It depends what you want. If you want ever more fancy scenery and have the money to upgrade your pc at least twice in the next 18 months then go with FSX. With real flight simulation ever more fancy scenery is not the driving force. FS9 is perfectly cabable of producing extremely accurate and fully functioning cockpits. And, moreover accurate aerodynamics and engines. It's only a matter of whether the developer wants to bother or not. Engine limitations are a good example. The only a/c I have with absolutely accurate engine performance tables is the one I'm developing now. All, the other a/c ALL of them have a standard set of engine tables meaning that for each a/c the engine performance is not remotely accurate! The simmer who's only interest is pretty clouds wouldn't notice nor care probably. But then fs9 is a flight simulator not a cloud simulator. I have seen many videos and pics of FSX a/c and all of them make the a/c look as if they are made of plastic.

FS9 should be forgotten. And, tell me, it is old.

I find it interesting that with your views being what they are, you seem to spend alot of time here in the FS9 forum. If it is the dying, old washed up sim you claim, why not just forget it and move on. FS9 is very much alive and well on my machine thank you very much, and I am quite content with it. For those that are happy with FSX (like yourself) more power to you. Have never understood where the competition between the two comes from. Maybe one upmanship. Just get tired of coming into this forum to keep up on FS9 goings on and seeing this stuff continue ad nauseum

................. FS9 should be forgotten. And, tell me, it is old.

 

AirSummer,

you've changed your avatar - I liked the old one better :lol:

 

Seriously now, what's the point of stirring the pot? - because that's exactly what's going one here. What kind of responses do you expect when coming into the FS9 forum with the intent of bashing it.

Its all been happening for ages all over the place, someone bashes FSX, someone bashes FS9, someone bashes X-plane, everyone bashes MS Flight, its endless it seems.................. Even Flight Gear is getting bashed at times - you know for being free and all....

 

In the end - FS9 is good and so is FSX and X-plane. The best thing is to fly all of these and more if you can. An even better thing would be to fly them all and fly for real too!

 

If you don't like a particular Flight sim - don't fly it, no one is forcing you to. You shouldn't expect to be able to force other people to follow your personal preference either.

 

C'mon, lets all get along.

 

you've changed your avatar - I liked the old one better

 

 

Where is the moderation? .... just ban the troll .....simples.

And, tell me, it is old.

 

With age comes maturity. FS9 has matured very well.

Knowledge comes, but wisdom may linger for some.

 

RJ

Where is the moderation? .... just ban the troll .....simples.

 

Banning people is a last resort.

If we ban everyone who posts something annoying..... will there be anyone left? :lol: I may have to ban myself at some point too.

 

Don't worry we're keeping an eye on the thread and the troublemakers. If it turns bad (well... if it turns worse :biggrin:) will act.

 

This is what I call "The defender of the realm" syndrome. It seems to be especially prevalent in the flight sim community. Certain people will fight to the death as to which sim is the best, which addon aircraft is the best, which scenery is the best. They act like they have some kind of financial stake in the outcome. Why should I care what someone else does, uses, enjoys. If it works for me, that's all that matters.

Maybe it's just that people find out something and they want to tell their mates?

I don't think it is entirely fair to label her a "troll" for expressing an opinion about fs9 vs fsx in a thread entitled "fs9 vs fsx" whether that thread happens to be posted in an fs9 forum or an fsx one. As for the person above who called for a ban, I think that is way over the top and completely out of line

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.

 

Wow, you have a good memory! You know that P3-800 still works, even though the motherboard is 14 years old? It lies dormant, but it's there in case for some odd reason I decide I want to copy old files onto my current system.

 

When it comes to Windows 7, I'm not sure what you can disable but it probably doesn't differ too much from Vista. If you loaded Win 7 from scratch, there's only a handful of items you might want to consider disabling--those are well documented and found easily through a google search. If your system is off the shelf, then there could be other things the mfr threw on there. I always disable my virus scanner before running a sim session but that's the only program that loads at startup anyway, other than essential Vista services.

