Yes I know this is the fs9 forum.but i am hoping for an unbiased (as much as possible) view.In light of all the moaning and groaning about the forthcoming (and we still don't really know what this latest sim version is ALL about yet ) release of FLIGHT I have noticed a lot of posts of the 'Oh well we still have FSX ' variety if FLIGHT should be a dufferoo.Is FSX now (as prophesied four or five years ago ) a viable working sim on a reasonable priced but up to date system.?It certainly does now seem to have support ,and often from new simmers as well.If this is the case ,then as far as I am concerned IF! FLIGHT is a Bongeroo I wouldn't be to disappointed as I could see enough in FSX even on my present aged set-up ( FSX not usable though unfortunately)to see that it could be a GREAT sim if only it could be got to run correctly.PS I am talking passenger jets here ,its got work correctly and well with these ,and with airports that are more than just gates and no terminal, hangers etc etc etc.nothing at all against VFR, the lights, and the olds (i do plenty of that as well) But i am predominately a Pass Jet flier.AnywaysAny thoughts.Andrew

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by HoratioWondersocks

Yes I know this is the fs9 forum.but i am hoping for an unbiased (as much as possible) view.In light of all the moaning and groaning about the forthcoming (and we still don't really know what this latest sim version is ALL about yet ) release of FLIGHT I have noticed a lot of posts of the 'Oh well we still have FSX ' variety if FLIGHT should be a dufferoo.Is FSX now (as prophesied four or five years ago ) a viable working sim on a reasonable priced but up to date system.?It certainly does now seem to have support ,and often from new simmers as well.If this is the case ,then as far as I am concerned IF! FLIGHT is a Bongeroo I wouldn't be to bothered as I could see enough in FSX even on my present aged set-up ( FSX not usable though unfortunately)to see that it could be a GREAT sim if only it could be got to run correctly.PS I am talking passenger jets here ,its got work correctly and well with these ,and with airports that are more than just gates and no terminal, hangers etc etc etc.nothing at all against VFR, the lights, and the olds (i do plenty of that as well) But i am predominately a Pass Jet flier.AnywaysAny thoughts.Andrew

Being a 1,000+ member, I find it hard to believe you're asking this question for reasons other than to get a rise out of people (considering you're more than likely well aware of the market for FSX) . I've ran FSX only for 2 years now. If there's any reason to make the switch, it's the NGX. FSX is finally maturing, and is more than an adequate step up from FS9.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Then you sir are sadly mistaken.IF! you have something positive to say then i am interested to hear your view if not ,then please don't bother to reply. As to the 1000 post stuff I couldn't care less about or no nothing about how many posts I have made.Yours irritatingly.

Yes I know this is the fs9 forum.but i am hoping for an unbiased (as much as possible) view.In light of all the moaning and groaning about the forthcoming (and we still don't really know what this latest sim version is ALL about yet ) release of FLIGHT I have noticed a lot of posts of the 'Oh well we still have FSX ' variety if FLIGHT should be a dufferoo.Is FSX now (as prophesied four or five years ago ) a viable working sim on a reasonable priced but up to date system.?It certainly does now seem to have support ,and often from new simmers as well.If this is the case ,then as far as I am concerned IF! FLIGHT is a Bongeroo I wouldn't be to disappointed as I could see enough in FSX even on my present aged set-up ( FSX not usable though unfortunately)to see that it could be a GREAT sim if only it could be got to run correctly.PS I am talking passenger jets here ,its got work correctly and well with these ,and with airports that are more than just gates and no terminal, hangers etc etc etc.nothing at all against VFR, the lights, and the olds (i do plenty of that as well) But i am predominately a Pass Jet flier.AnywaysAny thoughts.Andrew

FSX (and FSX knowledge) has matured to the point where it is a very viable platform. I run FS9 and FSX with equivalent addons on the same system - a midline i7 mildly OC'd to 3.2GHz under Win7 x64 with a GTX260 vid card and am quite happy with both. I have had no stability or performance problems with FSX and run all of the major complex addon aircraft and sceneries. I see no reason to give FS9 up, but do enjoy the ability to run aircraft and sceneries that are FSX only.DJ

Then you sir are sadly mistaken.IF! you have something positive to say then i am interested to hear your view if not ,then please don't bother to reply. As to the 1000 post stuff I couldn't care less about or no nothing about how many posts I have made.Yours irritatingly.

I think I said something positive. FSX is a viable option. And I said it with a smile, lighten up grumpy.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by ZachLW

FSX (and FSX knowledge) has matured to the point where it is a very viable platform. I run FS9 and FSX with equivalent addons on the same system - a midline i7 mildly OC'd to 3.2GHz under Win7 x64 with a GTX260 vid card and am quite happy with both. I have had no stability or performance problems with FSX and run all of the major complex addon aircraft and sceneries. I see no reason to give FS9 up, but do enjoy the ability to run aircraft and sceneries that are FSX only.DJ

Thanks DJ That's all I was looking for...views on the subject.I haven't used or kept up with FSX developments for at least four years or so ,and was genuinely interested in how it performs today on a reasonable (all I can afford ) but up to date system .Thanks Andy

