Hi Guys,I have been away from Flight sim for a while. I have a Win 7 system now not sure whether to stay with FS9 or go for FSX. looking at You Tube FS9 seems better not sure though?I like flying Level D B767 and the PMDG B744Any advice would be much appreciated.Best Wishes,Chris

Stick with FS9 for now and move onto to MS Flight after a couple of years.

Chris,Although I personally agree with Tristan, bear in mind this is an FS9 forum. You can guess the replies.Now go to the FSX forum and guess again what they will tell you. :(

If you have both installers, try them and see for yourself :D If not,try thinking of the way you fly.If you fly mainly low altitudes such as VFR then FSX is your choice thenIf you fly IFR with hobby of travelling to many destinations, then Fs9 should fit you.Since a Win7 system is soo general, it could be powerful to Fs9,but not to FSX.

Great Advice guys! Many Thanks I will stick with FS9 for now Best Wishes,Chris

Stick with FS9 for now and move onto to MS Flight after a couple of years.

I agree - you can achieve fantastic realism and a very smooth performance from FS9 now using just a few carefully chosen addons (for which you can find plenty of recommendations throughout this forum). I am certainly going to wait for MSFlight and see what that is like before I reinvest a large amount of additional cash for a new set up.Bill

Chris,Although I personally agree with Tristan, bear in mind this is an FS9 forum. You can guess the replies.Now go to the FSX forum and guess again what they will tell you. :(

Rafal, is right and sorry my reply was a little rushed. I tend to buy 'every other' simulator. Fs2000 was a bit hideous although at the time I had a very slow computer, I did not buy Fs2002, but when I purchased Fs9 I thought it was a gem ( still do actually ) FSX obviously, (although not for some) was an advancment on FS9 which I did not buy. If you go over to the Flight forum you will see various screen shots and in my opinion FLight looks very promising indeed, although nobody knows for sure when it will be released. I can only speculate (but not promise) that the price of FS9 products will drop when the release of Flight is due. Personally, I am sticking with FS9 until Flight has been released and up and running. Then, if finance allows, re:invest in a new box of tricks that will run Flight. Other contributors have made valid points about using FSX and as Rafal has said it might be an idea to post this over in the FSX forum. If Flight looked a bit of a disaster, I would certainly be looking to migrate to FSX any time now. For now, FS9 with all the add-ons and enhancements gives me every bit of enjoyment I could hope for.Tristan

FS9 was out in 2003 and FSX in 2006. It is 2011, and still people argue which is better. I have them both installed. I run FS9 with all sliders to the right except cloud coverage at 60 miles and AA@8x supersampling. I can fly any complex aircraft with any detailed scenery(I have more than 150). AI @ 100% beautiful models. My FPS locked at 24 and the lowest I get is 19.FSX on the other hand, All sliders to the middle except for global texture to the right. AI@ 50% and awful My Traffic models. Default aircrafts on detailed scenery or complex aircrafts with defaults scenery is OK but not both. Application AA and multisampiling, FPS locked externally @30 and I get from 14 FPS. Some users say if you overclock your processor, you get better FPS, but I refuse to do it just to run a 2006 application.The bottom line is, with GEPro and REX I can get FS9 to look close to FSX, so why bother with low FPS. I prefer to wait for MSFlight.P.S. When FS9 came out I uninstalled FS2002 and I never looked back.

I agree with the concensus so far. FSX a frame rate hogger and not worth it but FS9 with all add ons is brilliant and looks like FSX.I am impressed with Microsoft Flight and am going to buy when its released. Meanwhile staying with FS9.Interesting that there are still new scenery releases for FS9 which keep me happy - this weekend even Aerosoft have released Vilnius which as an airport I have never flown into but will try out for the experienceBought FS9 in 2004 and never looked back but I am more than willing to move on when the time is rightJohn

Hi... Yeah - there are a few of us FS9 diehards still around... I'm more GA centric - and - I still think FS9 has some of the best GA planes around... I have most of the DreamFleet stuff since the Bonanza and the early Carenado stuff... Everything Carenado made from the FS9 Arrow really seemed to have a pretty poor flight models and serious bugs... I actually requested a refund on the Arrow - first time for ANY FS product... It's a shame - because visually - their work is unsurpassed... I don't know what happened - I really liked the FDE in the Carenado Cherokee 180, C182RG, and the Mooney J... I still check the Carenado forum often - but - I still see many serious complaints... The only thing that really temps me with FSX simulator is the Orbx products... They look incredible... I'm a fan of high frame rates - so while I have both FSX and FS9 loaded - I spend way more time in FS9...Regards,Scott

