I used to be a FS9 diehard but these daysrunning FSX is also a viable option.Although I only have a modest system by todays standards I still getreasonable performance running FSX for the low and slow soI am doing the low and slow prop thing in FSX and the big and bad jet thing in FS9.Having said that, if I had the money to get an I7 I probably would'nt bother to install FS9 again.While it is nice FSX is just ... well ... nicer ... for my kind of flying.And let's face it, once you've flown a prop through the PFJ by ORBX anything else will seemrather dull by comparison.

once you've flown a prop through the PFJ by ORBX anything else will seem rather dull by comparison

I believe it depends, Tom. I perfectly understand your point of view and I know many folks share this view.But I bought a decent rig two months ago, installed some ORBIX stuff and took a nice GA to fly around.And While I admit it looks very nice and surely is a lot of fun, I am back in my FS9 FL350 cruising since this is where I belong.

Thank you all for your views.I am still not sure as to the usability of FSX ,and would be reluctant to fork out a lot of money for a new PC at this time. (Putting FSX aside ,my current old PC... P4 2.8 GHz -2gb-Gefrorce 6600 gt ) does everything else i use a computer for perfectly (and of course FS9)acceptably ,and I certainly I could't justify a new system, at this time.I suppose my original query was driven by the need for something new in my simming experience. Recently (and I never thought this would happen ),but I seem to losing interest somewhat in our great hobby , I have been a simmer for about eleven years, but recently I seem to just not be getting the same pleasure out of flying as I used to ,its all becoming samey and routine.Anyways It may just be winter blues.I hope so.Thanks to all for your input.Andy

I believe it depends, Tom. I perfectly understand your point of view and I know many folks share this view.But I bought a decent rig two months ago, installed some ORBIX stuff and took a nice GA to fly around.And While I admit it looks very nice and surely is a lot of fun, I am back in my FS9 FL350 cruising since this is where I belong.

Oh I very much agree with that.I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference butI never believed the "ORBX is the best thing since sliced bread" crowd andnow have to swallow those sentiments as I can easily see where that comment came from.That does not mean I don't like FS9, I still love flying a Jet between high quality addon airports and FS9combined with REX and whathaveyou looks pretty darn wonderful as well.

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

Am really enjoying a FSX KLAX-KJFK (thanks to FSDreamteam!) flight right now. Why are the houses so big in FSX?Does anyone have simsavy for FSX?FSX pros:Photoreal sharper from miles away-no blurries.Clouds very realistic!!Helicopters are brilliant (default in Acceleration)Sharper textures!FSX cons:Need to tweak and add a DLL file for Windows 7 to stop the program from not responding-a few bugs you need to iron outScreen tearing in window modeHouses a bit too bigUS textures ground scenery very bland, apart from in major US cities.While I can't list them all here (I need help!) I am sure the pros of FSX far outweigh the cons.The payware I have bought so far is awesome. Any PMDG, ORBX, FSDREAMTEAM is brilliant. Even Imaginesim is quite good, but I have the disappearing jetways with their scenery. I don't have that in FS9.I think it is just a preference.The US cities product looks brilliant. They will be doing Toronto soon.Daniel

Edited January 31, 201214 yr by IAF747

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. 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

Amen. Very encouraging.I have never - even thinking about it - tried to migrate to FSX. It is a twilight zone for me. The complaints are everywhere, myth or facts. But the T7, that I hardly resist. Spending more in the near future, if I have to, so be it

