FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!

[ematheson 19]

Yes, very compatible. It has a special config program to use it with a bunch of stuff. Glacier Bay v2 is one of the all around best sceneries ever produced.

[Groovin_DC-10 51]

Super!  Thanks guys.

[navtech 13]

Around Juneau ......

 

 

 

[PETER_PAN 0]

Between you and Jon_aus, this could be a huge seller for FS9.  You could package this up and share with the rest of us (I'd pay).  This is the last frontier for FS9 and truly needed.  I implore you guys to ask other developers how to break in the business and sell this formula and/or texture combination.  People would have a harder choice to make between the two sims and FS9 would finally have high detailed ground scenery.  I can't express this enough that not sharing this hurts more than it helps.  Until Steve Ballmer is out FSX and FS9 are the most used sims and deserve further development from all of us.  Keeping something like this to yourself on your isolated machine is not good.  You've cracked the HD ground texture debacle with FS9 just like REX, FSUIPC, and Activesky did with other areas before you.  Please share what you've done so we can build on that even further and enhance the enjoyment for everyone.

After many months of hard work, I found easy way to convert any textures to FS9 format and for convert any FSX scenery to FS9 format with good results (it's not only about visual quality, or converting, it's also about adjusting, tweaking and merging to excellent quality with minimized blurries and make new autogens, masks, LM files, I wanted to help all FS9 simmers with special "HOW TO" manual, so everyone would be able to make own pack for yourself (because I use some copyrighted textures from FSX or another packs, that I bought, it's impossible to share these in another new pack) but I gave up after a few idiotic posts in my personal AVSIM mail box. Really I don't need be insulting by few jealous incompetent fools. My project is still in develope mode. I made this pack for myself but I wanted to share all informations with community, but unfortunately now will stay only for my purposes, no shares from my "KNOW-HOW", no shares repaints and AI flightplans and PHOTOGROUNDS from me. This is the problem of the community, because of some ignorant fool, we all are losing developers of freeware made for all of us.

 

Peter

That shots are taken from high altitude and and are very much zoomed out.. 

Take the same shots at 2000 Feet AGL and from 1.00 Zoomed cockpit view(Actual real cockpit view) and you will see how it will look then.

IFR flights are on HIGH ALTITUDES, here I am not presenting myself, only possibility of blurries, so you are farting absolutely about nothing.

[JSkorna 137]

Peter,

 

That is really too bad. I hope that when things cool off, you will reconsider about your How To package. I can only guess as to who sent those posts.

[Romflyer 0]

Hey Peter

It' a shame to hear that you have such strong offence to a statement that clearly was not worded well......and I'm not convinced it was intended the way it came across. To be honest my first thought as I gazed in wonderment of your fabulous screenshots was " if they look that good at 1000' AGL then this is truly......a game changer"

I sincerely hope that Sidh's remark was intended similarly......just not articulated well.

As stated by Jskorna hopefully with a calmer head you can move forward and share some of your hard earned insight........and get the much deserved respect for your efforts.

Cheers

Romflyer

[cowpatz 245]

Peter with respect to PM's and email....let the DELETE key be your friend. Idiots lurk everywhere unfortunately.

[WingZ 547]

Yes, and for every idiot mercifully, there are 10 who would give constructive advice and productive support.

If this were not so, our hobby could not survive.

Illegitimi non carborundum

[bonchie 2,305]

The options may be older but still viable when compared to similar offerings/platforms. PMDG's original 747 rocks in FS9 so I don't need the latest one coming from them. We have iFly for the 737 and PSS\Posky for the 777. I also don't need to buy the same aircraft every time a new version comes out from said developer especially if that particular developer could care less about the platform many of us use... If arrogant developers want to work exclusively with FSX so be it. The only thing anyone can point to at this point that FS9 doesn't have is the 787 and 717 (speaking of the 717, no one is doing that bird for some reason). The main goal is fluid flight and FSX has never been able to do that well on any machine. Hopefully P3D has success with getting 64Bit optimized in their version and just maybe down the road Microsoft reintroduces Flight Simulator (heck their hording the code anyway). FSX by far is not the end all answer for anything aviation sim related. We always have new developers come along with surprises and they usually go FS9 first. Either way it doesn't matter at this point.

 

This is simply untrue. It's completely fluid on mine and hundreds of others on this forum alone and I get no OOM's either for the record (that was solved in large part years ago). All with a mountain of addons I might add (including Orbx regions, which are always taxing).

 

This on a 2500k, a GTX570, and 4 gigs of ram. A machine that could be built for $800 easy. If FS9 fans are still unwilling to update to such basic modern computer technology, that's cool. But don't bash FSX because it won't runs smoothly on your 6 year old graphics card and dual core processor.

 

Even tweaking has become pretty simplified in FSX these days as many of the pointless tweaks have been weeded out over the years. BP=0 , change the FF to something lower, lock your frames at 30 internally, and go fly. That's pretty much it.

 

And in the same breath you guys are using to bash FSX for having to be tweaked, you list umpteen different things that need to be done to FS9 for it to even approach FSX's fidelity, and even then it simply doesn't.

 

The 4m ground resolution is the showstopper for most. It's simply ugly downlow. FS9 players choose to ignore this for the most part. But when citing airliner ops you can't ignore the fact that those don't start at 18,000 feet (as the OP mentioned). They start on the ground. They continue on takeoff and climb and a large part of the most intensive flying happens on approach, where those ground textures are a huge eye sore and big immersion breaker.

 

Your machine is ancient by most standards anyway so I'm not sure how you are qualified to even make the statements about FSX you are making. 

 

You come across as extremely bitter in this thread. As if you are taking it personal that developers are moving away from a lesser platform. That doesn't mean it's not a usuable platform. You guys that like it over FSX, have at it. No one is stopping you.

[bonchie 2,305]

I'll add to this in saying these numbers are polled from Avsim users. I know for a fact on other sites like Flightsim.com you find way more FS9 users. In fact most of your FSX customer base seem to gravitate to Avsim. Going by what people post on other forums there seems to be far more FS9 users than any of us realize. Who knows though...

 

There's a reason most major developers don't touch XP10 for example. It's not because they don't like XP10 but because resources are scarce. It makes no sense to develop for one platform that only promises a fraction of the return of what another platform can give you.

 

Because FS9 is so limited compared to FSX in what is possible technologically, especially in the world of high fidelity airliner simulations, developers can't afford to carry two different development cycles on the books for the same product just so they can offer an FS9 version.

 

And these conclusions weren't drawn out of thin air or "arrogance" as you put it earlier. These companies have done the research and have come to these conclusions. Anecdotal evidence about "flightsim.com" or unscientific polls can never point to the whole story.

I've got a i52500 and a gtx560 and it doesn't run smooth.

 

Only have to go to any fsx forum and there is post after post about fsx problems which leaves fs9 problems for dead.

 

Then you've got other problems besides FSX. There's no reason whatsover a 2500k and a GTX400-600 series card can't run FSX smoothly out of the box. Even with no tweaks.

 

Your card is poweful enough to use the BP=0 tweak as well.

 

I'm locked at 30 in even the most heavy scenery areas and the only thing that gets me into the low 20's (which is still plenty smooth in FSX) is using the NGX and AS2012 pumping out heavy cloud layers.

 

As an aside, like any game Vsync needs to be on to keep smoothness when panning or making quick turns within the environment to avoid screen tearing (I force it through the Nvidia driver).

 

Is FSX perfect? Of course not. Can there still be issues? Of course. But the graphical rewards and rewards in systems simulation far exceed FS9 when you get it right.

 

There's simply nothing in FS9 that can come close to approaching what FSX offers while flying the NGX with AS2012/REX/Opus in an Orbx region.

 

And all of that can be had in a smooth experience on today's hardware with about two minutes worth of .cfg tweaking.

 

So it depends on what you're willing to accept as your baseline I guess. Those that are happy with FS9 are willing to look past the compromises they make to do so. Others aren't.

 

If FSX were the unusuable dog it's falsely made out to be in this thread, it wouldn't be the dominant simulator on the market. But it is and the proof is in the business decisions the addon developers are making to be FSX exclusive (with some developing for XP10 as well).

[bonchie 2,305]

Taking off from KPHL with 50+ ai at gates, taxing, in air(something I don't see in fsx) in a complex add-on like the iFly 737 in heavy clouds with AS, locked and GETTING 30 fps.

 

To get the same in fsx, with scenery looking same by the way, actually worse with less autogen, next to no ai and all the 'eye candy' missing, less fps and smoothness.

 

 

I'll stick with fs9.

 

So do it.

 

Just don't make false comments like it looks the same or better. Because it doesn't and it's an impossibility that it does. The ground textures don't look better. The misaligned and sparse autogen don't look better. The lesser quality of advanced addons don't look or fly better. The LOD radius doesn't look better.

 

You may of convinced yourself to look past these flaws and it may look "the same or better" to you but reality doesn't deviate.

 

If you want to pretend FS9 can even come close to the kind of visual quality I'm getting in an Orbx region (or even default for that matter), with full weather, with full AI, at a detailed airport, then you are simply fooling yourself. All with 30FPS locked btw.

 

As for your comments about AI, that's a you issue. FSX has no problems displaying AI in the air. Never even heard that one and I've used three different traffic programs, all with fine results.

 

You like FS9, stick with it. No one is stopping you.

 

I personally don't get the logic of complaining about not wanting to put in the little work it takes to get FSX running smoothly while at the same time promoting spending hours on updating and tweaking FS9 to even get it to approach what FSX can do.

 

If you honestly don't have the hardware to do it, fair enough.

[vololiberista 205]

So do it.

 

Just don't make false comments like it looks the same or better. Because it doesn't and it's an impossibility that it does. The ground textures don't look better. The misaligned and sparse autogen don't look better. The lesser quality of advanced addons don't look or fly better. The LOD radius doesn't look better.

 

You may of convinced yourself to look past these flaws and it may look "the same or better" to you but reality doesn't deviate.

 

If you want to pretend FS9 can even come close to the kind of visual quality I'm getting in an Orbx region (or even default for that matter), with full weather, with full AI, at a detailed airport, then you are simply fooling yourself. All with 30FPS locked btw.

 

As for your comments about AI, that's a you issue. FSX has no problems displaying AI in the air. Never even heard that one and I've used three different traffic programs, all with fine results.

 

You like FS9, stick with it. No one is stopping you.

 

I personally don't get the logic of complaining about not wanting to put in the little work it takes to get FSX running smoothly while at the same time promoting spending hours on updating and tweaking FS9 to even get it to approach what FSX can do.

 

If you honestly don't have the hardware to do it, fair enough.

 

You clearly prefer FSX so take your own advice and stick to it. Many people prefer to have a smooth running sim and this is what FS9 gives them plus the fact that there are still loads of add-ons upgrades-updates etc.

You need to look at the topic title and read all the comments. This topic is not the place for someone to come and and "demand" that people with FS9 should change to FSX. As for aircraft it's up to the developer's ability as to whether a product is good or not. There are some p*** poor payware products and some excellent freeware products. Also have a look on the avsim library. The majority of daily uploads are for FS9.

You know as well as anyone that FS9 with the right add-ons comes close to FSX. It runs ultra smooth and with all the stops out. That's what people like. Real airline simulators don't waste their time saying "My clouds are better than yours na,na,na na, na!" They are there to train pilots in cockpit procedures and emergencies. The NGX is not the only aircraft in the World!! There are plenty of others and some FS9 a/c are as complex if not more in terms of checklists and procedures.

This topic is not about FS9 v. FSX it's about how advanced one can make FS9. If you can make a contribution to that then all's well. But saying people are wasting their time and should buy FSX is the topic for another form.

Note that this topic is being monitored so if you don't have anything positive to contribute peruse other topics instead!

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

This horse is dead and once again warrants burial.