It won't even be worth the comparison by then. I wouldn't care at that point and very few would have both mature products to make a valid comparison anyway. They could go by memory though... :-)

>Hmmm... I have none of those, except for ASVI, so by getting>FSX, I actually save myself $60 or so.>>As others have said, its not really fair to compare a>fleshed-out, mature FS9 with a brand-new FSX. When FSX has>been out for a few years, and we have $120 worth of scenery>add-ons to put in it, then we can compare. :-)The point is for those that do have them, which is many, they'll spending the $65 for FSX + the extra money for the addons to bring it back up to the level FS9 is already at. So far all I see is enhanced water to add reflections of clouds and objects, some ground wet tarmacs that look like the monsoons have arrived, some sky enhancements that ASV6 mostly cover now. Shared skies, and missions that I'm not interested in. What improvements are we going to see under the hood? We already know little was done to AI/ATC, and I've heard nothing that would suggest the problem with the blurries are solved. Those were the 2 main areas that are a problem in FS9 that if fixed in this version would have tiped the scales for me, but with what we know now, I just don't see enough to want me to start all over again, like the previous releases.

Tom I hear you, just leave it alone before it get's hot in here... :-roll

Imagine what FSX will look like with a couple years worth of add-ons!?! Out of this world if you ask me.Personally for me, FS is a hobby - I don't mind spending a little 'pocket money' on my hobby...Cheers,(SONIC) BooneCurrently saving pennies for a new pooter for FSX (don't tell the misses!)

I agree with Tom. I have UT, GE PRO, AS6 and FSG mesh and with those 4, I have great looking stuff on a stable FS9.1 platform. I have to say the screenshots of FSX looks just like what I have FS9.1 at right now. I too could care less about "shared skies" as well. The "living world" concept is dead if you fly online so none of that applies to anybody that flies online..you basically have what we have now. Sure a couple things like wet runways are neat but not worth the upgrade. I have a ton of payware airports now that I fly into and FSX will never be able to compete with them plus all my payware aircraft. Now when DX10 comes out and the hardware to run it..then maybe I will change my mind but not a second sooner.

>There are some terrific comparisons between FSX/FS9 default>scenery in the "Dynamic Living World" tab.>>http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/flashDynamic living world does not play/work for me but I can see everything else though. Is it screenshots or actual video?Thanks,

YMMV: Your Mileage May VaryRoughly equals, "Just My Opinion"bt

>I agree with Tom. I have UT, GE PRO, AS6 and FSG mesh and>with those 4, I have great looking stuff on a stable FS9.1>platform. I have to say the screenshots of FSX looks just like>what I have FS9.1 at right now. I too could care less about>"shared skies" as well. The "living world" concept is dead if>you fly online so none of that applies to anybody that flies>online..you basically have what we have now. Sure a couple>things like wet runways are neat but not worth the upgrade. I>have a ton of payware airports now that I fly into and FSX>will never be able to compete with them plus all my payware>aircraft.And the glass is always half empty...Sorry, I just cannot understand this attitude.Of course FSX has to be compared to the default FS9 because that is where the improvement lies. No-one will be forced to buy FSX and abandon FS9 plus all those payware add-ons which - by the way - I do not have because a complete package were way too expensive for me.Now when FSX comes out I have those improvements for the whole planet + plus all those beautiful improvements and new features MS/Aces made *without* spending a month's salary or more for additional software.Of course anybody is entitled to his or her opinion and whoever wants to stick to his FS9 because they are satisfied with the product as it is today can do that. There is nothing "bad" in that, it's just ok.But what is not ok is bashing Aces for delivering a smaller amount of improvment compared to FS9 + loads of add-ons than to default FS9.Just my two cents on this topic...Back to topic:I like the new FSX flash website, and, @ Rob Halmich: There are no real videos in the "dynamic living world" part but rather something like an animated slideshow. It's quite impressive nontheless, maybe an update of your flash player will do the trick for you :)Greetz Alex from Germany

The only add-ons I ever bought for FS9 were the DF A-36 and FSG's US landclass.I'm very happy to have all this new mesh and scenery. and you've gotto admit that the aircraft models/panels and the scenery buildings and boatsall look really good.I was looking at some of the new screenshots there and that one thatlooks like Texas or OK or maybe even Kansas looks really good. They've paidbetter attention to how autogen sits on the scenery this time ( it appears that way anyway)

Other than "shared sky" and "missions", for me there are 5 big items, along with a lot of smaller ones, that can't be added to FS9: 1) High Density autogen(now we can see forrests) 2) High Resolution terrain textures3) None repeating texture tiles. (In FS9 at high altitute the terrain looked like a chess board)4) Reflective surfaces (Glass and chrome on planes and buildings) and reflective water!5) Moving TrafficThe other small improvements may not seem like much on each of its own, but their sum will be impressive and can not be added to FS9. They include the following:-Thermals and soaring-More regional area types for Autogens!-High altitute operations and camera-Sea Vessel AIs-Birds and animals-Less Strile airports-Sun Bloom-Clouds casting shawdows-Much better intelligent autogen placement than bev IMHO-Accents on ATC-multiple visibility layers-ability to use multicore processors-ability to fly over poles-hard and soft winters-wing flex-Bump mapping to create protruding areas such as rivets on planes-ability to save user settings.-Use of mouse for flight contrel movement.-Realistic star placements!-Head movement lead in 3D cockpitThen there are features, that can be added to FS9 but you may not have them yet; Things such as: Garmin 1000 pannel, new aircraft, better lighting such as darker skys at altitute, much better textures such as deserts and suburbs.It was said that FS2004 was bigger than sum of its all parts. At first glance it didn't seem like much improvement, but once you played it you couldn't go back to FS2002!

>Other than "shared sky" and "missions", for me there are 5>big items, along with a lot of smaller ones, that can't be>added to FS9: >>1) High Density autogen(now we can see forrests)Already possible in FS9, GEPRO has many forrested areas, Fly around Seattle and Mt Raineer to see. Granted some of FSX areas does look more dense. This though will depend on landclass so it remains to be seen how well it's implemented in other areas of the world. >2) High Resolution terrain texturesSo far I don't see anything in the demo that looks clearer then GEPRO textures, again, this remains to be seen.>3) None repeating texture tiles. (In FS9 at high altitute the>terrain looked like a chess board)This again is the default scenery. GEPRO/BEV also doesn't repeat textures as close anymore All scenery except photoreal will repeat at some point, including FSX, it's just that there is more textures available now to cover a wider area before that is neccessary. There is not unigue textures for every tile in the world!!>4) Reflective surfaces (Glass and chrome on planes and>buildings) and reflective water!Can't speak for the chrome on planes, but even though it was done illegally by a user, we now know reflective clouds on water was always possible in FS9, just by using the right textures. >5) Moving TrafficAlways possible in FS9 through animation if defined or through scenery like FlyTampa or the St Maarten freeware scenery>>The other small improvements may not seem like much on each of>its own, but their sum will be impressive and can not be added>to FS9. They include the following:>>-Thermals and soaringThis is a nice feature in FSX!!>-More regional area types for Autogens!Not exactly sure what you mean here>-High altitute operations and cameraThis to me is a gimmic, as it only applies if your flying rockets or the space shuttle.>-Sea Vessel AIsAlso possible in FS9 by defining AI Flightplans for boats and ships, in fact, there is a group at FS Shipyards that do just that!!>-Birds and animalsNot a big thing for me, and while I'm not sure about the birds, animals could be implemented in FS9 the same way cars are. It's just a matter of changing the 3D model.>-Less Strile airportsFS9 has many addon airport scenery both freeware and payware that greatly enhance and eliminate the shortcomings of the default airports. Now if you mean the 1200 airports that will include jetways and the like, that's good, but do they also make the airport layouts more realistic? In other words, will I be able to back out of a gate without hitting the aircraft behind because they're too close together? Remains to be seen!>-Sun BloomNice feature>-Clouds casting shawdowsNice feature on land, again possible to do in FS9.>-Much better intelligent autogen placement than bev IMHOHave you seen the autogen in GEPRO?>-Accents on ATCWhere do you get this? I hear the same FS9 ATC,and tdragger has stated, that is not going to change. If you are referring to the ATC in Missions, that's not the same thing as that is canned.>-multiple visibility layersNice feature, FS9 already can do multiple cloud layers using ASV6.>-ability to use multicore processorsNot sure about this one. I heard mix signals on this. Maybe when VISTA patch is released.>-ability to fly over polesNice feature, for when you do want to do it.>-hard and soft wintersAlready in FS9>-wing flexAlready in FS9 if model is designed for it. >-Bump mapping to create protruding areas such as rivets on>planesNot that important to me.>-ability to save user settings.What do you mean by this? FS9 saves settings!>-Use of mouse for flight contrel movement.I prefer to fly with a joystick and throttle thank you very much!>-Realistic star placements!MS has been touting this feature since about FS5.0 so I would imagine it's already in FS9, but I never checked myself. I do know Sun and Moon places are.>-Head movement lead in 3D cockpitActive Camera has had this feature for a couple of years now. >>Then there are features, that can be added to FS9 but you may>not have them yet; Things such as: Garmin 1000 pannel, new>aircraft, better lighting such as darker skys at altitute,>much better textures such as deserts and suburbs.>>It was said that FS2004 was bigger than sum of its all parts. >At first glance it didn't seem like much improvement, but once>you played it you couldn't go back to FS2002!I always thought FS2004 was a big improvement over FS2002, as I did, FS2002 over FS2000, etc... but FS2004 is really the first version, where the payware addon market really caught on, and are widespread in nature, like UT, and GE/GEPRO and BEV, so the improvements on this version while great compared to FS2004 default, pale to the many users that have installed these addons, especially the global scenery ones.

1) While GEPRO creates textures to show illusion of forrest, it does not increase the number of trees per square area! It can't. Its the limitation of FS9!! So at low altitude it looks very spare! In FSX, they have increased the limit of number of autogen units per square area!2)Once again, due to limitation of FS9, texture resolution is limited and can't be bettered by GEPRO!. Please look for yourself at the following link: http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/archive.../21/417847.aspx3)More regional areas means that now you can have more varied areas to assign textures and autogen type. For example, you may notice that now the farmlands in one area of the world look different than another! Again, this can't be done to FS9, because it has less regional areas in it!4) Reflective water is more than reflective clouds. It reflects aircraft, buildings, etc! For example, look at the reflection of Seatle skyline in the water. Its beautiful! Also, reflective cloud, as a painted texture is not the same as reflective clouds. (In FSX you won't see reflection of puffy clouds on cloudy days)5)Moving traffic is not just around airports! Which is the case in your example!6)Multiple visiblilty layers were not modeled in FS9! Just multiple clouds layers.7)Clouds do not and can not cast shadows on FS9!8)If you want to go and find a way to put animals in FS9 go ahead!9)Moving airport vehicles is not universal. You don't have to get it separately for every airline served airport!

Interesting, the "Shared Skies" section of that page suggests that some missions can be flown online, too: "Choose from thousands of airports .. and a wide selection of missions".I imagine you can't share a cockpit in missions where the airplane simply doesn't have enough seats, like in soaring and racing missions. Those will probably just allow for more than one aircraft in the situation.

FSX will be great ... no need to buy payware just to have decent ground textures :)