>>>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.>Is that default autogen v default autogen?

> You are comparing FS9 WITH ADD-ONS to the default FSX. Who>amounst us really ever flys with default "anything"?>Yes of course. The reason for that is that I have significant performence issues with the default FSX. So the only FSX addons I could consider is the one that have no or negligable impact on performence. This is for example not the case for UT in FS9.I will find out for the FSfenesis FSX mesh since I already bought it.> 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).>This problem I think is only serious in urban Megascenery areas especially PNW. Also I agree that in some aspects FSX is better but my overall impression is that FS9 + addons wins over default FSX.> 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>Exactly what setting and value do you mean?> Anyways I believe there is a happy median somehwere, perhaps>turning down the water or weather and traffic until such aTraffic is already down to a level that makes it rather worthless.

>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?>No not for me since I never got any addons for FS2002 or FS2000.>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.That of course assumes that we upgrade the computer system. And I see problems here for me. Upgrade seems for me not any option but rather a completely new computer.

>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.>-Jeremy Burch>But by that time FS X will be OLD and the new FS 11 will be around the corner, which will give bad frame rates when it is released and someone will post something like this on Avsim: "FS is built to last and look good for 2 or 3 years,which is aproaching ancient in computer terms. In two years FS11 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 FS X"...I really don

So FSX matches FS9 with all the addons? I agree.Good, then the sim developers have done their job. Now its down to the aftermarket developers to leave FS9 in their wake.Overall, I'd say that FSX has achieved the role the platform is supposed to perform - to be a base for further development. Where it doens't work is in the OOB experience for the vast majority of purchasers who don't use such addons and want to install it and run it on default settings. But those people don't come here, so who here cares about them? They're MS's problem.OUR `problem` is to define successfuly the hardware and software needed to operate this sim together with the kind of addons we have come to expect with FS9. And because of the slippage of Vista and DX10 we have no way of going anywhere down that development path for months, possibly a year or two, while hardware embraces the new OS and the potential there.In the meantime, tweaking FSX to get it to work is exactly the same thing we've been doing with FS9. Allcott

I'm having difficulties with FSX performance. Yes, it does have some very nice features, and the adventures seem very good. On the other hand, the performance issues, River Thames scenery issues, and the lack of a "centre rudder" command are show stoppers for now.

>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.But you must also be fair and say that FSX is VERY OLD by then and will be replaced by FS 11 at that time! So what will you do with this great FSX+ then - delete it and replace it with the new FS11 and tell everybody that FS11 will be looking good in 2 to three years time (when FS12 will be released) ???

Welcome to the FS circle of life. I don't believe it will take 2 years for add-ons to be ported over to FSX, it's not even released yet and add-ons are beginning to trickle out so we may have FSX compatability for most of the must have add-ons within a couple months.The only question now is whether or not FSX performance will improve over the next few months and all indications are pointing in the positive considering tweaking and replacement textures already exist.Ian.

>Welcome to the FS circle of life. I don't believe it will>take 2 years for add-ons to be ported over to FSX, it's not>even released yet and add-ons are beginning to trickle out so>we may have FSX compatability for most of the must have>add-ons within a couple months.>>The only question now is whether or not FSX performance will>improve over the next few months and all indications are>pointing in the positive considering tweaking and replacement>textures already exist.>And do you really think that FS X + PMDG 747 + German Airports or one of the great FlyTampa-sceneries (for example) will run better than 1 fps ;-)

I must say Allcott, your posts are really good.CheersRich

Hah! Of course not, but who knows....I can't run them on my system with FS9, I can't imagine what it would do with FSX on my system.Ian.

>>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.>>But you must also be fair and say that FSX is VERY OLD by then>and will be replaced by FS 11 at that time! So what will you>do with this great FSX+ then - delete it and replace it with>the new FS11 and tell everybody that FS11 will be looking good>in 2 to three years time (when FS12 will be released) ???>What's the alternative?Unless you know of another flightsim that covers the whole world, incorporates cutting edge graphics that performs well on existing technology, that needs no improvements or add-ons, and that will not be exceeded by another sim, I don't see any other choice but to play the Circle of Life FS game.But if you know of this other sim, please let me know, I'll buy it today.

>>>It's only part of the truth to say what FSX is now, the>>other>What's the alternative?>>Unless you know of another flightsim that covers the whole>world, incorporates cutting edge graphics that performs well>on existing technology, that needs no improvements or add-ons,>and that will not be exceeded by another sim, I don't see any>other choice but to play the Circle of Life FS game.>>But if you know of this other sim, please let me know, I'll>buy it today.Really after seing how FSX performs on my system I have started to thinking about the latest XPlane.

>>>>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.>>>>Is that default autogen v default autogen? It's default autogen in FSX but in FS9 I also have Ultimate Terrain which maybe contains autogen. In FS9 I have theautogen slider maxed out.

Maybe your lead in should have said FSX scenery can't compete with fs9and addins. I wouldn't agree but there could be a point there.But fs9 can not compete with the new multiplayer,shared cockpits, tower controller, missions, and whole slew of other new features.......and that is why I would never go back-even if the scenery was equal.One of the reasons for performance issues which occur mostly at big airports is a lot of the default airports are already the quality of a payware airport add in. So at least you don't have to pay extra for an add in to get poor performance there anymore..:-lolI had all the add ins for fs9-and I bought the shareware Detroit scenery. I could never get better than 4-6 fps.Now I have just as good if not better default Fs detroit-10x the autogen-all the new shader/lighting effects etc. and I get 8-10fps at worst-looks like improvement to me.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg