Interesting to see we have a new Poll asking the sim of choice ( I have voted). Like all polls interpretation can be ambiguous especially when the choice answer is limited and no reason is given as to why the research. Looking daily at the Library, it would seem that FSX is used mainly for Heavy Metal and 9 maybe used more for the lighter stuff, Past postings on FS9 forum has asked for more encouragement from developers etc., but who should they develop for ? Well this is the FS9 Forum and the vote is in our hands.

By the , my views could be completely wrong.

 

Echofox

it would seem that FSX is used mainly for Heavy Metal and 9 maybe used more for the lighter stuff

 

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom wherein FS9 (having greater frame rates) is good for complicated tubeliners flying high whereas the low and slow benefit from FSX's higher ground/scenery definition and, generally, lower frame rates.

"MSFS2004 and earlier" ?? Ah come on

Appliance, can't disagree with you, but over times past it would seem that FSX simmers like the big stuff, lets face it, most "boys" want to be an airline pilot, and FSX has the reputation of having more "realistic" aircraft. If I show my set up to a friend or tell someone about flight simulation, the first question is can you fly a Jumbo ! Much more exciting than a PA28. I just wonder what the Poll will reveal that we don't already know and what has been discussed in numerous postings. If 50% vote FSX , 20% FS9 plus the other sims, what gain is made and to who. Does a poll show the whole picture of how we use Flight Simulation with one question, and given the number of simmers worldwide, what percentage will bother to vote.

Just to clarify matters in case anyone jumps, I am lucky to have a computer that runs both at virtually max, it's very powerful and expensive. The family are starving , the dog emigrated !!!!!!!!

Cheers

Echofox

A better poll would've been:

 

What do you prefer?

 

Getting 30+ fps on a pc costing less then $500?(Fs9)

 

Or spending $2000+ on getting 12-18 fps if your lucky? (Fsx)

 

I hope your just being sarcastic. If your only getting 12-18 fps on a $2000 pc there's something wrong.

 

Now I was a long time user of , I'm actually thinking about reinstalling it for a couple of planes that won't work in fsx. And I only switched recently because I couldn't afford a nice computer.

 

When I built my ($900) computer I switched to fsx and I get a stable 30 fps locked. And that's with my scenery settings on high to very high. I use Vatsim so ai is off and that helps. And Word Not Allowed's tweaks except that I wasn't getting bad fps before them but it sure increased it.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say us that it's possible to get good performance without braking the bank. $900 is not cheap by any means but it's not $2k.

 

Im not going to get in to the fs9 vs fsx argument because it's pointless. Both sims work for whoever chooses to use either one.

 

Cheers

Lee

We're a long way past thinking you need a hyper pc to run fsx at decent frames, even for heavy gate to gate ops. You'll get double the frames in fs9 sure but clearly most are happy trading fps for more visual fidelity etc - just like we always did with a newer platform I might add.

"MSFS2004 and earlier" ?? Ah come on

 

And your suggested alternative question would have been what?

O.K. boys, I started the topic but it seems once again in the Forum, it's going off track. What I was trying to suggest is in the last bit of my original post - "the vote is in our hands". The query is, what and why is the vote being made. And just a further clarification, I fly mainly FS9 because I have invested a lot of cash into it, I have FSX which I tend to use for U.K.domestic flights ,but don't feel it's viable to start all over again spending out on scenery etc., especially now FSX seems to be on the way out. ( wished I hadn't said that ) We will all make our choices in the end. Think Tom wants your vote.

 

Cheers to all

 

Echofox

Any poll such as this one is likly to be distorted anyway because we do not know how many of those people who visit Avsim took part in the poll and we do not know the views of those who never visit Avsim.

 

David

I like beer!

A.

 

PS I think you'll find its FS9 =HEAVY. X=LIGHT.

and E=MC2

Star quality Horatio , fully agree with your first sentence , I shall now join you the Sun being well over the Yardarm .

Echofox

And your suggested alternative question would have been what?

Hi Tom

It's really not an issue for me so I don't wish to seem argumentative. But I can see why the objection was raised - it seems a bit strange to lump FS9 with all the other previous versions. Though their numbers are decreasing, there are still new products being released for FS9 but not, as far as I know, for any of the other previous versions. For a significant number of AVSIM members, it's still a viable platform. It did seem an odd categorization to me when I completed the survey and seemed to imply that all versions prior to FSX belong in the same category...

 

Given that this is the FS9 forum it's not surprising that someone might feel that their favorite sim was "dissed." It's truly a non-issue for me, but I felt the point that was raised was a legitimate one. So my answer to your question would be: FSX? FS9? Other?

Cheers

Ian

People hate polls when they dont say what they want o hear or go against their personal believes. They always try to find a way to question there validity whether there political or Flight Sim polls.. I didnt see FLY simulator , ah reckon thats other:)

 

 

Sarcastic? Me? Never!

 

Haha fair enough. My sarcasticdar isn't on so early in the morning.

 

Lee

If you fly both FS9 and FSX just tick both........John :dance: :dance: