Sign in to follow this  
stevewhatmore

Good old FS9

Recommended Posts

Well ive just tried fsx steam only because it was in a sale. Im back within 2 days to good old FS9.

I downloaded all my compatable sceneries and aircraft (QualityWings 757). Did the FSX CFG tweeks and everything worked quite well.

But I couldnt get on with the aircraft and views that FSX gives. It was dreadful. The start was, well, not the same.

Plus my good old PSS 757 and 777 and Airbuses didnt work.

I couldnt see much difference between Fs9 with all my addons and tweeks, and steam, just ai cars ships etc moving about.

I did fancy buying the aerosoft A300 (which isnt for FS9). Glad I never bought it now.

Well Im back for good.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

You are more than welcome! There is indeed more to flight sim than flashy graphics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took some time off FS and missed all the trolls coming here bashing FS9. Talk about disappointed! I'm so happy with FS9 and would love to offer the trolls some wisdom! lol

Welcome back to FS9, the coolest place to be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I'm sure they would like to hear some of your wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as loyal an FS9 fan as there is but I have to totally disagree with what's been said on here about FSX-SE. There are excellent reasons for continuing to use FS9 and I plan to go on doing so, but there are also as many reasons or maybe more for using SE. Anyone who hasn't tried it or who has only dabbled with it for a couple of days has no idea of what it can deliver, and not just "fancy graphics."

 

I have no intention of engaging in another of those stupid FSX vs. FS9 debates that have wasted so much time and energy over the years, but for anyone who reads this thread and takes the above comments seriously, please do a little more research. The fact is that SE is everything FSX could have been if MS had done it right. If SE had been released earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that our hobby would have adopted it with the same enthusiasm we had for FS2004 when it first appeared and FS9/2004/ACOF would have been retired with dignity and remembered with respect - along with FS98 and 2002...

 

If that makes me sound like an "FSX troll" - then take a look back at the years of posts I've made as an FS9 defender. But the truth is - FSX-SE is now my simulator of choice, with FS9 still a source of pleasure and continued adventures for IFR and military flight

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter to me at this stage as to what is "better" in FSX, FSX SE and/or P3D ..... it's simply a matter of $$$$$.  I've spent mucho money on FS2004 up till now ..... and can't start reinvesting any more money in a flight sim.  At some time, you have to be happy with what you are lucky to have ..... and that's FS2004!  I could have done much worse!

FS2004 .... the last flight sim of .....

gwillmot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought FSX SE only because it was 5 bucks last night. I did have the disc version installed and it ran just about right with all the Orbx scenery etc. but it was just a little stuttery in places. So I tried SE to see if lived up to the hype. It actually performs WORSE for some reason. I'm gonna try a few things but if they don't work I only wasted 5 bucks. I'm with gwillmot in that I've purchased a ton of FS9 stuff over the years  and there is still way more freeware and payware scenery for that old sim. Add that to the fact I can run a lot more traffic without worrying about frames and FS9 is still my go to sim. Unless my old rig hands in it's notice I can't see myself upgrading for the sake of a prettier sim. Long live FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSX troll is a figment of your own imagination. Like the boogey man. When you stopped believing in the boogey man he went away, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSX troll is a figment of your own imagination. Like the boogey man. When you stopped believing in the boogey man he went away, right?

 

..... or did he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOM and problem with FPS in FSX-SE with tons of add-ons like PMDG, Active Sky Next, ORBX-FTX scenery's like Global, Vector FTX regions, etc etc? Is it a problem if I have FPS about 50-80 in the cockpit  :P  No OOM what so ever? I have a really good time now then I had in FS9 and FSX box edition. No problem at all!!!! Now these days it's actually fun to fly all over the earth either I fly PMDG 737 or 777, the FSX-SE runs like hell without problem. To me it's no returning back to either FS2004 or FSX.

 

I think to much focus on the tweaking is the problem and it's true about what they say. Fix it until it's broken!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roger

There does seem to be a problem for some people who already have the boxed version of FSX installed on the same PC as FSX-SE. There are solutions that are discussed on the AVSIM forum. I had removed FSX many years ago (actually, several PC's ago! LOL) so I didn't have any problems. Before you give up, I'd recommend you take a look at the forum thread and see if it's something worth fiddling around with. Trust me on this mate - if you have SE running as it should be, you will probably be glad you got it. It's not a matter of "better than" but rather what it gives you that our beloved FS9 just can't. Oranges and apples are both different and both worth having...

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I'm sure they would like to hear some of your wisdom.

 

FSX and FS9 are very similar sims. I think people tend to forget this. Effectively there aren't many great differences between the two. If you exclude a small increase in graphics quality and performance requirements, both are virtually on a level playing field. For these reasons I am totally happy to stay with FS9. There is no rush to move, I'm only moving to basically the same sim anyhow. I have a million addons yet to explore many of which can't be used with FSX.

I can change to FSX now but it's like playing say a FPS game, getting through half the levels and dumping it before you finished it just because the new one is released. It's not solid logic. If you've explored all FS9 has to offer, have a system that runs FSX without issue, sure, you should be onto FSX.

 

I think I could use FS9 for another 10 years easily! I will move when I'm done with it and by then I may very well bypass FSX if there is a new flight sim out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the other thing with FS users, they are a largely adult, mature based group who have lived through the years of technological advancement. If you look at games from 1985-2000 game advances were huge. Take the next 15 year period to where we are now (2000-2015) it's been a rather slower state in advancement. Software long ago left hardware behind. I'm playing many games that are up to 15 years old because if you ignore the marginal increase in graphics quality, these games on all levels can compete with anything out there today and in some cases are actually better games.
The rush to FSX by many way back when it was released was based on experiencing this pre 2000 era when you felt the new version should mean something great will come from it. Those days are long gone and radical advancements that were literally yearly back pre 2000 probably take close to a decade to see similar changes today.

It's a key reason I see no mad rush to move from my old flight sim. FS9 is great, FSX is not that greater! We are likely going to be well beyond 2020 before something radical will be seen in the flight sim market compared to what we have now. By this time will it still be viable to produce anything for a PC with the way phones and tablets have taken off???

FSX is my new game, it's there and waiting for me when I'm ready. There is no rush to get to it because I may need to stretch out FS9 and FSX to cover the rest of my simming life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which shows that higher resolution textures in FSX don't mean squat.

 

And usually mean ctd and oom.

If your talking about textures larger than 1024 I would have to agree that the looks are negligible, but just for the fact of FSX using higher resolution ground textures is enough for a lot of people who don't like the blurry look of FS9's ground textures, especially those who like to fly at under 5000' where it's more noticable. If you ran a poll showing screen shots to people who don't sim and could provide an unbiased opinion of the FS9 and FSX ground textures, as well as water, I highly doubt anyone would say FS9 looked better or more realistic. Ground textures aren't the source of high memory consumption at 1024 size anyway.

 

Microsoft should've just upgraded fs9 model by capping pixels at 1024p using the fs9 engine.

 

But they wrecked it

They basically did upgrade the FS9 model by adding a round earth, more capable shader options for designers, simconnect which allow for other features, improved weather which ASN takes advantage of, and many other features FS9 is not capable of.

 

FSX was designed for 1024 sized textures until someone, a developer I think, discovered that you could force 2048 or 4096. Frankly I think that is one of the worse discoveries that could have happened because of all the developers who jumped on the HD band wagon and decided to start making every scenery add on a VAS hog, minus a few devs who realized it was a bad idea and never got on board.

 

The reason FSX gets a bad rap is because a lot of users fail to manager their sim properly and push it beyond what a 32 bit program is capable of. They insist on running large textures, increasing their LOD, pushing sliders too far to the right and then whine when they OOM.

 

Others like myself who know how to manage their sim, don't extend it texture wise beyond what it was meant for, can run FSX in beautiful fashion and don't experience these issues.

 

I run tons of add on scenery that was shipped with too large textures and based on recommendations, have resized them to what FSX was meant to run, and guess what, no OOMS and it still looks better than the FS9 counter part.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with FSX, what is wrong is people not knowing how to use it properly and developers pushing scenery that needs to be fixed at the user level.

 

I run FSX with tons of the popular add on sceneries and planes, most of which are known to be VAS hogs, but after fixing developers HD work, FSX doesn't perform all that differently than FS9 does, and I do have FS9 but no longer use it, personal preference.

 

I do agree that these discussions typically ate futile as it doesn't really matter who runs what or for what reasons they do so. Some love FS9, some love FSX, so be it, the world goes on. It's the same argument for any consumer good. I like Samsung and don't care for Apple, no need to argue about it as they both have their strengths and weaknesses, just like FS9 and FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use FS9 for VFR as well because it looks better then my FSX even with lower resolution at lower altitudes. Microsoft butchered the FSX with a fake look about it and nothing I've seen makes it better. P3D looks horrendously worse. When I want a laugh, I visit the screenshot forum here and view these 'amazing' pics. I see rubbish. Harsh but true.

We must have different eye sight then. I have 20/10 with correction, so that could be why I can differentiate texture resolution differently. Perhaps different monitor resolutions and or calibrations.

 

I wouldn't say that FS9/FSX/P3D are perfect, but I can definitely tell the difference and have yet to see a set of ground textures in FS9 that look as sharp as either FSX or P3D compared to real life. Harsh but true.

 

As far as fakeness, well they both look equally fake to me since neither are exact replicas of the real world.

 

Which is why we choose to run fs9 because on a monitor, it replicates the real world very well. If it didn't, I would've kept my iFly for FSX instead of getting a refund and would've spent money on add-ons. Having flown in the real world, I get excited when I see similar views in fs9. Never seen that in FSX. Doubt it's possible.

Similar to my top reply. I fly in real life as well and it just doesn't look as blurry as FS9 does, nor as dark on the ground. Although the ground in real life looks sharper than FSX as well, but FSX looks as close as I've seen in a sim.

 

Like you I like to replicate real life views in the sim and the closest I've got is what I see in FSX since it wasn't possible in FS9.

 

OK,we can agree to disagree. You like FSX for when you want a good laugh and I like FS9 for when I want a good laugh, except for Ed Cox screen shots, but his ground textures still don't look as good as FSX :-)

 

You love iFly, I love PMDG. You like CRT, I like LCD. I love FSX, you hate FSX.

 

The good news. I don't have to fly your sim and you don't have to fly mine, and we're both happy and convinced we have the best possible sim available. Can't argue with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this