After doing some comparing flights in FSX I must conclude this.In order to get something similar to the scenery quality I already have in FS9+addons. I need in FSX push up the sliders to such an extent that I get serious performence problems. For example starting from rwy 4R at KMDW and then turning towards the scyscrapers In FSX with autogen to normal I get fps about 10 with the default Cessna 172 + a lot of stutters.In FS9 + FSgenesis mesh and UT USA and GE and FE I get a smooth flight around fps 25. Even with fps heave addon planes like F1 ATR 72-500 I get fps 15 better than FSX default Cessna. And I still think that FS9 looks better except a few details (like water). And really my impression is that FSX autogen needs to be set to dense in order to compare with my FS9 setup. Last I find my addon planes in FS9 to be superiour to the default FSX planes.But I havn't tried everything in FSX. Is there something it can give me that I don't already have in FS9 considering my system?Which isAMD athlon 64bit 3200+Palit nvidia 6600GT 256M DDR31 Gb RAM 400 MHz2 * 160 Gb Maxtor HD in raid 0.

I would suggest you go here before you give up on FSX. http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41 Hope you find this usefull

>After doing some comparing flights in FSX I must conclude>this.>In order to get something similar to the scenery quality I>already have in FS9+addons. I need in FSX push up the sliders>to such an extent that I get serious performence problems. For>example starting from rwy 4R at KMDW and then turning towards>the scyscrapers >In FSX with autogen to normal I get fps about 10 with the>default Cessna 172 + a lot of stutters.>In FS9 + FSgenesis mesh and UT USA and GE and FE I get a>smooth flight around fps 25. Even with fps heave addon planes>like F1 ATR 72-500 I get fps 15 better than FSX default>Cessna. And I still think that FS9 looks better except a few>details (like water). And really my impression is that FSX>autogen needs to be set to dense in order to compare with my>FS9 setup. Last I find my addon planes in FS9 to be superiour>to the default FSX planes.>But I havn't tried everything in FSX. Is there something it>can give me that I don't already have in FS9 considering my>system?>Which is>AMD athlon 64bit 3200+>Palit nvidia 6600GT 256M DDR3>1 Gb RAM 400 MHz>2 * 160 Gb Maxtor HD in raid 0.> I have the same results and opinions as you, tweaks or no tweaks it's still the same.

>After doing some comparing flights in FSX I must conclude>this. FSX can't compete with my FS9 + its addons...Agreed, FS-X is 2nd best to a decent FS-9 setup.I used FS-X deluxe for a few days, its new and neat at first, butthen going back to FS-9 with FS Genesis mesh, Ulimate Terrain and GE its clear the older product with addon's is better, mostly due to frame rates.Whats the point of all the new detailed textures if the frame rate is poor.

Bah, surely (if you've been around long enough) you remember the first days of FS9?? The hardware will come up to the software. FS is built to last and look good for 2 or 3 years, which is aproaching ancient in computer terms. In two years FSX will run like glass and kick major tail, especially with all the add-ons available for it by then, and you'll never understand how you could have loved FS9.Or you won't, and you know it, in which case please disregard and have a nice day!-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifHappy Flying!

Disagree. I prefer FSX graphics wise because of the much denser autogen. Also the texture and mesh quality is alot better (yes I have been doing alot of bushing flying lately).

>>Agreed, FS-X is 2nd best to a decent FS-9 setup.>Not on my rig.I have a an awesome FS9 setup.And it's even awesomer in FSX. Especially now that I got ActiveSky working with it tonight.Matt Fox's autogen fix was a must though...without it, it's not nearly so good.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I agree Rhett, only just got it and after 6 hours, it is amazing, I'm getting good performance with meduim high settings and it looks better than my full on FS9 setup, it's a keeper here. Can't wait till I apply some tweaks to it.BTW how'd you get active sky working in FSX?Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

>And really my impression is that FSX>autogen needs to be set to dense in order to compare with my>FS9 setup. Eh? Where did you get that idea from?

