January 27, 201511 yr If you run Pablo Diaz's clouds at lower than max resolution the effect is indiscernable from 'soft clouds' plus using fs9evo brings fs9 well into the fsx camp without fsx's problems. I rarely if ever now see the dreaded cross from on high either. Yes, there are things that cannot be done in fs9 that can be in fsx or p3d. But look what can be done with something like ifly 747 as well! Those that beat their drums and say "FSX is better" are looking at it in a very narrow way. It does a few things fs9 can't but at what price? It's riddled with ooms negative frame rates to say the least! So in fsx yes, one can see great scenery from time to time in between the stutters etc. But one thing that fs9 can do that fsx can't? In fs9 you can complete a long haul flight without fs9 crashing as often as you wish. Super VC10 into LOWI with PF3 at a cinema near you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=298UDyNmgUA
January 27, 201511 yr https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00XhcZUJ7jkc2FUeGo3NnNISGs/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00XhcZUJ7jkZ09JUFZueVRTbUE/view?usp=sharing I'm not sure if you can see the shots above, Im currently using REX overdrive for clouds(512 res), Cumulus set#16, Cirrus Set# 14 sky day Greenage, fscence for ground textures and FSUIPC for visivility settings. I was also using the fair weather theme on this flight. I hope you can follow the links and see what I have going on with FS9.I own both 9 and FSX and love them but you know which one wins when it come to pure smoothness.
January 27, 201511 yr Author Mitch has simply restated the long recognised facts:- FS9 for tubes; FSX, FSX-SE, P3D for GA. In summary ... horses for courses. Yes...agreed. The thrust though, was for totally stutter (of any kind) free animation throughout the flight, from ground-to air-to ground. If you run Pablo Diaz's clouds at lower than max resolution the effect is indiscernable from 'soft clouds' plus using fs9evo brings fs9 well into the fsx camp without fsx's problems. I rarely if ever now see the dreaded cross from on high either. Yes, there are things that cannot be done in fs9 that can be in fsx or p3d. But look what can be done with something like ifly 747 as well! Those that beat their drums and say "FSX is better" are looking at it in a very narrow way. It does a few things fs9 can't but at what price? It's riddled with ooms negative frame rates to say the least! So in fsx yes, one can see great scenery from time to time in between the stutters etc. But one thing that fs9 can do that fsx can't? In fs9 you can complete a long haul flight without fs9 crashing as often as you wish. Touche! Touche! Mitch https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00XhcZUJ7jkc2FUeGo3NnNISGs/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00XhcZUJ7jkZ09JUFZueVRTbUE/view?usp=sharing I'm not sure if you can see the shots above, Im currently using REX overdrive for clouds(512 res), Cumulus set#16, Cirrus Set# 14 sky day Greenage, fscence for ground textures and FSUIPC for visivility settings. I was also using the fair weather theme on this flight. I hope you can follow the links and see what I have going on with FS9.I own both 9 and FSX and love them but you know which one wins when it come to pure smoothness. "Man...that looks good!".
January 27, 201511 yr Author As good as my word...first flight today, Just leaving KFNT (Flint, Michigan) bound for Guadalupe, flight hours, 4.39. "....cabin crew, can you please bring two cups of coffee forward....as soon as we clear ten thousand..." Yeah,yeah...sterile cockpit...but coffee needs a refill...lol 1 http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Ety 2 http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Et3 3 http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Eti 4 http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/EtL Morning, all..FS9 out... -------------------------------------- Ses
January 27, 201511 yr Author Those are nice!!.....I'd love to see arrival shoots. You got it...will do....
February 6, 201511 yr FSX definitely has the better graphics. I guess it all depends on what you want out of your flight sim - for me, I enjoy the experience of flying with FS9 a little more than FSX because you don't have to worry about frame rates, stutters, or crashes to desktop. I just fire it up and fly. Admittedly, sometimes the graphics do annoy me (especially the coastlines), but not nearly as much as the buggy performance of FSX annoys me. In fact, I got away from flight simming for a while because I was spending way too much time trying different tweaks so I could get good frame rates instead of flying. Admittedly, there is not as much content available for FS9 as for FSX, but I'm very satisfied with what I have. I especially enjoy the content from California Classic Propliners for FS9. So to each his own. For me, there is no one "best" simulator. I use both FSX and FS9. But I do use FS9 more than I use FSX. And that's what I think the original point of this thread was: the simple statement of the fact that some of us keep coming back to FS9 even though it is not the latest sim out there.
February 6, 201511 yr Author And that's what I think the original point of this thread was: the simple statement of the fact that some of us keep coming back to FS9 even though it is not the latest sim out there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You got it I fly them all...but come back to FS9 for long-endurance flights, and absolute guaranteed, animation performance."
February 7, 201511 yr Moderator Having just loaded a Vanilla version of FS9 on my new Laptop (i5 M450 2.5, 4Gb, standalone ATI Radeon 5000 HD 1Gb GPU), I'm excited to see if I can really notice a difference from my old Install.
February 7, 201511 yr This is fs9 with Evo and UT Europe. My night flights never looked better than this with fsx. Here you go with another shot. Just above historical peninsula of Istanbul. Since, Istanbul is not that bright at night, this is pretty real actually. Now, day shots above Japanese rural area. Obviously you can't compare this with something like Orbx region but you have to admit this doesn't look bad.
February 8, 201511 yr This is fs9 with Evo and UT Europe. My night flights never looked better than this with fsx. Here you go with another shot. Just above historical peninsula of Istanbul. Since, Istanbul is not that bright at night, this is pretty real actually. Now, day shots above Japanese rural area. Obviously you can't compare this with something like Orbx region but you have to admit this doesn't look bad. Just my personal opinion, but those shots really look "cartoony" compared to GE Pro OR ORBX textures. I have never seen such saturated colors while in "real" flight. Again, ONLY MY personal opinion. ..... and I'm really glad for those of us who STAYED with FS2004 and never wandered to the "dark side" of another sim. Saved a lot of "footwork" over the years by not having to "come back".
February 8, 201511 yr All things being equal, I find EVO stunning. ..... and I hope that we can both agree to disagree on this. .....also a FS9EVO Donator
February 8, 201511 yr I am using sweetfx. I like this setting, it matches with my monitor. It may be a bit cartoonish, I don't deny that. But, I can change it quickly whenever I want, even during flight.
February 8, 201511 yr Just my personal opinion, but those shots really look "cartoony" compared to GE Pro Agreed. I am not a donator to Evo since I frankly dislike the colour palette ... nothing personal Sascha. I shall look forward to version 3. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Create an account or sign in to comment