Sometimes I wonder what the late, great David "Opa" Marshall and Leon Louis, amongst others, would make of this thread and others of similar nature.

 

They were contributors whose efforts enriched our hobby. Now, it seems, many posters are more intent on increasing post counts, trolling, ego massaging etc.rather than on flying, learning and helping others.

 

I'm afraid you might have just lost me.  :wacko:

I have FSX and FS9 installed!!! I play both with big pleasure, I have spent over 1000$ on add-ons for each one. I don't have to choose between FSX and FS9 because I love them both. While you are fighting here for which sim is the best, I've already flown with both, each one offering me the pleasure of flying!! 

I still like to think that maybe one day one or two developers might change their mind and make us some nice new airliners.

So far there is a possibility from iFly, but that's about it.

 

I buy scale models and aviation dvd's from an aviation shop near the airport.  In fact, there are two and they're side by side.

They also sell FS9 and FSX, some add ons and flight sim hardware.  Not a big selection but enough to get anyone started on their choice of sim, a pmdg aircraft, payware airport/sceneries and hardware.  Very cool shop for people into aviation.  They also have a 737ng simulator anyone can book.

 

The gentleman that was working there told me FS9 is still selling and it's what he recommends for anyone buying a sim.  So who knows.  Maybe it's gaining popularity again. 

Let's compare some differences:-

Real full motion simulators rarely have perfect and accurate "worldwide" scenery. Nor do they have exquisite cloud bmps! Their purpose is to train pilots in cockpit drills and emergencies.

 

There is enough evidence on all the sim sites that FSX despite its marginal enhancements over FS9 is difficult to run smoothly therefore its advantage is lost. Yes, of course some people are lucky enough to have a PC architecture that makes it work, but most it seems do not despite having spent pots of money, overclocking until their CPU is glowing!

In terms of the flight model there is very little difference between FSX and FS9.

 

Despite its limitations FS9's attraction is that it runs as smooth as silk on modern setups. If you are a general aviation flyer necessitating VFR and therefore navigation by ground landmarks then perhaps FSX is the better choice. If you are more content to fly at altitude then the ground detail is less of a consideration. Some developers will say that they cannot provide their a/c at such detail in FS9. Well, there is plenty of stuff out there for FS9 that will give most FSX a/c a good run for their money if not better them.

 

The topic title suggests that the originator has all the a/c there is to be had for FS9. I doubt that! There's plenty of a/c add-ons for FS9 out there. Some good some bad. Some extremely complex models and conversely some basic. But then that also applies to FSX doesn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I switched to widescreen I also thought the out-of-round gauges would drive me dilly.

But sit in a cockpit and take a picture - you are looking down and parallax makes them a bit oval.

It's just a question of convincing your mind to suspend its disbelief, as ever.

 

But if you must, I see a whole bunch of WS 2D panels being produced, and this will surely continue

http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=wide+screen&Sort=Name&ScanMode=1&Go=Change+View

Nice to know. I'll reload fs9 next week and see if I can adjust to thestretched panels. I would prefer to stay with fs9 since I have thousands invested in 3rd party software for it, but I just built my new system with fsx in mind. Since all developers have focused on FSX at this point, I find out hard to resist moving forward. But none the less, FS9 holds a special place in my heart. I still have plenty of add ons for it that I can still thoroughly enjoy... So I might as well, right?

Whether simming with FS9 or with FSX - we're all flightsim addicts.

 

The addiction is what makes us to think about how to get more and more and more ... planes, for example.

 

A developer working for FSX doesn't put his ressources into FS9 - that's why addicts (on FS9) need desperately to talk him into doeing stuff for them.

 

Same is true the other way round: addicts on FSX need to talk FS9 developers into producing more drugs for them.

 

Why don't we admit what we all have in common: a common addiction concerning flightsimming ...

P.S. I have not seen FSX in the stores for sometime now, so where does that leave the developers or us ? To stay in business you have to have a client, we are that client currently, but is the hobby growing or has it already peaked? Time will tell, but don't develop FSX products for this simmer, you are wasting your money and efforts. :rolleyes:

 

FSX can still be bought online.

 

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msus/en_US/pdp/ThemeID.29553000/productID.253657900

 

Other than that, there's always the big online shops that sell the DVD version.

Let's compare some differences:-

Real full motion simulators rarely have perfect and accurate "worldwide" scenery. Nor do they have exquisite cloud bmps! Their purpose is to train pilots in cockpit drills and emergencies.

 

There is enough evidence on all the sim sites that FSX despite its marginal enhancements over FS9 is difficult to run smoothly therefore its advantage is lost. Yes, of course some people are lucky enough to have a PC architecture that makes it work, but most it seems do not despite having spent pots of money, overclocking until their CPU is glowing!

In terms of the flight model there is very little difference between FSX and FS9.

 

Despite its limitations FS9's attraction is that it runs as smooth as silk on modern setups. If you are a general aviation flyer necessitating VFR and therefore navigation by ground landmarks then perhaps FSX is the better choice. If you are more content to fly at altitude then the ground detail is less of a consideration. Some developers will say that they cannot provide their a/c at such detail in FS9. Well, there is plenty of stuff out there for FS9 that will give most FSX a/c a good run for their money if not better them.

