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.

 

And then there's people like myself - newer to flight simming than many, I never knew of FS9, had a passing familiarity with FSX, got interested further in FSX, invested further in FSX, and despite that, has moved recently into FS9 as well. Flying both on a regular basis, I can respect that there are strengths to both, for my individual tastes. Sure, there are things that FSX does better, but there are also limitations to FSX that, for me and my flying, FS9 does not have. Depending on what I want to do on any given day, I get to pick from either platform.

 

I should refrain from commenting further on a topic with, from what I have seen, has such a bizarrely negative current. I'm not sure I even completely understand why. I guess, that as a relative newcomer to it all, I think it would be sad if other newcomers read topics like this and are are dissuaded from ever trying some of the really wonderful work that the flight simming community has built on either platform.

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.

 

:LMAO:

 

A prime example why old XP FS9 geezers (with no updates) should stop "texting" and flying. Read that completely wrong but landed safely.

 

RJ

From what I've read Acceleration contains SP1 & SP2

 

Thx for the info and i think i worded it it wrong was referring to another user who was going to install sp1 and sp2 on top of his acceleration pack which i should have said the acceleration pack contains sp1 and sp2 sorry for the confusion on my behalf

:wub: A new sim, X Plane with Orbx graphics! :wub: Reality steps in, using FSX but wishing it ran like FS-9

Many good posts were lost. Here's what I have, hope it helps.

 

Dillon:

 

The short of it is FSX had many of us on the beta team before it was released. I was on the survey team where they monitored my usage of FS9 and asked feedback as to what I wanted to see in FSX. The community (myself included) were excited with the openness of Microsoft after years of being so distant. We thought we had something special on the horizon. They surveyed as many of us that wanted to be involved and asked the community what we wanted in an effort to deliver a well rounded experiance. If you look outside of Graphics FSX is very similar to FS9. We were appalled when FSX was released and contained none of the recommendations of this community. To add fuel to the flame it ran like crap because it was designed for single core processors when the hardware market was moving to multi-core (the team didn't get the memo for some reason). Another thing that hurt FSX development was it was written for Vista but Vista kept getting delayed so they had to make sure XP was the primary OS for the sim (new DirectX versions were marketed with misleading screenshots promoting the Vista advantage). Then the responses after release from Microsoft were they were targeting a larger market and we were only a small piece of the pie. We had a couple of Aces guys here in the forums trying to do damage control which worked with some users. Many of us shook our heads and stayed with FS9 because we knew what we got from FSX was short sighted, buggy, and too troublesome to bother with. We set our sights on the next version because we saw this same situation happen before with FS2000 then we got a great version with FS2002 (sometimes talent skips a generation). Now Aces is gone and FSX ended up being the last viable version of Flight Simulator we have and the community split never healed. Flight ticked us off because we saw what FS11 could have been.

 

So there's allot of angst against FSX because Microsoft could have done so much better especially with FSX being the last version. We spent two years working with them as a community only to get a basic graphics update to FS9 (in comparison to all the great ideas suggested). This is why the anger is present. FSX is a hard sim to get into even with today's hardware and it shouldn't that way (Flight showed us what's possible with today's hardware). We're not attracting the same volume of new blood into the community because of this. So there you have it, hopefully I've in a short quick way explained the situation.

 

LAdamson:

 

Disagreed then, and still do!

 

I beta tested FS2002, FS9, & FSX for Microsoft, as well as testing for various 3rd party aircraft developers. Initially, my CPU wouldn't run FSX well enough, when I recieved the beta discs. I then upgraded. At that point, I much preferred FSX over FS9. And of course, we had the usual FS9 versus FSX wars on Avsim, and some other boards.

 

I took up real life flight, as well as owning a plane, for the scenery. I live in a mountainous area, and it's the scenery that makes flight worth the trouble & cost. FSX just did a much better job graphic wise, than FS9. This included the looks of the mountains, landclass, interior graphics & the external appearance of the aircraft. I posted many screenshots back then to prove it.

 

Since many 3rd party designers were also invited to beta test FSX, it was found in the last few weeks, that some flight model programming changes had to occur. What worked with FS9, suddenly no longer worked with FSX. Some programmers weren't thrilled. However, in the end, FSX actually allowed for some additional improvement in the flight model.

 

So no...............I was never appalled, and many others thought just as I did. I feel just the same as I did all those years ago, when FSX was released. It's still my preference over FS9, even though I still use both.

 

Hook

Fs9 love it for 1950s era flying and retro airports, and figured it was worth keeping just for that alone. Fs2004 got awesome freeware get small aiports for free and old 1920s planes. FSX is good for water and photoreal scenery. Keep both to use and have for a long time.

Fs9 love it for 1950s era flying and retro airports, and figured it was worth keeping just for that alone. Fs2004 got awesome freeware get small aiports for free and old 1920s planes. FSX is good for water and photoreal scenery. Keep both to use and have for a long time.

 

I forgot about the water--I have Venice for FSX which is an amazing bit of scenery--the water reflections make it seem like almost being there.... As for photoreal scenery, I went more than a year without ever seeing FSX's default textures. Had Tileproxy running the whole time. I should add that FS9 is my favorite nighttime environment--I love positioning myself by the active runway of one of the busy airports and watching WOAI's airliner flights coming in like a string of lit pearls. And in the air, flying around a big city like LA, the world is alive with the blinking lights of AI.