Hi Andrew,Here we go again. At the risk of saying things for the 1001st time anyone has said them on this forum, FSX is a strange beast indeed. In many fundamental ways it is actually quite similar to FS9.The base code is the same but with a better SDKATC is identicalUnderlying flight dynamics are the sameDefault coastlines are as beastly as they are in FS9Default airports are similar but slightly better res, better lights, fencesSea, sky and clouds are quite a lot betterGround textures, default are better but with addons can be quite spectacularFSX is based on a round world which has curved horizons if you go high enough and azimuth clouds (which hug a round world).However, FSX does not have FS Nav which was the easiest and most useful Flight planner ever.Many Airports such as UK2000 Gatwick Xtreme3 were designed for FS9 originally and still work better in FS9. Many planes we all love have been upgraded to work with FSX but frankly work better in FS9, e.g. Majestic D8, Wilco Airbus, Airsimmer (FS9 only), E Jets. Native planes such as PMDG J41 and NGX feel amazing when you have smooth flight and maybe FSX is worth it just for that. Look for videos on YouTube of a J41 coming into land on RWY8 at Isafjordur in Iceland X and compare it to the real thing.What makes FSX really shine are the 3PAs: REX, FEX, Orbx, GEX, UTX, HD Airports, any PMDG product, Ezdok (must have) Track IR lots of others. Without them I would be indifferent to it - as I currently am to Flight!My machine is a C2D E6850 w/GTS250 and 4Gb RAM, 22in monitor. So I can at least get a decent 1680x950 widescreen experience.When I want to do the Ryan Air flight from Cork to Gatwick as just have in a B738, smoothly and with no glitches I go to FS9. I would like to do it in FSX and indeed probably could, but not without v slow FPS at Gatwick, or else spending on a new PC. For me, not worth it or indeed possible right now. In Juneau Alaska with a Twin Otter in FSX I still get 30fps in FSX and a bit more (not a lot) in FS9, but I prefer FS9 because of the amazing freeware Glacier Bay and freeware Juneau aiports- both of which are payware in FSX. That is often the story.Simming's all about an immersive flying experience: No.1 how the cockpit looks/feels when moving, secondly sounds (much neglected even in FSX) and then for me only thirdly, textures. FSX has better stereo sound (default in FS9 I believe was mono but some addons have cludged stereo sound reasonably well, or at least 2 channels of mono). That's why FS9 is still so good, with a good cockpit and sounds, HD clouds and REX skies, even if it's only 4m res on the ground, and with a high quality airport, FS9 still very much cuts the mustard for me. On the other hand a pilot friend of mine flew a Cessna 172 on my machine in FSX around Shoreham (EGKA) and said his hands were sweating as he tried to land it as he has many times in real life. He's even bought himself FSX and a joystick now (apologies to his wife, I am dogmeat).Flight! will not give anyone that kind of experience yet or for a long time, (perhaps it sets out to do different things - to be kind to it). Microsoft are unlikely to be ever be able to provide the kind of variety in Flight! that 3PAs have for FSX, so FSX is here to stay for a good time yet.I would upgrade your machine if you can afford to - and then load it up to the gills with FS9 stuff, oh and by the way install FSX for the occasional sightseeing trip if you can afford the addons to make it shine - REX, UTX, Orbx, GEX etc etcxxxxx.I do like FSX very much as you can see and have invested in it. I would certainly regret not being able to use FSX, but I cannot ever visualise flying just FSX and losing FS9 completely. Period.Ray

Hi Andrew,Here we go again. At the risk of saying things for the 1001st time anyone has said them on this forum, FSX is a strange beast indeed. In many fundamental ways it is actually quite similar to FS9.The base code is the same but with a better SDKATC is identicalUnderlying flight dynamics are the sameDefault coastlines are as beastly as they are in FS9Default airports are similar but slightly better res, better lights, fencesSea, sky and clouds are quite a lot betterGround textures, default are better but with addons can be quite spectacularFSX is based on a round world which has curved horizons if you go high enough and azimuth clouds (which hug a round world).However, FSX does not have FS Nav which was the easiest and most useful Flight planner ever.Many Airports such as UK2000 Gatwick Xtreme3 were designed for FS9 originally and still work better in FS9. Many planes we all love have been upgraded to work with FSX but frankly work better in FS9, e.g. Majestic D8, Wilco Airbus, Airsimmer (FS9 only), E Jets. Native planes such as PMDG J41 and NGX feel amazing when you have smooth flight and maybe FSX is worth it just for that. Look for videos on YouTube of a J41 coming into land on RWY8 at Isafjordur in Iceland X and compare it to the real thing.What makes FSX really shine are the 3PAs: REX, FEX, Orbx, GEX, UTX, HD Airports, any PMDG product, Ezdok (must have) Track IR lots of others. Without them I would be indifferent to it - as I currently am to Flight!My machine is a C2D E6850 w/GTS250 and 4Gb RAM, 22in monitor. So I can at least get a decent 1680x950 widescreen experience.When I want to do the Ryan Air flight from Cork to Gatwick as just have in a B738, smoothly and with no glitches I go to FS9. I would like to do it in FSX and indeed probably could, but not without v slow FPS at Gatwick, or else spending on a new PC. For me, not worth it or indeed possible right now. In Juneau Alaska with a Twin Otter in FSX I still get 30fps in FSX and a bit more (not a lot) in FS9, but I prefer FS9 because of the amazing freeware Glacier Bay and freeware Juneau aiports- both of which are payware in FSX. That is often the story.Simming's all about an immersive flying experience: No.1 how the cockpit looks/feels when moving, secondly sounds (much neglected even in FSX) and then for me only thirdly, textures. FSX has better stereo sound (default in FS9 I believe was mono but some addons have cludged stereo sound reasonably well, or at least 2 channels of mono). That's why FS9 is still so good, with a good cockpit and sounds, HD clouds and REX skies, even if it's only 4m res on the ground, and with a high quality airport, FS9 still very much cuts the mustard for me. On the other hand a pilot friend of mine flew a Cessna 172 on my machine in FSX around Shoreham (EGKA) and said his hands were sweating as he tried to land it as he has many times in real life. He's even bought himself FSX and a joystick now (apologies to his wife, I am dogmeat).Flight! will not give anyone that kind of experience yet or for a long time, (perhaps it sets out to do different things - to be kind to it). Microsoft are unlikely to be ever be able to provide the kind of variety in Flight! that 3PAs have for FSX, so FSX is here to stay for a good time yet.I would upgrade your machine if you can afford to - and then load it up to the gills with FS9 stuff, oh and by the way install FSX for the occasional sightseeing trip if you can afford the addons to make it shine - REX, UTX, Orbx, GEX etc etcxxxxx.I do like FSX very much as you can see and have invested in it. I would certainly regret not being able to use FSX, but I cannot ever visualise flying just FSX and losing FS9 completely. Period.Ray

