And my thoughts on FSX: uhhhh.... in general, I feel like I'm playing FS9. I don't really notice the subtle differences, but I'm aware that they exist: no fuzzy textures, UT2's traffic is a hugely improved, GenX and UT USA various improvements.

One subtle difference in FSX is SimConnect. It allows developers to replace parts of FSX with their own stuff. The addons from A2A do this to the extent that they use FSX only as a 3D engine. Everything else is custom code made by them to simulate combustion engines and other stuff to a high degree of fideltiy that you would never see in FS9.

That's pretty interesting James, I've just done something similar, ie h/w upgrade and a switch to FSX, in my case though there was a general/overall improvement in pretty much everything.Apart from all that though I think you hit it on the head about the future, and the lack of new products for FS9, if noones developing UTX/GEX like texture/mesh/lamdclass products and pushing the boundaries in FS9 any more then you really had to switch right, like I did. Would be kinda interesting to know how we'd be feeling if MS had axed the development team at the FS9 stage and we never got FSX, I wonder how far 3rd parties would have kept on pushing the FS9 engine?

That's pretty interesting James, I've just done something similar, ie h/w upgrade and a switch to FSX, in my case though there was a general/overall improvement in pretty much everything.Apart from all that though I think you hit it on the head about the future, and the lack of new products for FS9, if noones developing UTX/GEX like texture/mesh/lamdclass products and pushing the boundaries in FS9 any more then you really had to switch right, like I did. Would be kinda interesting to know how we'd be feeling if MS had axed the development team at the FS9 stage and we never got FSX, I wonder how far 3rd parties would have kept on pushing the FS9 engine?

Yeah Dean, I agree with everything you said. Am really glad that we got FSX before Aces was whacked. The 3rd parties have really pushed it. The more I think about it, all the subtle changes that I can think of really add up to a very nice improvement over FS9. I'm gonna stick with that outlook for now!James

FSX is visually very nice, but at the same time buggy.FS2004 is still great for me. It is so reliable.Also Japanese scenery is available such as Tokyo (and Japan scenery which is no longer selling Tokyo and Osaka).But the scenery in FSX is better.If you use France VFR though then FS2004 is versatile!Daniel

The base FSX is not buggy

FSX is visually very nice, but at the same time buggy. Daniel

The only 'bugs' that I'm aware of are due to changes in the operating system.1). UIAutomationCore.dll. The version supplied with Windows 7 is not 100% compatible with certain functions of FSX. Changing this for the Vista 32-bit version fixes it.... and2). HIGHMEMFIX=1 needs to be added to the [GRAPHICS] section of the fsx.cfg.Any other mods to the cfg are merely parameter tweaks, and are no different to changes made which optimise any operating system or application on any system, Unix, Linux, MS Windows, commercial or home computer, and lots of these are not found in development, but after product release. We are fortunate that Microsoft thought sufficiently far ahead that we are still enjoying it on today's OS and hardware.

Edited January 22, 201214 yr by Paul J

The only 'bugs' that I'm aware of are due to changes in the operating system.1). UIAutomationCore.dll. The version supplied with Windows 7 is not 100% compatible with certain functions of FSX. Changing this for the Vista 32-bit version fixes it.... and2). HIGHMEMFIX=1 needs to be added to the [GRAPHICS] section of the fsx.cfg.Any other mods to the cfg are merely parameter tweaks, and are no different to changes made which optimise any operating system or application on any system, Unix, Linux, MS Windows, commercial or home computer, and lots of these are not found in development, but after product release. We are fortunate that Microsoft thought sufficiently far ahead that we are still enjoying it on today's OS and hardware.

Thanks Paul,You are an encyclopedia!!!CheersDaniel

The base FSX is not buggy

I understand. I take back my statement.ThanksDaniel

nah... just have piles of notes on the desktop.... :(

Here also a recent FSX user!Been using FS9 since 2004 , several system upgrades during that time and even as close as last year was thinking of staying wth FS9 indefinately.It was a video card upgrade last Mar that made me do the switch ( 8800GT 512 to 460 GTX 1GB). The loss of Nhancer and driver issues made me switch.With the 460GTX i could not use older drivers which worked flawless with FS9( 185.00 driver from 2009) . The latest 200x drivers with Inspector gave me shimmering textures much more than before . If i used any setting in Inspector higher than 8xS ( especially any supersampling), my frames would drop like a rock on certain add-on sceneries( e.g. 15 FPS or less in clouds!) . Tried for months with re-installing , re-configuring , and testing settings , either i had to live with shimmers and jaggies here and there , or fly in certain situations at <20 FPS....The problem here is with the 8800GT and 185xx drivers with Nhancer ( i used 8sX in Nhancer also ) , i would have excellent IQ with little or no shimmers. Looks like the new drivers had issues with older games ?Finally gave up , upgraded my mobo and CPU to SB and decided to graduate to FSXWith 8sX AA settings in Inspector and 275.33 Nvidia drivers , the shimmers are 90% gone... Still a bit here and there , but with the HD textures the effect is minimized .FSX runs great so far ( have not optimized WIN7, defragged , or overclocked yet) , just been installing and testing ( UT2, GEX , Vancouver + , ORBX PNW. NRM) , the biggest thing i see between the 2 sims is the LOD radius and texture clarity .. When flying in FS9 ( especially >15,000 feet) , i would have blurry blotches in places , distant textures ( especially mountains ) that would not load ( due to the hard -coded LOD in fs9) . FSX has textures that load right to the horizon ( something i was desperately wishing the fs9 had!) . Flying over mountains in FSX is a pleasure! Add FTX sceneries and you are almost life-like..I use LOD at 4.5 , however plan to increase this to 6.5 once i get my CPU >= 4.5 GHZThe thing with FSX is that it can have issues and bugs ( have not had any issues yet ) , however there is plenty of information on AVSIM and other sim sites that deal with certain crashes and how to possibly aliviate themDon't get me wrong . FS9 still looks good and i probably will install it later ( FlightZone Portland still amazes me to the day) to take advantage of some a/c and sceneries that i cannot use in FSX.

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by planechaser

Here's another reference for you in english. And it _is_ caused by GEX.http://www.fsdevelop...ead.php?t=91190

The interface allows all users to enable or disable the tree fix.Please read: http://www.simforums.com/forums/gex-na-v1095-patch-is-now-live_topic37808.html.The issue is not GEX; it is a bug in FSX that was never addressed. Some people can see the issue, others may not. In any case we have provided a way for those who may see problems to turn off the performance fix in all GEX interfaces so this point is moot.

I use GEX and a lot of scenery addons and never once noticed it causing me an issue. So while it may exist on some level for a few people, Id say its hardly prevelant enough to call it a major issue to negate the use of GEX.