See my FS9 & FSX side by side comments.For the type of flight, I prefer, FSX still has the edge. L.Adamson

Lets see $70.00 for the PMDG 747 which tanks my FPS in FS9 to around 16 at any big airport.Another $120 for UT for the world if not more, and $40.00 for my traffic. Plus $20.00 for FS9I said you had a $70.00 price point. So FSX still wins. Now if I added all this to FS9 it would tank my FPS just like the PMDG 747 did.You need to be honest about it. I priced it.1.The PMDG 747 is $70 for both packages or $50 for just the one.2.UT $30.00 per pack not sure what world coverage would be at least $120?3.Active Sky is $37.774.My traffic is $35.005. If you have to buy FS9 its about $20.00 in most places.Seems like its about $173 to about $280 for that addon package.No, my point is really this: default Planes with FS9, any heavy iron,in the city, max settings easily beats FSX stripped to make it fly properly. I only made reference to these addons because on my system AND the addons (UT - USA or Canada, AS, etc.) I can still full right the sliders at 1600x1200. Indeed, forget any addon, just use the free fsg 38m mesh and it will better the default FSX to make it flyable in the city. Remember the default FSX strips away airport AI traffic to a measely 15%. KSEA looks terrible. Desolate.You couldn't add any of those addons to FSX because of the fps problems. Try UT on default settings for FSX? I did. I shut everything off except those beautiful lights of UT at night. Know what? It crippled my system. Forget adding PMDG to default minus settings of FSX. You had 16 fps in FS9 what a mess it would be in FSX.Now costing FSX to get it to run decently on default: duo core, more main memory, better video card with at least 512 mb. Shall we cost that out just to get it to run decently on default?Case closed.

For the type of flight, I prefer, FSX still has the edge.L.AdamsonI've always tried to add a proviso on my remarks. Bush flying. Take a look at this nice screen shot. Here's the settings:In scenery settings: all full right except scenery complexity:denseand autogen: dense. yes, the water is on full right.Real weather with low textured clouds 70 mi. draw distance with high cloud coverage.Light bloom is off of course.1600x1200 32 bit. 2AA 4 AF.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe cardThat's 7.3 fps. Ok not great. But it generally will gain 2-3 fps as I move away from the water. If weather is changed to clear then add around 3 fps more.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/bushbc1.jpg Further shot showing 8.4 fpshttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/fsxbc2.jpg

Great shots Len! I'm glad FSX is starting to work better for you.Jeff

Len FSX runs fine on my system. I will need more ram so you can add $70.00 to my total addon cost. Sorry it does not run well for you. Just stay with FS9 nobody on this forums is trying to force anybody into FSX. Sim what works best for you. There is just to much good in FSX for me to want to go back to FS9 full time.:-jumpy

Any FS9 water addons that look that good? I set up similar scenarios and had about the same results. Lowering water details would bring up fps levels about 4 fps at a time to 18fps. I didn't disable water.However, flying the new AOPA Cherokee Six in FS9 with full water and auto-gen in the same lake/mountain settings was running between 18-22 fps most of the time, instead of the upper 30's to 70's that I've seen with the defaults. The panel on this plane is much more complicated, and sucks some extra frame rates. But, as usual, that was to be expected.L.Adamson

FSXThere is just to much good in FSX for me to want to go back to FS9 full time.This is what I'll give you. Take it to the bush like the above photos show. There you can move most of the scenery sliders to the right. Here I don't need AI planes, land and sea traffic, city textures, airports, etc. And out of the box, it's much better than FS9 visual wise because you don't have to depend on several other components which drag it down . True, the frames won't be as good as FS9, but it's still flyable and better looking. Take a look at those beautiful reflections and that water with the autogen. It adds a great dimension to bush flying.City flying is a whole different ball game.

Any FS9 water addons that look that good? Absolutely not. I've said repeatedly those water textures and reflections in FSX blow all previous versions away. That's why I've largely used FSX for bush flying and FS9 for heavy flying with airport density 85%, UT, PMDG 747, etc.