>Then, copy the FS9ModulesASv6 folder to your FSXModules>folder.>I did not have to do that.>Finally, edit the ASv6.ini configuration file in the>FSXModulesASv6 folder and change the following lines:>>DefaultWeatherFolder>FS9Path>I didn't have to do that either.----All I did was download FSUIPC4. Install it.That's it.Why did you copy all of that other stuff? ASV6 works great for me, and I did not do any of that copying.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

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 scyscrapersIn 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.You are largely correct. The only distinctive difference would be the water. It does add a nice effect and maybe as well the denser autogen. But both of these maxed in FSX will come at a roughly 10 fps difference with FS9 (conservatively). But I will also confirm, having done, for the last week with FSX Deluxe, numerous flights and then going back to FS9 and comparing that at 1600x1200 max everything except cloud draw distance, with UT, Flight Environment and FSG mesh, FS9 wins generally speaking. Again, the water effects and denser autogen are a nice addition in FSX.

I can't go back to FS9 now that I have FSX. I think it is a BIG upgrade.And I am just looking foward to when I can upgrade my system to take advantage of DirectX 10.Then I should be able to have stuff like bloom effects, max water settings, and many other features...plus much better performance hopefully.Plus developers have been given the option of 7cm texture res, and 1 meter terrain mesh, shows how much fsx will be able to deliver in the future.I think out of all the flight sim versions we have had so far, fsx has the most potential...

Add on scenery and autogen is all very well (and I use it too) but the product we are discussing is called FLIGHT SIMULATOR, not scenery simulator.By way of comparison, since comparisons are what this thread is about, how many times have you heard people say that old computer games had way better gameplay when eye candy wasn't their biggest concern?The mission functions and stuff like thermal implementation make FSX potentially streets ahead of FS9. Sure, scenery has its place, but don't lose sight of the fact that when you use a flight sim, you are attempting to simulate leaving the ground, not attempting to replicate it.

The mission functions and stuff like thermal implementation make FSX potentially streets ahead of FS9. Sure, scenery has its place, but don't lose sight of the fact that when you use a flight sim, you are attempting to simulate leaving the ground, not attempting to replicate Well first of all so-caled "eye Candy" is a huge function of every single game. It is what makes a game, simulator, whatever, immersive and enjoyable. No game (including FSX) today can cut it without great graphics. If what you said where the case we could just go back to vector graphics with great flight characteristics.The second thing is that it's hard to discuss about the characteristics of flight and simulating those characteristics if your fps and flying is juttering. That's not realistic no matter how much you've coded to simulate.

>Maybe your lead in should have said FSX scenery can't compete>with fs9Partly correct. Scenery was an important issue for my impression.But I would also say FSX default planes can't compete with my best FS9 addon planes.>But fs9 can not compete with the new multiplayer,shared>cockpits, tower controller, missions, and whole slew of other>new features....>Yes I will look into the missions

>>But fs9 can not compete with the new multiplayer,shared>>cockpits, tower controller, missions, and whole slew of>other>>new features....I'd agree too, but happily, my favorite FS9 add-on payware aircraft were frame rate friendly. Will be good to have them totally compatible with FSX.And yes, many of the missions are very interesting, as well as great scenery.L.Adamson

>By way of comparison, since comparisons are what this thread>is about, how many times have you heard people say that old>computer games had way better gameplay when eye candy wasn't>their biggest concern?Dude, I've had my fair share of "Doom" and "GTA", but there weren't any kick-awesome graphics in games back then to compare to. Surely you're not suggesting that FSX should run like a cheetah, with every possible add-on you can think of, while looking like "Oregon Trail"???-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!

>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.Well, the "other" sim is called FS2004 (or FS9) + addons from the last 3 years. I cannot understand why I should throw away something just when it has reached the "optimum level" (excellent aircraft + sceneries finally available) after building it up for the last 3 years. Some of these aircrafts/sceneries took years to develop and NOW when they are finally available and working well, we throw them away and wait for updates (or another 2 years for completely new addons)? Suddenly we are content with a "naked" sim with poor frame-rates?Why can

>>"But I would also say FSX default planes can't compete with my best FS9 addon planes."No surprise there really. Since FS98 MS has never really put much effort into making great default aircraft, it's just not a priority for them, nor should it be I think. Their goal is to provide you with "something" reasonably decent to fly out of the box, and with enough variety to show the possibilites. They know they're not the top dogs in the aircraft modeling category, nor do I think they're inclined to compete with aftermarket developers who can afford to spend months building one beautiful airplane. I can't remember the last time I flew a default MS plane in 2K4, or 2K2.I'm actually kind of surprised the FSX planes are as polished and consistent as they are.

I agree - it was almost a year after FS2002 came out before it could compete with FS98.It was 15 months after FS2004 came out before it could compete with FS2002.It will be the same for every version of FS to ever be released.

>All I did was download FSUIPC4. Install it.>That's it.>>Why did you copy all of that other stuff? ASV6 works great>for me, and I did not do any of that copying.>>>>RhettProbably missed a post somewhere, but there is no mudules folder in FSXDo you just create one? CFG entry?Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

The FSUIPC install creates a Modules folder if it is not present.Then you get prompted to allow FSUIPC the next time you run FSX.Since FSUIPC has a security certificate - you don't get that warning.

>Why did you copy all of that other stuff? ASV6 works great>for me, and I did not do any of that copying.Since ASV6 installs itself into the FS9 Modules folder and the ASv6.ini configuration file contains references to FS9 paths and folders, I assumed that it needed to be in FSX's Modules folder in order to work with FSX. Seems that's not the case so my apologies for mis-representing the steps needed to get AS working with FSX.