After suffering with a painfully slow old computer for many years, I finally bit the bullet and ordered a new gaming machine. My primary goal is a good flight sim experience.I used to run FS2002, but found FS2004 cheap and I switched to that when returning to simming a year or so ago. To be honest, if the old machine hadn't died, I would probably have just kept running. Now, though, I will have the capability of running FSX, if I choose to. But, should I?I've invested some time in add-on scenery and AI for FS9. I'd rather not have to do that again.But what are the big advantages of FSX? Better AI? Better ATC? Better weather? Better scenery?Also, if Microsoft runs true to form, their latest version of anything won't run properly until the hardware catches up a couple of years later. Is that true of FSX, and has the hardware caught up yet?Thanks.

You can always run them both.The naysayers only run 9 because they're on very dated hardware and that's the only thing left they have to complain about (yes that was direct).With the SB systems today we can enjoy payware airports, payware scenery, and payware planes with plenty of FPS to spare. For instance, most SB guys OC their rigs to 4.5 - 4.8 GHz. I'm only at 4 and I can run the Flight1 Mustang, FSDT JFK scenery, UTX USA, GEX, FEX with about 27 fps. Autogen is maxed. Granted road traffic is off.At 4.8GHz you can run road traffic up as well.As long as you get an i5 2500K or i7 2600K and overclock them to at least 4GHz (easy peasy) you'll be happy to know you can enjoy your airliners at payware airports.What's better in X?Better planes, far greater resolution of scenery, better autogen, better vector graphics (roads/rivers/water bodies - even on vanilla fsx), better clouds.The ATC, flight dynamics are fairly similar to 9.

"But what are the big advantages of FSX? Better AI? Better ATC? Better weather? Better scenery?"Yes, yes, yes, and yes.I still have FS9 on a separate drive with all its addons etc. I never fire it up.You will need to invest in some key addons to make it match the new computer capabilities. Buy REX, UTX stuff, Orbx, and several great commercial planes like Real Air. So in addition to the new rig, you can expect to shell out plenty (I must have spent $1000 in addons), but my flying experience is superb, and I can do it in 3D which is a real rush in the West Coast of NA.

This is just my 2c.

After suffering with a painfully slow old computer for many years, I finally bit the bullet and ordered a new gaming machine. My primary goal is a good flight sim experience.I used to run FS2002, but found FS2004 cheap and I switched to that when returning to simming a year or so ago. To be honest, if the old machine hadn't died, I would probably have just kept running. Now, though, I will have the capability of running FSX, if I choose to. But, should I?

How would I know? I found FS9 to be very good after the update to 9.1. Cheap in what sense?Exactly what hardware have you ordered?

I've invested some time in add-on scenery and AI for FS9. I'd rather not have to do that again.

If so I'd recommend you to stay with FS9.

But what are the big advantages of FSX? Better AI? Better ATC? Better weather? Better scenery?

AI airtraffic and ATC is NOT better in FSX compared to FS9. But in FSX you have AI ground traffic and sea vessels. Better weather? I really can't remember how the weather was in FS9, but I use REX and enjoy the beautiful clouds in FSX. So many years ago when I last used FS9 - sorry. Better scenery? Are you kidding me? When I installed FSX and started using it for real, the VFR flying turned out be very, very satisfying. When you fly over north west USA with the ORBX FTX scenery, you really "Enter a Whole New World" compared to FS9. Just take a few minutes and visite their web site and explore the possibilities of FSX (http://fullterrain.com/).

Also, if Microsoft runs true to form, their latest version of anything won't run properly until the hardware catches up a couple of years later. Is that true of FSX, and has the hardware caught up yet?

That has been the deal since my first version of FS ages ago. When I built my computer, based on Intels X6800 processor, for FSX, I could for the very first time run FS9 with everything maxed out. If you expect to be able to run any new game on the highest possible display settings, I´d say you're gonna get dissapointed. If I would be responsible for the development of a new game/simulator I for sure wouldn't aim for the mid range computers available on the market at the point when the game architecture need to be designed. I would aim for the high end market. If I did aim for the mid range market I would get bashed for releasing a game/simulator based on old tech. The sad story is that the MS FSX studio (ACEs team) took their design desicions based on the belief that single core computers would prevail with increased clockspeeds. But Intel and AMD took another road, with multiple core processors and lower clock speeds. We ended up with a FSX SP2 that is patched single core/thread application. Very frustrating.But still, IMO, FSX is sooooooo much better than FS9, if you enjoy the VFR, low and slow flying. If your'e into the heavy metal flying, I'd guess that FS9 would do good for you until MS Flight will reveil it's secrets.

But what are the big advantages of FSX? Better AI? Better ATC? Better weather? Better scenery?Thanks.

These are good questions, Better AI not if your comparing default stuff its pretty much the same FSX does offer UT2 payware which imho is the best traffic addon out there.Better ATC, no again but any MSFS default ATC is pretty bad, Better weather strike 3, there are problems with erratic windshifts but these can be resolved with fsuipc and or ASE direct weather control though, the one thing that is a huge step back in fsx is the rain and snow effects, they are aweful plus no VC rain effects, the scenery though for me makes up for these short falls, but I ain't talking default stuff, a combination of REX, GEX and orbx has made my sim more true to life then fs9 ever did.

Ryanbathound wrote:"Autogen is maxed. Granted road traffic is off."FTW? This is the most insane combo I´ve seen!Autogen is ugly, reduce in CFG to 600/60Roadtraffic is nice to look at in dusk and low VFR - max. 7% though.

Why? In your opinion... Not sure what you're using but my autogen maxed with GEX and UTX looks awesome. I've never liked the cars - there's far too many on rural roads.

Ryanbathound wrote:"Autogen is maxed. Granted road traffic is off."FTW? This is the most insane combo I´ve seen!

I fly the same insane combo and like it!

I find dense or very dense autogen with 4% road traffic is a very nice combination. Plenty of trees and buildings and 4% is the point at which cars show up so if you're flying out in rural areas for VFR you'll see the odd car or two come by which adds realism at no performance hit

I must admit I'm very surprised you guys fly with no road traffic; motion on the ground is a major realism factor for me. I personally think it was the singlemost best improvement from FS9 to FSX.Autogen, again maxed out starts to look overkill IMO, but I find it great on 'Dense' or 'Very Dense'.We're all different and enjoy different things from the sim I guess!

Im in the same boat pretty much, autogen set at very dense, scenery complexity extremely dense, a LOD of 6.5 and a cloud coverage density bumped up to 12, no cars, no boats and 80% of the time no AI because Im on Vatsim(unless it vatsim traffic) I find the cars can really suck up the fps on approach, not worth it to me.