Back to FS9

[BillCusick 75]

Hi.. I loved FS9. I really thought it was fantastic. When it came out I was overjoyed, and itstarted me once again on programming scenery. My local airfield, EGOW RAF Woodvale, was unfortunately just two intersecting runways. Ihad to do something about that. The Autogen was excellent, but bore no resemblance to theRW. However I soon lost all my enthusiasm for FS9 for two reasons. Woodvale is a working airfield, and is used by the Liverpool and Manchester Universitysquadron Grobs, and the Vigilant motorised glider. I often sit in my garden under theapproach to R03 and watch the aircraft overhead. Then I run in, startup up FS9 and....Yuk. My frame rates plummet. I'll explain. The airfield sits between a large Pinewood forest and a very busy four lane bypass. Creatingthat forest using XML, or using Jon Masterson's invaluable Airport Design Editor, becamea real pain when checking the resulting frame rates. The main forest between the beach andthe airfield has approximately some 800 pine trees, with a further 200 trees around theboundaries of the area. These trees dragged the FS9 FR down to something like 6-8 onmy Core-2-Duo 2.66 GHz. That makes FS9 almost unflyable. The same files gave me about 25in FSX ! I found FSX very tolerant when plotting vegetation. FSX was also a lot smootherwith low frame rates also, a lot kinder that FS9. I have flown with a PPL friend of mine in a Warrior several times from Woodvale, and myfavourite approach was over the busy bypass to R27. That moving traffic cinched it for me- I just couldn't get the same effect with FS9. Programming moving traffic in FS9 was areal headache. The FS9 object libraries weren't really very comprehensive either. (Althoughthe UKVFR addons and objects eventually made up for FS9's lack of objects).I was really disappointed. I really wanted FS9 to work with Woodvale, but it wasn't to be.Once I got into FSX, except for having to move everything around to accommodate the 'RoundWorld' coordinates, I realised that FSX was the only way if I wanted to have 'my' EGOW...and now, of course, I have the NGX...Even on my 2.66 Ghz duo It is absolutely brilliant.I still have FS9 on my system though. I love throwing the F16 around RioDeJaneiroV9.0, (I'vebeen there) and I do love those editable side cockpit views possible with FS9. So I keepboth, and use them ! Thanks to Microsoft and AVSIMRegardsBillC0.9nm SW R03 EGOW Horizon GenX 2.0 UK SceneryFS Commander 9.0Just Flight PA-28 ArcherPiper PA28R ArrowNemeth Design EC135 EurocopterCS 767CS Hercules C130..and now the PMDG 737NGX. Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67GHzScythe Infinity CPU CoolerAsus P5B Deluxe MotherboardCorsair XMS2-6400 C4 TwinX PC2-6400 4GB Dual Channel InterleavedAsus GTS450 1GB GDDR5 with v189.50 driversSamsung SH-W183 18x18 DVD±RW SATA Dual Layer ReWriter2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB SATA-IISB X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS EditionEnermax Liberty 620W PSU ATX 2.2Lian Li PC-S80B Black Aluminium CaseThree 120mm FansVista Home Premium 64-Bit OEMDell 2408WFP 24" LCD monitorViewsonic VA1916w 19" monitorLG Flatron L1715S MonitorATEN VS-461 4 port DVI Video SwitchCH Yoke & Pedals AOR 8200 ScannerRealistic PRO-44 ScannerRacal Avionics European Approach Platesfor Central Europe (4 volumes) ..and a flight attendant's uniform for the missus...unworn.

