FS9 and Xplane 10 give me this feeling :good: FSX gives me a different feeling :lol: I fly FSX to get my white powder fix ..............Snow :lol:

 

As of this moment, I still prefer FSX as the overall winner for "feel", the sense of being there, and the desire for longer flights. And snow helps too!

XP just doesn't have enough places to travel to. I have little desire to add a bunch of scenery myself. Still use FS9 for lots of 3rd party scenery & nostalgic aircraft. It's just that FS9 doesn't have the graphic quality of mountainous regions that FSX does. And I like mountain country..........with snow in the winter!

 

L.Adamson

Hi,

 

If add-ons like REX FS2004, Ground Environment Pro 2, FSGlobal 2010 and similar programs not existed to beef up FS9, I would agree with many “only-FSX-users” that FS9 is not worth considering. It is my impressions, that many simmers quickly dropped out of FS9 the same day FSX was launched. Many have completely ignored the fact, that in parallel to the many fantastic scenery add-ons in FSX, a similar development took place in FS9. Once you´re up there at FL300, with proper add-ons the cloud and sky look similar in both sims. And up there, the ground looks equally bland, unless photorealistic sceneries are used.

 

And there are simply too many high quality freeware aircraft (with special attention to historical and version-wise correct details) for FS9 to be forgotten.

Let´s see, now that Prepar3D is getting more popular, FS9 will probably survive FSX..

 

And after all, talking about realism; how many of us are sitting in a real “moving” simulator? Most of us are sitting in an armchair in our living room, looking at a 2D panel.

 

Hence, to answer the OP; get both sims now that they are available for nearly nothing. I also use FSX, mostly for low level flights.

 

BR,

Anders

:lol: Good luck in your next flight on your super-optimized-AI-less FSX. I don't know, maybe try to land with the NGX on brand new CYVR, really hope that you don't need to downgrade to regular textures to avoid OOMs.

 

 

Which is exactly what I will do, I haven't experienced any CTD, or OOM ever with the NGX and Vancouver. Thank you.

Which is exactly what I will do, I haven't experienced any CTD, or OOM ever with the NGX and Vancouver. Thank you.

Summer did have a valid point earlier, not everyone gets CTD and OOM with a good pc, I haven't had a crash in fsx since last year but I do sometimes get small stutters here and there. I also own FSDT CYVR, PMDG NGX and ORBYX PNW and still no OOM. Maybe it's my win8 setup and my little friend: UIAutomation.dll :lol:

I love these troll-threads, especially when they evolve from what seems like a reasonable request for information...

 

Out of curiosity, is there a way of porting FS9 planes to FSX? Would there be any point anyway?

 

I use FS9; my PC has a motherboard that cost £35 four years ago (could have been 3...). If I installed FSX I'm not certain the PC would do much more than die laughing. Horses for some courses, donkeys for others-- mine is certainly a donkey, with stones in its hooves.

 

Summer, if I had a PC like yours my FS9 would be no more than a fond memory. Then again, if I could afford that spec, I could probably afford a PPL.

 

I wonder how long it will be before we have a 3d flight sim for the LED monitors.

 

Best regards,

D

I couldn’t agree with you more David.

 

These troll threads get kind of annoying, but in the end, it is funny to read sometimes.

 

As you said, it comes down to preference.

 

And I recall, when Quality Wings ditched the FS9 version of the B787, I was initially upset, but then thought to myself, there is approximately $45 - $50 I have save. But on their Facebook page, the flaming was intense, and you always have young kids who insisted that FS9 was sooooo old. Got to give one’s head a shake once in a while, FS9 is really only 3 years older than FSX. It seems the “technological advances” did not really do FSX any justice.

 

See, the young ones sometimes do not understand that just because something is old, you do not throw it out. I always use this example:

 

If I had a 2003 Enzo Ferrari and a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO, which one would you think I would part with first? The young ones would argue to get rid of the GTO, but I would beg to differ. First of all, the value of the GTO is well into $25 Million and the Enzo is about $1.5 Million. The GTO is soooo old. But to me, the GTO is probably the most beautiful Ferrari ever made. It is simple in technology and runs smooth. The Enzo would be a nightmare to get serviced with electronics derived from Formula 1 and the Aerospace industry. The GTO is simple carbs and a manual transmission. But I would rather scream down the highway in a GTO.

 

Just my two cents, for what it’s worth.

Yea, but do you see Windows still making updates and new products strictly for Windows XP? Uh no. FS9 is still the old version.

I have my system overclocked to 5.2 ghz, and yesterday while taxiing in after a flight with the NGX at Flytampa Tampa Rebooted, my fps when down to 15 as well.