 

I should say there's a big misconception about FSX requiring a bunch of tweaking or being way too unstable. Not for me--my settings have been more or less the same since I got my system, other than I lower my fps lock a bit to allow for better loading of photoreal textures and increase it when I am not running Tileproxy. Yesterday I was in the skies for hours (see my post in the screenshots forum on the San Juan mountains) and quit because I had to turn in so I could go to work the next morning. The weekend before, I was in the skies for nine hours over three different parts of the country. Even with a dying video card (my fan is slowly going), FSX was rock solid stable. Sure, I've had it crash--but the issue was always related to scenery add-ons. FS9 has crashed on me sometimes too--maybe once or twice in several hundred hours of flights, but it can happen (and I think those crashes are related to some corrupt files I copied from my old system).

 

I feel if anyone has a system that at least meets my specs, they can have a fun time in FSX if they have a love of general aviation. And my system is already ancient by today's standards, so I suspect most here have systems exceeding my specs. I do have one thing that gives me an edge, I think. I've been a systems engineer for a number of years, most recently in application testing but before that, hardware engineering and O/S installations. My systems run very clean--free of all the junk that can slow down a system and make it unstable. I can't say they are perfect--I always run into someone who can share something I don't know. But I set up my PC in such a way that I don't have to hassle with closing a half dozen apps to enjoy my favorite hobby--flight simming.

 

John

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

 

Dynamix red baron is still one of my favourite fs experiences ever! My friend Gomez told me that graphics that good shold not be possible on a PC! LOTS of red baron hours, haven't matched that in a another combat sim...

 

It has been a year or two since I tried it (well, maybe longer - will have to work out how long it was since I got that new 386).

 

Red Baron aside, though, I tend to like the 'new' sims - and do think there's some truth to your first sentence.

 

No disrespect to FS9 - great sim, and I still have it on the computer. Reality is though, most of the community has now switched to FSX (I'm sure all FS9'ers are well aware of the steadily increasing number of FSX-only addons).

 

After some serious hardware teething problems in the early days, it's not hard to build a computer in 2013 that will run FSX as it was intended.

I meant that PMDG should never release anything for FS9 now.

...

Face it, FS9 is dying because it's outdated. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

Unfortunately, what you say about FS9 is true for FSX as well - it is outdated. Especially in the bits which were just FS9 with some sprinkling.

 

Claiming to posses universal truth in such a hobby - where everything is based on personal taste due to tweaking & addons - is rather dubious.

 

Me, I tried FSX and actually thought it much WORSE than FS9 - I prefer the slightly washed-out look of FS9 over FSX. I only fly with a max visibility of 30 miles for realism, as you rarely get ultra-high visibility in continental Europe.

 

Of course I wish there would be ORBX quality small airports for FS9 but you can't get everything, hey?

 

As of hoping that PMDG will not develop for FS9, I think that is a very selfish attitude!

I should say there's a big misconception about FSX requiring a bunch of tweaking or being way too unstable. Not for me--my settings have been more or less the same since I got my system, other than I lower my fps lock a bit to allow for better loading of photoreal textures and increase it when I am not running Tileproxy.

 

I feel if anyone has a system that at least meets my specs, they can have a fun time in FSX if they have a love of general aviation.

 

Are you the same John that used to run FS9 on a PIII/800? I've tried thrice installing FSX to my computer, and I find myself losing performance after tweaking it. After you started FSX for the first time (or after deleting and letting fsx.cfg to be rebuilt), did you change anything in the settings? Do you run it on DX9 or DX10? According to Passmark, I should be able to run FSX decently (but I'm not sure how much should I trust a benchmark thay says my Intel HD 3000 is 29% faster than your GeForce 9500 GT).

 

I've just discovered the joy of GA flying, however, I'm mostly an airliner simmer which loves to fly to medium-sized AI-filled airports (by U.S. standards) and sometimes a hop to KMIA and VHHX.

 

And you say something about a well configured OS: any ideas on services/programs to disable? I've never been able to start Windows 7 with less than 45 processes.

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.

 

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.

 

I totally agree there, valid points well argued!

In 1920s navigation was just follow the flashing lights in sky at night, and it was flashing lights got ya point A to B, and those towers in FS2004 and FSX not there for decorations :lol:.

It's old, superseded and should just be forgotten.

 

Some day, you yourself will experience a lot of stutter, and your graphics will look quite poor. You will be old, superceded [correct spelling], and you will be forgotten.

 

Some day, you yourself will experience a lot of stutter, and your graphics will look quite poor. You will be old, superceded [correct spelling], and you will be forgotten.

 

Wow. Ok. I never once experience FSX with stuttering, and my graphics are better with FSX. FS9 should be forgotten. And, tell me, it is old.

Wow. Ok. I never once experience FSX with stuttering, and my graphics are better with FSX. FS9 should be forgotten. And, tell me, it is old.

 

 

1. FS9 should NEVER be forgotten, FS9 is the worlds biggest (by what the community was in its prime, and by amount of "DLC" available) and best selling flight simulator for general public use of all time. FS9's sales are still bigger than FSX (in total volume sold) however like the rest of my post will say below, it is old and has been pushed to its limits. We all need to remember what made FS9 so great and push those ideals into the next flight simulator, which ever one that may be.

 

 

2. FS9 even with all the nice freeware and high quality payware addons has pretty much met its maximum when it comes to pushing the engine. FSX however is now with current CPU's and GPU's being able to push its boundaries ORBX, REX, OPUS, FTX, and even FSGlobal are all mainly focusing on FSX for the future, perhaps maybe P3D. For aircraft , groups like PMDG, Quality Wings, and Milviz are all focusing on FSX. While right now FS9 with high quality payware and freeware can be made to look like and surpass DEFAULT FSX, it will simply not be able to push nearly as far as FSX can. If P3D works out as well as some of us hope, then maybe we can see just how far FSX's engine can really go.

 

If you have the PC that can run FSX decently, go for FSX or both if you dont mind spending the money.

 

If you have an old system or a low end one then stick with FS9 for now, just remember that FSX is getting pushed harder and harder every month or so, FS9 is pretty much at its limits.