Andrew,FSX runs fine even on average hardware as long as you follow all the tweaks and suggestions over on the FSX and hardware forum. From what I remember of your specs it is not even worth the thought of trying to run it on your system. Personally as soon as the PMDG 777 rolls out of the hanger it will become my main sim but I will still keep FS9 on my drive for a long itme yet. For the past year and a half I have been slowly setting up FSX and have found all the horror stories from the past regarding perfomance issues are a myth (for me at least)Regards

Andrew,FSX runs fine even on average hardware as long as you follow all the tweaks and suggestions over on the FSX and hardware forum. From what I remember of your specs it is not even worth the thought of trying to run it on your system.Personally as soon as the PMDG 777 rolls out of the hanger it will become my main sim but I will still keep FS9 on my drive for a long itme yet. For the past year and a half I have been slowly setting up FSX and have found all the horror stories from the past regarding perfomance issues are a myth (for me at least)Regards

ThanksYou are absolutely right of course. My system p4 -2gb -256 6600 gt nvidea did not cut the mustard (although there WHERE some occasions ,especially using the 'light aircraft ' that it did give it a fair go)If FLIGHT does not (as most people seem to think) continue the great flightsim tradition ,then I WOULD consider a newer PC for FSX ,but not for FLIGHT (unless of course it surprises us all) as this new version whether sim or game needs specs my PC barely matches the minimum of.(think that's what I mean) and we all no about minimum specs being rather on the 'optimistic' side.CHEERSAndy

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by HoratioWondersocks

Not sure what your budget is Andy, but if you could get the cash together for a Core2Duo 8500 (around 60quid) you can overlclock it to 3.5/4ghz without any fancy cooling. you also dont need a fancy motherboard just something that will allow you to overclock. If I was on a tight budget I could build an FSX rig for 400/500 quid from second hand ebay parts and get good performance.Your main goal is to get the best CPU you can afford and overclock it as much as it will go, the Core2Duo wolfdale is the cheapest CPU out there (that I know off) that can clock to 4ghz on air.

ThanksYou are absolutely right of course. My system p4 -2gb -256 6600 gt nvidea did not cut the mustard (although there WHERE some occasions ,especially using the 'light aircraft ' that it did give it a fair go)If FLIGHT does not (as most people seem to think) continue the great flightsim tradition ,then I WOULD consider a newer PC for FSX ,but not for FLIGHT (unless of course it surprises us all) as this new version whether sim or game needs specs my PC barely matches the minimum of.(think that's what I mean) and we all no about minimum specs being rather on the 'optimistic' side.CHEERSAndy

A P4 will not cut the mustard with FSX, you need at least a C2D with 2.66GHZ, with preferably 3.0+ghz. Mine is an E6850 3.0Ghz 4GB with a GTX460 card. You can see what kind of performance I get on my youtube videos below. You would be wasting your money with a P4 system trying FSX, which is better suited for FS2004.

I wouldn't recommend purchasing a Core 2 system for the specific purpose of running FSX. The Core 2 doesn't quite allow FSX to stretch it's legs, but it would be acceptable.Andy, I know I got off to a rough start with you, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Either way, what would be an acceptable budget for an FSX machine for you (if you are indeed exploring that option now)?

I wouldn't recommend purchasing a Core 2 system for the specific purpose of running FSX. The Core 2 doesn't quite allow FSX to stretch it's legs, but it would be acceptable.Andy, I know I got off to a rough start with you, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Either way, what would be an acceptable budget for an FSX machine for you (if you are indeed exploring that option now)?

I didn't mean to suggest, that one should purchase a C2D now to run FSX, a fast I7 would be more appropriate today. For those that want to run on existing systems though a C2D would be the minimum, FSX would run fairly decent on. His P4 as he discovered just doesn't have the muscle.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by tf51d

FSX (and FSX knowledge) has matured to the point where it is a very viable platform. I run FS9 and FSX with equivalent addons on the same system - a midline i7 mildly OC'd to 3.2GHz under Win7 x64 with a GTX260 vid card and am quite happy with both. I have had no stability or performance problems with FSX and run all of the major complex addon aircraft and sceneries. I see no reason to give FS9 up, but do enjoy the ability to run aircraft and sceneries that are FSX only.DJ

Agree. As a 1 poster :) oops now 3

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by Barnstormer1

Agree. As a 1 poster :) oops now 3

We all start with 1... :smile:DJ

Andrew,My view is this. I still love FS9. No matter what I will use it.FSX, well that is just gorgeous for some helicopter work or VFR. But I have my Level D 767 on that, and the 767 is an awesome aircraft, as I spent time on the flightdeck.I think what really makes the difference (as long as you have an I5 2400-2500 upwards with a GT550Ti or more and at least 4gb RAM) is a big screen TV and the sound. In watching the movies, I have a great sound system, but by today's comparison it is old. But sound is half of the sensory experience.I have the PSS 777 and I had to download the sounds the talented sound designers made for it from the library, as the sound wasn't realistic inside the cockpit. Outside the cockpit the PSS sounds are totally realistic! But I don't know if you can merge that in...Anyhow with a PSS product and HQ airports in FS9 I see little need (unless you are totally loaded with buckaroos-no offense anyone please it is just an analogy of how much I like FS9) to upgrade. Although I do have it.I wonder what Simsavy is like from 40000'? (in FSX of course!--oh and saying that, "" When the captain of the ill fated Costa Concordia was asked if he knew where he was going he replied "off course" ""Daniel