Why Haven't You Upgraded to MSFSX?

[Marcielli 42]

FS9 is coming up on 10 years old pretty quickly now. You all do what you want, but you really have no clue what you're missing out on.

Absolutely correct, this is why I say that's why is wrong keep using FS9:

 

Sceneries that have exceeded its capabilities are already out, and this trend is not going to reverse. On top of that, you can't even purchase better hardware to substitute the missing capabilities of the FS9 engine, because everything you will buy today will be heavily multi-threaded, and FS9 doesn't support any of this, and having a powerful GPU that will help running shaders code more fast, wouldn't help much in FS9, because its scenery format doesn't use shaders much..

 

FS9 users usually think they are better served putting fast PCs with FS9, but it doesn't work like that: FS9 is much better than FSX on a single or dual-core with an average video card but, when you start adding CPU cores and faster cards, FS9 will not use them (FS9 only gets better with more mhz, but cpu clocks haven't increased in the last years, only the number of cores has), while FSX can use multicore better and CAN use modern video cards that run shaders faster so, at a certain point, FSX becomes faster than FS9 AND it tolerates load much better.

I can run FSXA with all setting maxed out with average FPS of 40 on my machine - perfectly fluid enough to evaluate its relative merits vs. my copy of FS9.

 

Well than WHY do you insist of using FS9 ? Are you aware your system is WASTED with FS9 ?

 

Really, by keeping insisting using FS9, have contributed to slow down full FSX adoption by developers. This, in turn, has created a lack of compelling products that would make the migration not worth it for the die hard Fs9 users, so it's in term going in circles..

[Fox-Bat 31]

The number of people claiming FS9 looks better than FSX in threads is always inversely correlated with the number of screenshots proving the same. Lol.

 

 

To be honest, if FS9 does indeed look better - I would 'upgrade' in a jiffy. Who doesn't want more FPS? But I really doubt FS9 beats say FSX+ORBX+REX.

 

 

Not trolling - I once asked the same question as the OP on this forum when I was new to simming. Someone claimed even their water looks better than FSX+REX with some addons. When a lot of people including me asked for screenshots you could hear the crickets chirping.

 

 

--

 

To OP the simple answer for most who haven't upgraded is that they are happy with their setups and addons which is fine. Same for me - if some new sim came out which improved on FSX I would stick to FSX - cause happy with it with all its amazing addons and importantly - I have sunk a lot of money into it.

[flightwatch 68]

Here are a couple of shots comparing FS9 and FSX.  Both sims have comparable addons.  The one major difference is that the FS9 shot has photoreal scenery whereas FSX does not and is instead represented by UTX/GEX.  There is less haze in FS9 due to the way ActiveSky handles haze layers and visibility graduation.  The veiw is of downtown Tampa looking towards KTPA (FlyTampa of course:) ) 

 

FS9

 

FSX

[edmoore235 1]

Tom, come on over to my web site, www.ford-tri-motor.net  and see why I choose not to switch over to FSX, and yes I own a copy of FSX and yes I have i7 Cpu with 24 Gigs, and all the needed hardware but I prefer  FS9.  Thank you and take care.

 

Ed

[sluggy 3]

Maybe I am missing out on FSX. But I'm happy with FS9, and isn't that all that matters? 

 

Leave us alone, you FSX weirdos. 

 

Cheers, SLuggy

[Fox-Bat 31]

@@flightwatch - thanks FS9 does look pretty good in the pic! I can imagine if someone is happy has it running smoothly - there is no need to change - as I said in my post.

 

Finally, I have to say it FSX can and does look a lot better than the second pic. If my FSX coastlines and water looked like that I would switch to FS9.

 

To each their own!

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Use fs2004 when it starts to snow in the winter, and the 1950s era airports and scenery are awesome, and all the freeware airports in the carribean too.  I fly FSX, FS9,  X-plane 10.  Do not stick 100% to one like 50% FSX  and 30% FS2004 and 20% Xplane.  True FSX has good visual for flying but only use it for photo-real flying as I think autogen in fsx took a step back from fs2004.  Water looks better in FSX and FS9.  FPS in fsx can never stable to in nasty weather like fs2004 or X-plane. 

[geoffco 0]

Time and money (but mostly time)...

I have had FS9 since it came out, I have spent hundreds of hours fixing and tweaking things, installing scenery and custom AI, building my own small sceneries and aircraft panels. As time gos on and I get older, I just have less time to do all that /and/ actually fly in the sim! I'm sure that I'll install FSX one day (I have had the DVDs for years) but it won't be all that soon.

 

Geoff

[Anxu00 176]

FSX brings good features but it was not supported decently by MS and was an unfinished products.  MS stopped working on it since 2006.  FS9 is very stable.  If you are serious about flying and want to really see what FSX should have been, get the Prepar3D Academic license, use the default planes that comes with it.  It is truly what FSX should have been.  Or If you want to be casual, since you start with Google, get the free MS Flight.

[JSkorna 137]

FS9 had one service pack.

 

FSX had two service packs.

 

MS stopped working on FS9 when?

 

FSX is very stable.

 

What is unfinished in FSX?

 

Is the OP a student pilot or a developer to use P3D?

[gwillmot 31]

FS9 had one service pack.

 

FSX had two service packs.

 

MS stopped working on FS9 when?

 

FSX is very stable.

 

What is unfinished in FSX?

 

Is the OP a student pilot or a developer to use P3D?

[Christopher Low 5,332]

 

 

I say smoother because many clips ive seen aren't smooth. 25fps ain't smooth.

 

You may not consider 25fps to be "smooth", but it most definitely is perfectly fine for a flight simulator. If you can't control an aircraft in a flight simulator running at 25fps, then the problem is with the controller, not the simulator.

[JSkorna 137]

And video clips are rarely smooth, and are not a true representation of FSX performance at any FPS.

[Marcielli 42]

and yes I own a copy of FSX and yes I have i7 Cpu with 24 Gigs, and all the needed hardware but I prefer FS9

 

You are ENTIRELY WASTING your system with FS9. (Seems you missed my point above)

 

 

 

You might think its smooth, but I don't and not good enough for my liking. 20 to me is unplayable. Simply not worth it. And its not the controlling part. Visually it isn't realistic < I know none of it is real, but you get the point. 30fps is minimum for me. Not much more is possible anyway for my system with payware add-ons hence why I'm happy with fs9.

 

Really, FS9 is by no means better performing than FSX, it just draws MUCH less stuff.

 

If you add 5x denser Autogen, airport traffic, road traffic and maybe boats and animals traffic to FS9 (and 4x larger Landclass textures and bump/specular mapping, etc, etc), it would be probably even slower than FSX, since making it as an addon product would be way less efficent than if the sim was programmed right from the start for it.

 

A lot of the underserved bad reputation for performances, is also due to the use of FS9 code in FSX and, even if case of FSX native code, the use of models (mainly airplanes) made with FS9 in mind so, just recompiling them with the FSX SDK it's not enough, because the material usage and the modeling itself wasn't made with FSX in mind.

 

Note that, even Microsoft/ACES sometimes fell into this trap, see this post from Adrian Woods, graphic programmer from ACES:

 

http://blogs.technet.com/b/torgo3000/archive/2009/04/13/a-change-of-direction-sort-of.aspx

[mebull 27]

...Actually, now I think about it, been too busy trying to land me one of these:

 

 

That is really funny!!!!! A Malarp?

 

Regards,

Mel