Well, 1 month agoi had a C2Q 9550 and a gtx 275, i tried FSX so many many times, with short flights low and slow with a plane like carenado´s, i had no problem in fly FSX, but my passion is heavy metal, i bought QW 757 and the FPS in a flight like JFK-ORD was unaceptable, single digits FPS is not possible for me. I was very sad because i wanted to stick with FSX for all types of planes, not only for VRF flights. So when i go back to FS9, all was smooth, always 35-40 FPS, high levels of AA (8xS supersampling) and fly FS9 with such details and very good stable FPS was a authentic pleasure.But, all have an end, and 1 month ago i upgraded my pc to the specs in my signature, and now, basically the performance i had in FS9 i have now in FSX ( well, with some settings not maxed like autogen in very high, and water in low.2, and traffic on 50% using my traffic), now, FSX is stable, fast, and... beautiful, my first flight was a short one, KBOS-KJFK in a QW 757, and i almost cried when my eyes seen a 23.5 fps on 31R short final. At this point it not make any sence to try FS9 again, because the only thing that FS9 was suitable for me, was on heavy metal, and now FSX can do all the job.I loved FS9 and still love it, the relationship was so emotional when i see videos or my old screens, i miss FS9, but soon or later this had to happen.My opinion is, if you have a capable pc, FSX is a outstanding experience, but if you dont have the pc to run it great, you will feel a big frustration, i know it because i tried and was not possible. So, like me and many other mates here, Stick with the amazing FS9, until you can get FSX running great.Cheers!

Well, 1 month agoi had a C2Q 9550 and a gtx 275, i tried FSX so many many times, with short flights low and slow with a plane like carenado´s, i had no problem in fly FSX, but my passion is heavy metal, i bought QW 757 and the FPS in a flight like JFK-ORD was unaceptable, single digits FPS is not possible for me. I was very sad because i wanted to stick with FSX for all types of planes, not only for VRF flights. So when i go back to FS9, all was smooth, always 35-40 FPS, high levels of AA (8xS supersampling) and fly FS9 with such details and very good stable FPS was a authentic pleasure.But, all have an end, and 1 month ago i upgraded my pc to the specs in my signature, and now, basically the performance i had in FS9 i have now in FSX ( well, with some settings not maxed like autogen in very high, and water in low.2, and traffic on 50% using my traffic), now, FSX is stable, fast, and... beautiful, my first flight was a short one, KBOS-KJFK in a QW 757, and i almost cried when my eyes seen a 23.5 fps on 31R short final. At this point it not make any sence to try FS9 again, because the only thing that FS9 was suitable for me, was on heavy metal, and now FSX can do all the job.I loved FS9 and still love it, the relationship was so emotional when i see videos or my old screens, i miss FS9, but soon or later this had to happen.My opinion is, if you have a capable pc, FSX is a outstanding experience, but if you dont have the pc to run it great, you will feel a big frustration, i know it because i tried and was not possible. So, like me and many other mates here, Stick with the amazing FS9, until you can get FSX running great.Cheers!

Thanks for sharing your experience :D-----------------------IMO there is something should be clear about the way PC handles FS9 and FSX. With FS9 and lots of addons,you can try to test the FPS around,this aircraft at this airport at this location. But when you test FSX, it might handle default well,but maybe not when having addons. So you will have to invest more into it to test, if the result is unexpected,well very sad indeed :(I guess FSX default and FSX with addons will have major difference in FPS,just like FS9.

you will have to invest more into it to test

Many payware addons are bought only once for both platforms, so if you own many products for FS9 you also own more than a few for FSX.

I agree with the above. With a few addons like REX FS2004 and GE PRO 2, FS9 is beautiful and runs like a champ on a medium-strong PC with Windows 7/64.Take a look at the FSX forums; more than 50% of the questions are about "how to uptimize settings for higher FPS".Even todays Core i7 CPU`s, overclocked like crazy and with water cooling are struggling with the latest version of MSFS.And then there is all the wonderful Freeware Aircraft available for FS9, often better than payware (at least more historical correct).I hope that MS Flight will able to better benefit from Multicore CPU´s and powerful GPU´s.BR,Anders

I'm going to re-install FS9 this weekend. I just got an i5/560GTX upgrade and I'm curious what 1000FPS with everything maxed at JFK looks like. :(