 

Overclocked to 5.2 ghz and 15 FPS after a reboot? You have to reboot before flying into a airport? Yikes!. I was gonna move to FSX after Intel released a 6GHz processor, but after reading your post, I guess this old XP FS9 geezer will have to live with no updates and wait for a 10Ghz processor. :Big Grin:

 

RJ

By any measured parameter, the Enzo is the better car.

And I wouldn't say No to an F40 either... but I agree a GTO is infinitely more desirable

 

Born into the Consumer Age, there's a whole generation who equate NEW with BETTER.

Generally that's true, but it seems have become an unshakable belief.

 

When FSX was quickly pronounced dead on arrival, there was an extraordinary rush to defend it.

"FSX all the way" and suchlike mantras.

Self-denial too: No performance issues here! until you heard the qualifiers... settings turned way down, 30fps actually achieved with no AI etc etc.

Six Seven years on, we are hearing the cutting-edge computers are finally managing to crunch the dreadful coding that a couple of major work-overs tried to nullify.

I am not really convinced, although I suppose a few really dedicated souls have contorted their machines to fit somewhat.

 

This is not actually FSX-bashing.

The popularity of the troll thread just made me wonder Why it should be so?

 

It's a consumer mindset is all, and I suppose reason doesn't really enter the picture.

Anyone for Ford/Chevrolet?

I couldn’t agree with you more David.

 

These troll threads get kind of annoying, but in the end, it is funny to read sometimes.

 

As you said, it comes down to preference.

 

And I recall, when Quality Wings ditched the FS9 version of the B787, I was initially upset, but then thought to myself, there is approximately $45 - $50 I have save. But on their Facebook page, the flaming was intense, and you always have young kids who insisted that FS9 was sooooo old. Got to give one’s head a shake once in a while, FS9 is really only 3 years older than FSX. It seems the “technological advances” did not really do FSX any justice.

 

See, the young ones sometimes do not understand that just because something is old, you do not throw it out. I always use this example:

 

If I had a 2003 Enzo Ferrari and a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO, which one would you think I would part with first? The young ones would argue to get rid of the GTO, but I would beg to differ. First of all, the value of the GTO is well into $25 Million and the Enzo is about $1.5 Million. The GTO is soooo old. But to me, the GTO is probably the most beautiful Ferrari ever made. It is simple in technology and runs smooth. The Enzo would be a nightmare to get serviced with electronics derived from Formula 1 and the Aerospace industry. The GTO is simple carbs and a manual transmission. But I would rather scream down the highway in a GTO.

 

Just my two cents, for what it’s worth.

Lamborghini :good: Ferrari 8P :lol: .............oh oh i see another versus in my future: Ferrari vs Lambo

 

Both work just fine for me. My FS9 is more "complete" in the scenery collection so the edge goes to FS9 in that regard.

 

If I want more visual eye candy, then FSX gets the nod.

 

I love both of them. No reason to hate either one of them.

 

some one can correct me on this if you got the accelation pack for fsx there is no need for sp1 or sp2

 

From what I've read Acceleration contains SP1 & SP2

I know it's probably pointless to contribute to a thread where people have voiced such 'stern' opinions...

 

However, I fly both FS9 and FSX quite happily. I have certain regions where I fly VFR in FSX and really, really enjoy it (PFJ / Tongass Fjords), while in FS9 I've just recently installed about a kazillion little brilliant freeware Canadian airports, all the MAIW bases & traffic, and am in the middle of assembling the Small Canadian Operator packages by Darren Belanger (No small feat, let me tell you).

 

Each has it's place, and I'm thankful that both exist.

 

It is rather funny though that people make such a pointed and heated distinction between old software and old software.

Some of the comments here lead me to believe that many die hard FS9 people took one look at FSX back in the year 2006, got angry at it, and then committed themselves to being bitter and dismissive of it for ever more. The analogy of classic sports cars makes no sense to me. The criteria for evaluating a piece of computer software/simulation is completely different. It is like saying Dynamix Red Baron is every bit as good as Rise of Flight without regarding the practical purpose of what they are trying to accomplish right here, right now, in the year 2013

Overclocked to 5.2 ghz and 15 FPS after a reboot? You have to reboot before flying into a airport? Yikes!. I was gonna move to FSX after Intel released a 6GHz processor, but after reading your post, I guess this old XP FS9 geezer will have to live with no updates and wait for a 10Ghz processor. :Big Grin:

 

RJ

 

The name of the scenery is 'FlyTampa Rebooted'.

 

I don't think they were having any reboot issues. lol. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

see http://www.flytampa.com - their stuff is awesome.