potential to be a greater simulation platform than FS9.

No wait, let me get this straight: a simmer is somebody who flies a plane with every setting crancked to max? Because that's how you make it sound right now... Before you start dissing FSX, get a better computer. Wants you ahve done that, liek many of us, your eyes will pop out when you fly into KJFK. I have REX, I have FSDT's KJFK, I have Aerosoft's Manhattan, I have +/- 482 WoAI packages, I have MegaSceneryEarth NYC Citypack and I have several high quality aircraft (Leonardo Maddog, PMDG 747, LDS 767 etc etc). Try all of that together, and you will go "wow". FS2004 will never be able to rival that. The added visuals for these kind of approaches are defeintely worth the FPS drop.Agh, why do I even bother. Some people will just always keep complaining that they can't run FSX, and in doing so, will insult FSX users, just so they themselves will seem to be the "better" party, saying stuff like "we're real simmers, because we won't sacrifice performance for eyecandy". Irritates me to no end.Brett, you're absolutely right. Have you checked out Flightbeam's KSFO? Great addon!

Well hello Mr. Interpretation.....How about you re-read my post and highlight where I dis FSX and "insult" it's users. I listed my specs so that someone else w/ a similar rig will know where they stand. Why did you even respond?

HiiFlyer,First you come in here and insult our intelligence and then call some of us immature.I honestly believe that you should check your attitude, especially where you clearly state that you could know more than most.You've contributed just a few posts, and so far I'm not fond of your attitude and your degrading comments.Hasta La Vista!

I know this post is very 'troll-like, but it so smacked of condescension, mild arrogance and generalization, and so many points, that I just have to respond. B) Why would I spend an hour in the cockpit of an A2A Spitfire, or a SibWings BirdDog, or an IRIS Christen Eagle? Does that mean I'm not a 'simmer'??? :( It takes me roughly fifteen minutes to get the LH Maddog ready to pushback. What one earth would warrant an hour on the ground?? ..so that I can understand?? Pretty condescending don't you think? "Likely wrong"?? You may not realise it, but some of us have a whole lot more time flying r/w as well as a whole lot more time simming. Mediocre. Both Megascenery AND ImagineSim suck. Try some OrbX/FTX, FSDreamTeam & FlyTampa. You "tried"? You didn't try very hard, did you? ... and most 'serious' simmers get all of that, and a whole lot more!!! :( Really? I would suggest you have this one fully backwards. B) You're kind of late in saying that, considering how long FSX has been out. It may have been valid during the first year of FSX's life, but not now. Pretty poor post: bad taste and a very small minority opinion.Cheers! :(

Why did you respond to this? Congrats on all of your success....seriously. Im sure you are very proud of yourself. And bravo for being able to get to the runway in 15 minutes- really- thats great. Maybe you should re-read the post and you'll find that it doesnt apply to you. You are obviously very happy with FSX. Have all the add-ons for it....so on and so on. So why would you reply to a post where a guy is simply trying to prevent someone else with a "mediocre" rig from wasting money thinking that it is good enough. Oh- and by the way....you are not a "Simmer" (as I define it).

The usual...*sigh*A few negative posts about the OP in this thread, and positive answers in the FS9 thread... Surprise! :( I'm happy you enjoy FS9, nothin' wrong with that. The only thing that ####### me off is when you theorize that because you're a real pilot, (I'm a real pilot and air traffic controller) FS9 is the "real" sim. It may be real enough for you, but I prefer the (far superior) textures, incredible addon aircraft, and basic ground scenery at airports over Nine anyday. Good luck with your sim!

Dude C'mon. You, like everyone else, has read way too into that post. Where did I theorize that FS9 was a "real" sim and use my actual pilot experience to back it? There are so many of us "simmers" that had the same question over varying times in the last 5 years....."Will my system run FSX to my satisfaction"? My post, hopefully, answered that question for the next guy that asks it. Thats it. Dont fall victim to the forum mob mentality.