FS9 vs FSX

[Sam Nicholson 0]

FS9. I have a laptop and although I have genuine copies of both simulators, I only use FS9 because of it's excellent performance. FS9 can have god knows how many addons changing the ground texture, sky, weather etc and still run at generally the same speed, whereas FSX would give you an arrow to the knee for that.After seeing MS Flight Recommended Specs it looks like a winner, FSX was released and everyone had bugs and performance issues. So yeah, FS9 all the way until MS Flight

[Guest JimRodger]

FS9, I can easily create multiple installs for varying scenarios.eg Retro (60s) CAL Classic RussianHaven't worked out how to do it in FSXJim

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

FS9 because even at 3rd party airports like KJFK I still only get frame rates in the high teens with everything turned on. It would be unflyable on my machine in FSX. Elsewhere I can lock the fps at 30 and it stays there irrespective of Ai, weather or scenery.Because I'm a Project Magenta user I have no need for the panel / CDU etc of the PMDG excellent though they are.Because I've invested a lot of money in FS9 and don't see the need to junk it all when everything works well.The most skillful part of any flight is the landing and that requires a lot of frames especially with Concorde with its high approach speed. Frames are everything and a wonderful FSX view not so important. FS9's view is just fine most of the time.

[Pixel11 0]

My PC is somewhat limited and I do not know enough about FSX to adjust the settings.FS9,. however, flies about nicely, (even if the ATC can be a little strange).PC. Dual-core AMD @ 2.8GHz. 2GB RAM, Win XP, SP2. Twin displays, NVidia 64M cards.Pioneer Optical drives, 3.5 inch FDD, Logitech Fredom 2.4 cordless J/Stk.

[Reason 20]

perhaps a few years later from now, when high-end system becomes medium or even low-end (I'm talking about the price), I may be fooling around with fsx. Til then, 30-35 fps (locked 35) at a busy airport with 100% WOAI and a PMDG monster in my old and tired fs9, will be just delightful

[Chase 303]

I'll move this to a more appropriate forum.

[Tom Wright 438]

FSX because it has better graphics, better scenery and better aircraft.

[out 769]

I'll move this to a more appropriate forum.

Are you sure on that?I wonder how many pro FS9 opinions we'll get now in the FSX forum...

[bobb 2]

At this point I uninstalled FS9 1.5 years ago, because it fell short on most areas . It did help to have a new computer.Bob Bazley

[benny948 0]

FSX because of the graphics and the developer attention! Also, most urban areas are more developed in FSX!

[1mikel151 71]

FSX because it has better graphics, better scenery and better aircraft.

Agreed!the biggest deal breaker for me is I love photoscenery and you just can't get the 7 cm/pixel resolution in FS9 that you can get with FSX. That and I LOVE the cockpit shadows and the way water looks in DX10 mode.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

FS9...better FPS, less catoony, more addons

Lol, assuming you meant to say cartoony, I think FS9 is more cartoony with its lower res ground textures and water textures.I've used FS9 since 2005 and FSX exclusively since around 2009 and now prefer FSX due mainly to the graphics. Plus I only fly airliners, mostly PMDG, LDS, and Coolsky, and get comparable performance to flying heavy iron in FS9, so performancw in FSX isn't an issue for me like it is for some.I do miss the snow effects from FS9 but thats the only thing I miss from that sim.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

FS9 is like watching the original Star Trek TV show on a 13 inch black and white TV compared to watching the latest Star Trek movie on a 52 inch LED. FS9 is essentially the same as it was when I deleted it and dozens of costly payware addons in 2007. FSX has been jumping in leaps and bounds ever since. Today FSX is so far ahead of what it was, that it is hard to believe it descended from the same root program. FSX seems to be just entering it's golden age when there are greater gains already realized and in the pipeline, than what was thought to be possible even just a year ago.Proof? Right here. I just took these 14 pictures of high performance and incredible rain forest detail near Milford Sound in ORBX's southern New Zealand by just circling the plane and taking screen shots. All this without a noticable performance hit:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2194262Kind regards,

[VaclavLoubek 4]

FSX, because I finally managed to built a computer that can handle it. Last week I would say Long live FS9, but it's not true anymore.

[Armowings 1]

FS9. I have a laptop and although I have genuine copies of both simulators, I only use FS9 because of it's excellent performance. FS9 can have god knows how many addons changing the ground texture, sky, weather etc and still run at generally the same speed, whereas FSX would give you an arrow to the knee for that.After seeing MS Flight Recommended Specs it looks like a winner, FSX was released and everyone had bugs and performance issues.So yeah, FS9 all the way until MS Flight

Completely agree with you.