>>BTW how'd you get active sky working in FSX?>First, download and install the newest FSX compatible version of FSUIPC into FSX. http://www.schiratti.com/dowson.htmlThen, copy the FS9ModulesASv6 folder to your FSXModules folder.Finally, edit the ASv6.ini configuration file in the FSXModulesASv6 folder and change the following lines:DefaultWeatherFolderFS9PathIn my case, FSX is installed to F:GamesFSX and the lines in my ini look like:DefaultWeatherFolder = F:GamesFSXModulesASv6FS9Path = F:GamesFSXI haven't tested ActiveSky with FSX extensively but it does appear to be working correctly. Note that ActiveSkyGraphics is not yet FSX compatible so do not try to port it over. I'm not sure whether ActiveRader is FSX compatible but I didn't port it over either.

I think some just like FSX because it is new, and that's only human but an FS9 with the great addons like Peter Wilding's Flight Environment, Ground Environment and Active Sky plus good mesh etc. etc. still looks better than the raw FSX. In two years' time however when Peter Wilding and other addon developers are up to speed with FSX, I'm sure we'll be looking at screenshots of FSX with similar addons, which will be hard to distinguish from reality (and has acceptable frame rates). Until then however, keep both on your pc and enjoy whichever kicks arse for you. FSX at it's best is at least two years away, I'd say.

I understand you point Jfri, but Tingoose is right; it's a very temporary truth. Couldn't you have also applied your reasoning to FS2002+Add ons vs. 2004? Or FS2000+Add-ons vs. FS2002, and so so backwards and backwards?With the FZ02 Portland scenery, a Captain Sim C130, and a few environmental tweaks, FS9 looks delicious on my rig and flies really well. Keeping in mind it took years to achieve this level of quality over the original FS9 default experience.It's only part of the truth to say what FSX is now, the other part it to think what FSX will look like it two to three years. My guess is it wil look incredible! If we compare FS9 to FS9+, then we have be fair and compare FSX to FSX+ as well.

> > I would suggest you go here before you give up on FSX.>> http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41>I will have a look at it but I doubt it will be sufficient. The same thing about adding another Gb RAM. Even if it makes things better will it be sufficient?

>After doing some comparing flights in FSX I must conclude>this.>In order to get something similar to the scenery quality I>already have in FS9+addons. I need in FSX push up the sliders>to such an extent that I get serious performence problems. For>example starting from rwy 4R at KMDW and then turning towards>the scyscrapers >In FSX with autogen to normal I get fps about 10 with the>default Cessna 172 + a lot of stutters.>In FS9 + FSgenesis mesh and UT USA and GE and FE I get a>smooth flight around fps 25. Even with fps heave addon planes>like F1 ATR 72-500 I get fps 15 better than FSX default>Cessna. And I still think that FS9 looks better except a few>details (like water). And really my impression is that FSX>autogen needs to be set to dense in order to compare with my>FS9 setup. Last I find my addon planes in FS9 to be superiour>to the default FSX planes.>But I havn't tried everything in FSX. Is there something it>can give me that I don't already have in FS9 considering my>system?>Which is>AMD athlon 64bit 3200+>Palit nvidia 6600GT 256M DDR3>1 Gb RAM 400 MHz>2 * 160 Gb Maxtor HD in raid 0.> You are comparing FS9 WITH ADD-ONS to the default FSX. Who amounst us really ever flys with default "anything"? Truthfully flying FS9 with Alaska scenery looks so good yet anywhere else I go in the FS9 world - be it with Mega scenery etc it still appears pretty ugly a few miles ahead and I have a fast computer with 2 gigs of ram. No matter what tweaking etc the world is blurry and never gets clear until one is almost right on top of a particular piece of scenery (except the Alaska add-on). I do not have the final FSX but if the beta 2 is any indication - I must say that with the mesh etc turned way up it looks fantastic and I can run it ok (not to say there is no performance issues because there always is with new releases). Anyways I believe there is a happy median somehwere, perhaps turning down the water or weather and traffic until such a time that we can add some 3 party stuff like we have for FS9. Then and only then can we really compare these two sims..Best,Randy J. Smith

>>And really my impression is that FSX>>autogen needs to be set to dense in order to compare with my>>FS9 setup. >>Eh? Where did you get that idea from? From my screen by looking at it from the same position KMDW in both FSX and FS9.