I find myself coming back to FS9 for performance, more and more...

[JSkorna 137]

Active sky evo

 

Nope!

[Luis Hernandez 564]

I agree, Mitch, but your screenshot links are all broken. As soon as I click them I get lots of 404 errors. Can you fix them, please?

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I agree, Mitch, but your screenshot links are all broken. As soon as I click them I get lots of 404 errors. Can you fix them, please?

Sure..I wonder why that happened?  I'll post again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Eri

 

2  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Erk

 

3  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/ErV

 

4  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/ErA

 

5  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/ErL

 

6  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Er2

 

It seems the host system has had an upgrade, so had to use the new interface. The original links are pages no longer upon their server, hence the 404's...

 

Enjoy

[Dave_YVR 968]

 I know that screens don't quite relay the same impression that we try and share, but lets see some shots of you doing the same flight in FSX or P3D. I've seen many of your shots from FSX / P3d and they are miles ahead in terms of how nice the sim looks. The only reason why FS2004 "runs" so much nicer is because it doesn't have to display nearly as much detail in anything.

[Luis Hernandez 564]

 

 

It seems the host system has had an upgrade, so had to use the new interface. The original links are pages no longer upon their server, hence the 404's...

Enjoy

 

Thanks, now it works. Is this PA A320? Which panel do you use?

[ematheson 19]

I know that screens don't quite relay the same impression that we try and share, but lets see some shots of you doing the same flight in FSX or P3D. I've seen many of your shots from FSX / P3d and they are miles ahead in terms of how nice the sim looks. The only reason why FS2004 "runs" so much nicer is because it doesn't have to display nearly as much detail in anything.

... Mind which forum you're posting in...

[Dave_YVR 968]

... Mind which forum you're posting in...

 Lol.. well aware thanks. I've seen the OP's screens from the other sims and they are simply far nicer. Is it wrong to call a spade a spade?

[Greggy_D 935]

Lol.. well aware thanks. I've seen the OP's screens from the other sims and they are simply far nicer. Is it wrong to call a spade a spade?

Agreed.

[Dave_YVR 968]

Who said Soft Clouds or any clouds at 4096 has anything to do with it.

[Dave_YVR 968]

Just that you specifically mentioned Soft Clouds or 4096 res cloud textures which has nothing to do with it.

 

 GEPro does look better than default without a doubt and yes FS9 can look really good, but it's all still a long way off of what FSX or P3d can deliver. Was a simple post for the OP in that his screens from FSX and P3d look way better. It's not any one thing but a combination of terrain, lighting, clouds, and water are lacking what is so common today from the newer sims.

[ematheson 19]

We've gotten a little defensive in this forum after waves and waves and waves of and continuing problems with trolls who don't seem to be able to accept that we might have different reasons and preferences, thus sticking with FS9. It's also a little irksome when questions about FS9 issues get answers that aren't applicable when posters don't mind the forum.

My original post was intended as a bit of a friendly warning that posting about FSX in this forum might therefore be taken the wrong way and lead some to react negatively - it seems that perhaps my gesture, intended to prevent this sort of thing happening, was in fact the cause of it - for which I'm a little chagrined. My apologies to all involved!

[WingZ 547]

Edit:

Ephram I won't go into the discussion, since you've explained the situation already in a simultaneous post.

Suffice to say:

In this forum, there are many who are quite comfortable with FS9 (.5).

It's a long shot from the original, and it's gratifying to see folk returning to it.

The reason can be found in the thread title.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Funny how eveyones been conned by REX with their 'new' soft clouds. Everyone also now slowly now relizing that 4096 textures don't always mean better.

Well not everyone, I purchased REX when it first hit the scene and to be frank, I never really cared for their sky and cloud sets and knew that running crazy sized cloud textures was going to be a recipe for disaster. The only thing from them I like for FSX was some of the water animations and water textures which are the only things I use REX for these days.

 

I still think the best sky textures ever made are Pablo Diaz's HDEv2 set, which were also remastered for FSX (thanks to Ed for pointing them out years ago). I prefer his cloud sets as well mixed with some FEX clouds, although FEX is not in favor now, but I believe most of the FEX sets look better than most REX options.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

 I know that screens don't quite relay the same impression that we try and share, but lets see some shots of you doing the same flight in FSX or P3D. I've seen many of your shots from FSX / P3d and they are miles ahead in terms of how nice the sim looks. The only reason why FS2004 "runs" so much nicer is because it doesn't have to display nearly as much detail in anything.

Dave, everything you just stated is absolutely true.  FSX and P3D (as critiqued against FS9) does have much better graphic output. I have stated that myself, and anybody would only have to look at the two, side by side to see that.  What the thrust of my post/thread was and is....is that in flying with FS9, over any other sim that I own (and fly regularly), is the ABSOLUTE smoothness of animation execution. It is such a joy to take a bank, and see the wing progress down smoothly, to mimic real life events. To see cockpit animation, the same. 

 

The only superior aspect of FSX.x and P3D.x over FS9, is to my opinion, the world graphics.  Better water and ocean, hand's down. Better continental ocean and lakeshores, hand's down. Mountains...hand's down.

 

Having said all that, though, Dave....I am still, (the true intent of this thread) drawn like a moth to the flame, to the animation performance of FS9.  I am drawn to the most beautiful clouds and skyscape produced by the REX for FS9 (2004) and Active Sky Evolution.  In fact....I prefer the meteorological output of FS9 for terrain color clarity and depth (the same the sky,clouds, etc) OVER any other sim on my hard drive.  It looks real.  FSX.x and P3D.x have never looked real, and most probably can not. From day one, it has had a very computer-colored, 'cartoonish' look to the pallets.  It is hard coded, for even P3D.x has the same 'pallet' shades.  

 

Taking off with FS9...with Ground Environment Pro...and climbing through  3,500 feet...Dave, the world is believable (not so much in graphic detail as either FSX.x or P3D.x with third party input), but BY ITS COLOR rendition...  Unless P3D will get totally rewritten in the 64 bit release...both FSX and P3D are doomed to be a cartoonish representation of the world, until the last flight.

 

In closing Dave...I flew through a morning dawn sky...over Vancouver...in FS9, that made me have to pause the flight...and just pan around...  In a word....it was spectacular!   Depth of color...from a slight pink...to a flaming red to orange banking off of the clouds, and terrain below.  Stunning...and has NEVER been produced in either FSX or P3D (again...because of the type of pallets that FSX and P3D draw from.

 

So...with all the above...I fly FS9, when I want to experience total flight-of-hours reliability.  I do NOT want to crash to the desktop, after having put in 4 or 5 real-time hours (I do a lot of real-time flight, actually) continental or trans continental flying in the tubes. FS9, by merely the use of it, and supporting third party products, on a system that is healthy, will never CTD on you. No matter how complicated the air-frame and cockpit is, no matter what program is running in the back ground...no matter how many miles, or hours, you have put in...and you will (if you have the pilot skill) land and taxi to the gate at the far end.  Nobody, can assure me, let alone myself, that that can be achieved on any flight...with any air-frame/cockpit, over any terrain...with either FSX.x or P3D.x   Not one, or two, or three times out of ten. No...EVERY TIME you pull away from the gate using FS9/Custom this n' that.....you will taxi to the numbers,and then hours later, see the arrival runway on final approach. Every time.....

 

THAT, Dave, is why I shall always fly this gal, in rotation, or for specific Big Iron usage.  It is simply that good, and reliable....just as a best friend should be. In closing, FS9, will pull for you...and be there always, at the far numbers.....

 

Cheers!

 

Mitch 

 Lol.. well aware thanks. I've seen the OP's screens from the other sims and they are simply far nicer. Is it wrong to call a spade a spade?

Nope...your opinion is absolutely valid...and I have gone into more detail as to my reasons for my OP.  

 

Mitch

[Appliance 51]

Mitch has simply restated the long recognised facts:- FS9 for tubes; FSX, FSX-SE, P3D for GA.

 

In summary ... horses for courses.