FS9 vs FSX ?

[Dutch727 543]

There are so many factors in this decision and it's so much a matter of taste and what you're looking for.

 

For myself, I look for immersion. I want a virtual world that has the fewest reminders that it isn't real.

 

I love FS9 - it got me back into this world of flight simulation - and for many years it was enough.

 

But once you have flown on an enhanced FSX on a computer that can deliver smooth frame rates FS9 suddenly looks and feels much like a simulator versus the "real thing". It's not FSX itself but the high-end add ons -- ground and terrain enhancement, super high quality airplanes, and airport and ground services that make the world seem more alive and "real".

 

You won't experience this unless you are willing to invest in some pretty hefty hardware, many costly add-ons, and on top of that a bunch of tweaking of FSX's parameters. At the end of the day you can have a stable, beautiful platform but it takes effort, more than many are willing or able to put into it.

 

Dutch

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Hey, I'm not dissing fs9. Fond memories, still have, still mean to fly it. It's just that if someone is starting fresh in 2013 with flightsim, then of the two platforms I think most would choose fsx. In 2006 the hardware just wasn't there, if you have the $$$ then at the current time you can actually -almost- see it at its best.

 

As for payware, I think with either sim you're going to want a few choice addons so as not to look too much like something from way last decade.

[sascha 314]

But once you have flown on an enhanced FSX on a computer that can deliver smooth frame rates FS9 suddenly looks and feels much like a simulator versus the "real thing". It's not FSX itself but the high-end add ons -- ground and terrain enhancement, super high quality airplanes, and airport and ground services that make the world seem more alive and "real".

 

Hey, ALL of those things are available for FS9 as well!

[Lowflyer 97]

That being said, both are dead programs. Microsoft is not supporting either FS9 or FSX. There is hope for FSX because of Prepar3d, but this always has been and always will be a non-mass-market product. It suggests that if there is a future incarnation of Microsoft Flight Simulator, (1) it will not be produced by Microsoft, and (2) it will be based off of the FSX platform. I have a hard time seeing why a developer would choose to build off of the FS9 platform when the FSX platform is out there.

 

I don't think FSX is dead at all. Sure Microsoft has stopped supporting it, but honestly how many of us has noticed any difference? It's not dead as long as people are still using it and until the last add-on developer gives up on it it's not even dying in my opinion. As for FS9 I'm almost willing to agree if it wasn't for the few simmers (and even fewer developers) who still stick with it.

 

You won't experience this unless you are willing to invest in some pretty hefty hardware, many costly add-ons, and on top of that a bunch of tweaking of FSX's parameters. At the end of the day you can have a stable, beautiful platform but it takes effort, more than many are willing or able to put into it.

 

The hardware bit was true by the time when FSX was released but today a fairly moderate one will do. Sandy Bridge i5's for instance aren't particularily pricey and will run FSX very well and you don't need a high-end graphics card either. As for the tweaking bit it's really not that much you absolutely have to do. Editing a handful of lines in fsx.cfg is all that is needed really.

 

Hey, ALL of those things are available for FS9 as well!

 

And they ALL look just as good as their FSX equivalents?

[DavePerry 4]

Maybe a more informed answer could be given if the OP stated his system specs.

That seems to be the main consideration for choosing one over the other.

[6FingerSays 99]

This has been in discussion since FSX was released, and the answer lies in this.

 

-FSX has better graphics, but less performance

-FS9 has better performance, but less graphics

 

FS9 is 4 years older than FSX.

FSX is 4 years newer

 

FSX is the platform used by developers

FS9 is being phased out

[b738pilot 0]

I am using the FS9 but I am thinking about switching to FSX. One reason is what High Plains Flyer said - more and more developers are giving up on the FS9. The second reason is that I fly PMDG 737NG, I absolutely adore this aircraft both in sim and rw. Some time ago PMDG issued 737 NGX and from what I've read here it's an amazing piece of art. I was hoping they would issue it on FS9 as well but my hopes are long gone now.

So I am thinking about switching to FSX just to be able to fly on PMDG 737NGX

I run FS9 with all the sliders max details and it is running very nicely, so I think I would be able to fly with decent settings in FSX - but correct if I'm wrong.

[6FingerSays 99]

PMDG should never release anything for FS9, it would drastically reduce the detail of the plane, because FS9 has way fewer polygons than FSX

[WingZ 547]

A lot of the stuff that gets written is based on what one fondly imagines is happening in the FS world.

Often that is not accurate.

FS9 is not "being phased out", here are some interesting numbers for you from AirDaily, about sceneries produced for the sim:

2010: 29

2011: 37

2012: 55

And do not forget that FS9 has a huge reservoir of excellent stuff already out there.

If it's not being released this year, chances are that it's already been done!

The number of outstanding freeware offerings also cannot be matched by any other sim.

 

As to quality of modelling: the 65k poly barrier has long been broken.

Recent offerings from Carenado and others show what you can do in FS9 today, and still have great performance.

 

FS9 can offer a wonderful balance between performance and graphics quality, and will be on my PC for a long time yet.

[KingGhidorah 209]

On occasion, when frustrated with FSX, I've stepped back in time and re-installed FS9. All I can say is that it is extremely sterile feeling, not the least of which because must have addons, such as Ezdok, don't exist for it, and it has incentivized me to immediately return to FSX and work through whatever issue I'm having. Most of the great planes you hear about from the FS9 era, such as the Dreamfleet 727 or the SSTsim Concorde, or whatever, were all optimized around the concept of flying in a 2D cockpit. The VCs of those planes are terrible by today's standards--sure you have planes like the maddog or the pmdg aircraft, but in my opinion, the best way forward, is always forward.

[b738pilot 0]

PMDG should never release anything for FS9, it would drastically reduce the detail of the plane, because FS9 has way fewer polygons than FSX

 

?? :huh: PMDG has released numerous add-ons for FS9... Drastically reduce the detail of the plane? I think I need to send you a screenshot of the PMDG 737 running on FS9. Besides, what do you care about the detail of the plane when you are sitting in the cockpit for the whole flight? It's the cockpit and the flight modelling that matters if you buy such add-on.

[WingZ 547]

must have addons, such as Ezdok, don't exist for it

Each sim has its own addons which make it better.

Some are mandatory, and you wouldn't run the sim without them.

 

There's always an equivalent addon to get what you want, in every sim; it takes a little effort usually to get there, is all.

FS9 actually has quite good stock views, but W&F make them better.

Recorder Module allows a bunch more presets.

Adding TrackIR adds even more to the mix, and so on.

[lodestar 186]

Fsx has superior graphics, you can't get that level of details and clarity with fs9. Flight dynamics in fsx are better too, you can find some things which are not presents in fs9

[KingGhidorah 209]

They should make a Reality TV show on the "History Channel" about people who still use FS2004 :lol:

[WingZ 547]

...and so all these discussions end, fun every now and then though.