 

After starting FS the first time, I disabled autogen since I went straight to Tileproxy anyway, and I turned off AI since I was only interested in GA flght, usually in rural or desert areas. I also only run in 1024x768. Some people can't stomach that, but all the aircraft I fly, mostly Carenado, RealAir and a few odds and ends, have VC's that look sharp enough at that low res. And scenery looks fine too. Honestly though I don't see a fps hit if I go up to the larger res's that my monitor supports, but why bother? 1024x768 suits me just fine. I don't use weather generation and I have my own hand crafted low res cloud textures which I have used since FS9. I like the way they make my clouds look--they give them a softer appearance.

 

When I run with photoreal scenery I like to limit vis. to 30 miles. I don't know whether that helps with performance, but it makes the photoreal scenery look better (otherwise I'd see a clear distinct line where sharp textures give way to lower res textures.

 

You're certainly welcome to try my FSX.cfg as a starting point--and you can simply increase what sliders there are until you reach the best detail/fps compromise.

 

Regards,

 

John

I don't think it is entirely fair to label her a "troll" for expressing an opinion about fs9 vs fsx in a thread entitled "fs9 vs fsx" whether that thread happens to be posted in an fs9 forum or an fsx one. As for the person above who called for a ban, I think that is way over the top and completely out of line.

 

Yes, very true. If you're going to have a 100plus post thread on 'fs9 vs fsx', reasonable to expect some fans of the now much more popular FSX to fly the flag.

 

As its in the fs9 forum there's a lot of non-fsx fliers criticising FSX in ways that seem highly unjustified to someone like me who's got both sims installed.

I have FS9 on my pretty good bench mark PC and FSX on my super bench one. FSX is great using VFR flights and those great scenery add-ons like ORBX, Carrier operations flying latest fighters/classic Navy combat planes, Ships like Arleigh Burke class destroyer and products that are now stop producing for FS9. FS9 is great flying scenery add-ons that FSX has not or will not release and some payware panels that do not work on FSX. So both platforms from my usage standpoint are just right, if I fly on my FSX going to Europe and suddenly want to fly to Hawaii, then I just go to my other FS9 PC to fly that route.

Yes, very true. If you're going to have a 100plus post thread on 'fs9 vs fsx', reasonable to expect some fans of the now much more popular FSX to fly the flag.

 

As its in the fs9 forum there's a lot of non-fsx fliers criticising FSX in ways that seem highly unjustified to someone like me who's got both sims installed.

 

Most opinions in this thread have been level headed. There's been a few comments which display disrespect for one sim or the other, but that happens in such a large community. Hopefully people who don't have FSX might consider it, and maybe there's some FSX users who might feel compelled to enjoy FS9 for a while for some of the things they miss. At one point, I had FS2002, FS9 and FSX all installed together--I went to FS2002 to enjoy some old aircraft I don't fly any longer. I didn't know from one day to the next what sim I'd use....

 

John

Q: Is FS9 Dead?

A:NO, far from it.

 

Q: Are its numbers getting smaller?

A: Quite likely, however they still have a big community.

 

Q: Why use an "inferior" engine in FS9 when FSX has got better visuals?

A: FS9 gets much better frame-rates and with the right addons can look better than FSX at default.

 

Q: If FS9 gets better frames than FSX and can look better than FSX in default, whats the deal with FSX?

A: FSX while poorly optimized, can be tweaked for better performance and todays hardware is going to run FSX pretty well, FSX can also be pushed much farther in terms of visuals.

 

Q: What do you mean FSX can be pushed farther than FS9?

A: FS9's engine has been pushed as far as it can go with all the current 3rd party software that is available, FSX however is just starting to come into its prime, in short FS9's engine is maxed out.

 

Q: This is a simulator, sure visuals are important, but what about flight dynamics?

A: Both FS9 and FSX are both excellent simulators, both are actually very similar when it comes to game physics, aircraft however are completely dependent upon who developed the model & FDE for it.

 

Q: So which is better, FS9 or FSX?

A: Both are great, FS9 has better performance but its 3rd party support is dwindling and its engine is maxed out, while FSX offers more down the road but will require a much more powerful system to run smoothly, in a short answer, neither are technically better, its all up to the user to determine which is better to currently suit their simming needs with their budget.

Yes, very true. If you're going to have a 100plus post thread on 'fs9 vs fsx', reasonable to expect some fans of the now much more popular FSX to fly the flag.

 

As its in the fs9 forum there's a lot of non-fsx fliers criticising FSX in ways that seem highly unjustified to someone like me who's got both sims installed.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!