 

The topic title suggests that the originator has all the a/c there is to be had for FS9. I doubt that! There's plenty of a/c add-ons for FS9 out there. Some good some bad. Some extremely complex models and conversely some basic. But then that also applies to FSX doesn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I used to visit our NW simulators here in Eagan MN before NW went under. What you write here is so true and has kept me with FS9 all these years. The real Level-D simulators weren't big on graphics and having the whole world covered. It was isolated to where that ship actually flew for the airline. Second the fidelity of the flight model and smoothness was most important. I found FS9 more than capable of simulating what I saw in the larger simulator. The only difference was for example the lag time when turning a real 744 versus what I got with the PMDG version. You'll turn the yoke and a second later the plane would turn. Outside of that FS9 hit it. GA is spot on. I don't need graphics that take away from how the plane flies because the sim is skipping along with framerate issues. It's all about a fluid experience.

 

Speaking of FS9 planes on the level of FSX planes we have to give some people examples:

 

QW 146

PMDG's 744

Captiansim's 757

Dreamfleet's A35/Baron

Eaglesoft's Citation X

 

This list goes on and on so for me it's just excuses on developer's parts (I can understand systems but graphic quality in VC's can be had in both sims). If anyone ever figures out how to clean up city ground textures so their not blurry I'll never switch. Zinertech took care of the water. I've seen city textures cleaned up with isolated scenery packages so I know it's possible...

Why don't we admit what we all have in common: a common addiction concerning flightsimming ...

 

Developing something for MSFS can be a sobering experience.

 

It's a cure for the lack of respect towards developer's decisions exhibitied in here.

"No FS9" means "no FS9". Period. End of discussion. Move on.

 

If anyone really thinks that airliner x, y or z is still missing from FS9 or hasn't been properly represented yet (everyone has "that list"), one can still do it oneself.

GMax is free, GIMP is free, Notepad is free and time spent on senselessly consuming (= flying in MSFS) can also be turned into time spent learning the art of add-on making*. At times, it's even more fun than just flying. And it can be done collaboratively, if other like-minded people to join in.

 

And, best of all, it's way more productive than whining about FSXers stealing development resouces and vice versa.

 

 

 

Note to self: Stay away from these discussions.

 

 

 

 

*There is absolutely no excuse not to try it.

Absolutely. None.

No.

Don't even make an effort to make one up.

NO!

Stop it!

Stop. It.

STOP!

*Slap on wrist*

Stop.

- Respect developers' decisions to move away from FS9.

- Respect flightsimmers who like their FS9 and wouldn't convert to FSX ... not yet, anyway.

- Be grateful for what FS9 has received ... so far:

   = iFly 737NGX

   = PMDG 744 and MD11

   = LVLD 763

   = Feelthere EMB 175/195

   = DA F70/100 (who needs a VC, anyway?!?)

   = (any plane or planes you'd like to add in here)

 

My best (and only!) effort was an "external model only" of my former Volkswagen Polo with a default Cessna's FDE and panels aliased to it.

 

I'd like to see new planes for FS9. But I'm not entitled to complain if it doesn't happen ...

*There is absolutely no excuse not to try it.

Absolutely. None.

No.

Don't even make an effort to make one up.

NO!

Stop it!

Stop. It.

STOP!

*Slap on wrist*

Stop.

 

 

 

?????

 

What an epic fail

*There is absolutely no excuse not to try it.

Absolutely. None.

No.

Don't even make an effort to make one up.

NO!

Stop it!

Stop. It.

STOP!

*Slap on wrist*

Stop.

 

 

 

?????

 

What an epic fail

I believe his intention was to suggest that every flightsimmer should at least attempt creation of an original addon. I know that I have tried that - and wow, really, such respect it gives! I can't do more than a simple AFCAD and others turn out amazing airports! I wrangle for weeks over a simple repaint, others upload batches at a time! Amazing...

I used to visit our NW simulators here in Eagan MN before NW went under. What you write here is so true and has kept me with FS9 all these years. The real Level-D simulators weren't big on graphics and having the whole world covered. It was isolated to where that ship actually flew for the airline. Second the fidelity of the flight model and smoothness was most important. I found FS9 more than capable of simulating what I saw in the larger simulator. The only difference was for example the lag time when turning a real 744 versus what I got with the PMDG version. 

 

You can use ''stick_sensitivity_mode=0'' and you will have zero lag on the commands!!!! In options you need SENSITIVITY set to MAX and NUL ZONE set to ZERO. Try this and you will be amazed!! I have this line both in FSX and FS2004

 

 

[CONTROLS]

stick_sensitivity_mode=0

I don't like iFly for releasing 80% of a complete 737 before PMDG would release their 100% (I know, that's FSX stuff) and have us wait for the missing 20% until their feature pack.

 

But I agree their NGX (including the FP) put something into FS9 that hardly anyone of us had ever expected.

iFly's 80% was far more the PMDG's '100%' for fs9.

 

 

... which emphasizes my appreciation for their efforts devoted to FS9. (I mentioned that FSX thing here in my other post just to confuse matters.)

 

I'd even called it a 'revitalization" of FS9 in the iFly forum (by that doing an injustice to my fellow FS9 simmers; now time feels right to apologize for that).