[learn-by-flying 37]

Hi.. I loved FS9. I really thought it was fantastic. When it came out I was overjoyed, and itstarted me once again on programming scenery. My local airfield, EGOW RAF Woodvale, was unfortunately just two intersecting runways. Ihad to do something about that. The Autogen was excellent, but bore no resemblance to theRW. However I soon lost all my enthusiasm for FS9 for two reasons. Woodvale is a working airfield, and is used by the Liverpool and Manchester Universitysquadron Grobs, and the Vigilant motorised glider. I often sit in my garden under theapproach to R03 and watch the aircraft overhead. Then I run in, startup up FS9 and....Yuk. My frame rates plummet. I'll explain. The airfield sits between a large Pinewood forest and a very busy four lane bypass. Creatingthat forest using XML, or using Jon Masterson's invaluable Airport Design Editor, becamea real pain when checking the resulting frame rates. The main forest between the beach andthe airfield has approximately some 800 pine trees, with a further 200 trees around theboundaries of the area. These trees dragged the FS9 FR down to something like 6-8 onmy Core-2-Duo 2.66 GHz. That makes FS9 almost unflyable. The same files gave me about 25in FSX ! I found FSX very tolerant when plotting vegetation. FSX was also a lot smootherwith low frame rates also, a lot kinder that FS9. I have flown with a PPL friend of mine in a Warrior several times from Woodvale, and myfavourite approach was over the busy bypass to R27. That moving traffic cinched it for me- I just couldn't get the same effect with FS9. Programming moving traffic in FS9 was areal headache. The FS9 object libraries weren't really very comprehensive either. (Althoughthe UKVFR addons and objects eventually made up for FS9's lack of objects).I was really disappointed. I really wanted FS9 to work with Woodvale, but it wasn't to be.Once I got into FSX, except for having to move everything around to accommodate the 'RoundWorld' coordinates, I realised that FSX was the only way if I wanted to have 'my' EGOW...and now, of course, I have the NGX...Even on my 2.66 Ghz duo It is absolutely brilliant.I still have FS9 on my system though. I love throwing the F16 around RioDeJaneiroV9.0, (I'vebeen there) and I do love those editable side cockpit views possible with FS9. So I keepboth, and use them !

There was no such thing as moving cars and good autogen when FS9 came out, although some addons will bring it up to snuff in the IFR department, the VFR department is very lacking. Hopefully Flight will have some better smaller airfield scenery or at least better autogen scenery, only time will tell. I do envy everyone with the NGX, I simply even with a very power PC FSX just doesn't like me. But I think FS flight will be a hit, FS2004 was a hit, FSX a little more of a flop and we're due for a hit. Same rotation as MS OS's.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

But I think FS flight will be a hit....

I had been thinking the same thing to tell you the truth, but after what John Venema from ORBX has been saying recently, Flight might not really be the viable alternative that many of us had though it would be. We all might end up either sticking to FS9 or FSX for a lot longer than we had imagined or maybe even moving on to P3D it you dont mind paying a $10 monthly fee for a developers license.

[BillCusick 75]

<< There was no such thing as moving cars and good autogen when FS9 came out,although some addons will bring it up to snuff in the IFR department, theVFR department is very lacking. >> I agree re the moving traffic - that is why I primarily 'went over' to FSX.When it was released I didn't like it - I recall trying to fly the Harrierover my meagre attempts at EGOW scenery at that time. It was like a slideshow. I am convinced that FSX is now darn near perfect except for those cockpitviews. My next PC did improve matters, but then with the release of SP1 & SP2 Icouldn't go back - by then I had my trees and traffic. I did continue totry and write Woodvale for FS9, but after tearing out what remained of my hairI gave up after FS9 refused to display more than a few houses at a timewhen I'd programmed some 12 thousand over the area. I really miss those beautiful cockpit side views. I reckon that's why manyfs9'ers stay with it. I'll never forgive MS for wrecking those views - FSX would have been perfectfor me had they sorted that out after SP1 mucked them up. I suspect that'marketing' ensured that the side view problem would assist in eventuallytempting us over to 'Flight' when it arrives... RegardsBillC0.9nm SW R03 EGOWHorizon GenX 2.0 UK SceneryFS Commander 9.0Just Flight PA-28 ArcherPiper PA28R ArrowNemeth Design EC135 EurocopterCS 767CS Hercules C130..and now the PMDG 737NGX.