Excellent RayJust what i needed to here.A good and balanced review of both sims. Some folks can get very protective of there sim of choice ,and I feel this sometimes can cloud judgement's.PS I did get a few posts of the 'your system will never run FSX' type. Actually it was never my intention to do that at present. . I do have to say that when I actually did try FSX (Felt sure my PC would be the one that defied all the odds and WOULD run it :( ) some five years ago or so (on the same machine i have now ie P4 2.8 ,2GB RAM, GFORCE 6600GT it did make a pretty good fist of it at times ,notably for VFR type flt,unfortunately jet flying (my number one FS9 choice ,was poor.FSX is still installed on my PC but I do not use it now.It does seem that reading between the (loyalty lines) that a medium spec 'up to date' PC will make FSX usable ,but it does also seem that to really get it moving you do need something powerful and therefore beyond any budget of mine at present.Its still good to know that FSX is knocking about in the background though as the powerful machines in turn may reduce in price as well.Sims seem to be like fine wines ie they mature with age.cheers Andy

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by HoratioWondersocks

FSX or not. This question kept being in my mind for a while.If I go for it, I will need a new system. And the best I can reach is i5 2500k with 8GB RAM. With some searching on google and avsim. I can see that the new system runs FSX worst than my current system run Fs9. So no invest for FSX now.When there are better CPUs and with PMDG 777 (or captainsim 777), I will think again.

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by Sk1nNy

If I go for it, I will need a new system

And a lot of new payware addons unless you enjoy flying the defaults. So pump up your wallet!Plus there are many addons which are not available in FSX (of course there are FSX-only ones too).Not suggesting anything, just reminding friendly what you also have to take into consideration.

FSX or not. This question kept being in my mind for a while.If I go for it, I will need a new system. And the best I can reach is i5 2500k with 8GB RAM. With some searching on google and avsim. I can see that the new system runs FSX worst than my current system run Fs9. So no invest for FSX now.When there are better CPUs and with PMDG 777 (or captainsim 777), I will think again.

HelloI have an i52500K running at 4.3 ghz with a GTX580 and FSX screams along, it runs much smoother than FS9 ever did.You guys that think FSX still runs badly on today's hardware are very much mistaken.

And a lot of new payware addons unless you enjoy flying the defaults. So pump up your wallet!Plus there are many addons which are not available in FSX (of course there are FSX-only ones too).Not suggesting anything, just reminding friendly what you also have to take into consideration.

Yes that also, thanks for reminding me about that :( The amount of money invest into addons is just about the same as a new system...I hope :(

HelloI have an i52500K running at 4.3 ghz with a GTX580 and FSX screams along, it runs much smoother than FS9 ever did.You guys that think FSX still runs badly on today's hardware are very much mistaken.

Using iFly 737,PMDG 747 flying around EHAM,EDDF(with UT Europe), 100% traffic and max settings, I get at least 20-25FPS in Fs9(usually above 30, sometimes it get low due to VC). Could the new system(i5 2500k) run with those addons and same amount of traffic+display settings in FSX and get the FPS like that?This is a real question that I really want to know. Not attacking or anything.

Using iFly 737,PMDG 747 flying around EHAM,EDDF(with UT Europe), 100% traffic and max settings, I get at least 20-25FPS in Fs9(usually above 30, sometimes it get low due to VC). Could the new system(i5 2500k) run with those addons and same amount of traffic+display settings in FSX and get the FPS like that?

HelloUsing the iFly and the NGX I get FPS in that range using 40% traffic (MytrafficX) this figure gives me plenty of Ai at places like EGKK.Bear in mind that FSX also needs less FPS for a smooth experience.The other thing to factor in is that FSX is running across all four cores on my i5 2500K, but FS9 is using one core on your CPU.You will still need to push an i5 or i7 K series chip above 4 ghz for good performance but that is very easily achieved.At 4.3-4.5 ghz it is silky smooth, the hardware has really caught up with FSX now.But I appreciate it is a hard and costly jump if you have a lot of addons to replace, took me a long time to get all my stuff repurchased.

HelloUsing the iFly and the NGX I get FPS in that range using 40% traffic (MytrafficX) this figure gives me plenty of Ai at places like EGKK.Bear in mind that FSX also needs less FPS for a smooth experience.The other thing to factor in is that FSX is running across all four cores on my i5 2500K, but FS9 is using one core on your CPU.You will still need to push an i5 or i7 K series chip above 4 ghz for good performance but that is very easily achieved.At 4.3-4.5 ghz it is silky smooth, the hardware has really caught up with FSX now.But I appreciate it is a hard and costly jump if you have a lot of addons to replace, took me a long time to get all my stuff repurchased.

Thanks so much for your answer!OT: don't know how long socket 1155 will last..before being replaced by newer one.

Thanks so much for your answer!OT: don't know how long socket 1155 will last..before being replaced by newer one.

HelloThe next Intel Chip Ivybridge will fit in the 1155 P67 and Z68 boards so no worries there.