[metalmike 34]

FSX is almost unusable for me in busy airports and cities, without making ridiculous sacrifices in scenery quality. So now I use FS9 for IFR/airliner flights between major cities, and I still use FSX for VFR flying in smaller aircraft. As soon as I'm able to make a hardware upgrade I'll be able to move exclusively to FSX.I have similar addons for both programs, but most others I think have suggested good essentials for top FS9 scenery quality. I have REX, UT, GEPro, FSGlobal and a few others, just to name some basics.

[Chas1 0]

I am happy with FS9 and have no need to get FSX

[learn-by-flying 37]

I am still deciding on Active Sky, right now there is a sale going on but I am still not sure.

[mark22 2]

Can I ask where the sale is for Active Sky as I cannot see it anywhere, which website is it on please? I am also considering it as well but like you not sure but if it is reduced somewhere then I may be interested...

[learn-by-flying 37]

Mark,Found in the bargain hunter's forumhttp://forum.avsim.net/topic/352413-active-sky-evolution/

[kerosene31 349]

I fly only FS9. I tried FSX when I got my new PC but the performance was simply unacceptable. With FS9 I can run all the traffic I want into detailed 3rd party airports with dense weather along with a reasonably complex airplane and maintain at worst 20+ fps (usually higher than 30+). With FSX I can't take off with a complex airplane with zero traffic and default scenery into any kind of overcast weather without my sim turning into a slide-show. My system is getting a little old, but I thought it would at least handle FSX reasonably well, but I was wrong. FSX is still installed but never used.

[Fozzer 1]

I always think its a shame that the new-comers to MS Flight Sim automatically purchase FSX, and often get disappointed with the dire results, with their existing hardware......when all they need to do is pop out and purchase a copy of FS 2004, (at a bargain price now!)...and give that a try...(as well)...The increase in speed and smoothness will amaze them...even with all the sliders wound up!Go on...try it...you'll like it... ...!Paul....FS 2004... .... (and FSX).... ....!

[CFIJose 5,485]

Okay, many people may find this crazy but I am seriously considering getting back to FS9. Why, well most if not all of my add-ons are both FSX/FS9 and in terms of performance I see only better values with the older sim. I am looking for everyones thoughts on what I would have to do to get fs9 up to todays standards with add-ons such a terrain/wx. I have no complaints with FSX except performance. I understand FSX is currently the standard but it has almost become too much of a cartoon.Tom

I always like to scan the forums and see what is being talked about in the FS9 forum and occasionally there's thread that leads to a return to FS9.Here's my take on returning:As long as there's no ORBX for FS9 nor Carenado 337, Lotus L-39, Realair Duke, and for many PMDG 737NG, I just can't see myself going back.I'm fortunate that I have and can afford the additional payware software. I appreciate the better looking graphics (ground textures, clouds, and water.) I also love the airplanes I fly in FSX. They are NOT available for FS9. Therefore I can't justify a return to fs9.

[CFIJose 5,485]

That's where the FS9 vs FSX debate should end. There are airplanes like the Flight1 Meridian that are only available for FS9. If I want to fly that plane, I must have FS9 installed. I'm willing to pay for an upgrade. Can you imagine if ORBX was available for FS9? ORBX is FZ KPDX multiplied by X. That's how good their sceneries are!There's nothing wrong with having two sims. One for airliners (IFR) and one for vfr (low & slow) fliers. I just choose to lower my SC and AG to dense when flying complex airplanes into complex airports. Not even the best systems can run FSX maxed. Even I have to reduce my settings in order to avoid CTDs.It's not just having the money to run FSX well, it's also about being lucky. Thankfully, we still have AVSIM. When I have an issue, I can always find a solution.

[Johan_Dees 84]

Both sims are great, but the newest, FSX is bad on performance.I still wonder why I am at the same default airport, clear skies, a few trees on the left, a house or two on the right, and just the runway I have amazing FPS in FS9 and barely 20 in FSX. They show more or less the same view.Something is rotten in the state of Redmond VA.

[out 769]

Thankfully, we still have AVSIM. When I have an issue, I can always find a solution.

Very true! Avsim is one of those exceptional sources where I got most of my knowledge.Every time I think I know everything about FS9... I learn something new. This well is bottomless.