Flying at 18000ft with CRJ 700http://www.ioxo.net/fsx_1.jpgFSX (Stock)http://www.ioxo.net/fs9_1.jpgFS9 (with UT, GE Pro, FE, AS)And for those who have missed it:Day Time at San Bernadino Intlhttp://www.ioxo.net/fsx_day.jpgFSX (Stock)http://www.ioxo.net/fs9_day.jpgFS9 (with UT, GE Pro, FE, AS)http://www.ioxo.net/x_day.jpgX-Plane (Stock)Night Time San Bernadino Intlhttp://www.ioxo.net/fsx_night.jpgFSX (Stock)http://www.ioxo.net/fs9_night.jpgFS9 (with UT, GE Pro, FE, AS)http://www.ioxo.net/x_night.jpgX-Plane (Stock)Judge for yourself...Pat

OK... not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Wait three years and do the same comparison and FSX will blow FS9 away. You can count on it. That would be a fair comparison.DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/540FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.9) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

I am talking about a comparison with hardware that is available now. What is not fair with that? Same machine, same everything, different sims. I am not judging. I screenshots speak for themselves.

Go get the original computer you had when you purchased FS9 and take a screenshot of default FS9. Then take the same screenshot with default FSX loaded on your current hardware. Now that would be a more difinitive measurement.DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/540FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.9) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

Wow! The FS X cockpit beats the **** out of the others! Nice! ;)

The measurement is what is available NOW and the comparison is what runs best on my CURRENT hardware. I am not interested in how FSX might look in 3 years or how FS9 looked 3 years ago. I am interested in this point in time. I don't get it.

Edit: Comments withdrawn. I'm starting to get too emotional about the FS9 now is better than FSX stuff and it's clouding my judgement. I apologize to you aerdt for egging you on.Case closed.DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/540FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.9) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

These look great! I see that XPlane is doing what I would have liked FSX to do: (hope the words are right) Atmospheric Light Scatering. You can see it gets more blue in the distance on the mountains.Anyhow I can't see it: what are the FPS in XPlane in the shots?

>The measurement is what is available NOW and the comparison>is what runs best on my CURRENT hardware. I am not interested>in how FSX might look in 3 years or how FS9 looked 3 years>ago. I am interested in this point in time. I don't get it.Indeed. For many of us the decision on whether to fly FS9 or FSX NOW is based upon our current installation, hardware capabilities, etc. Why all the defensiveness? This is a valid comparison, and it certainly contributes to my current decision to stick with FS9 and try FSX in a year or so.I appreciate the time taken to assemble this post. Plus, it's always interesting to see X-Plane in the mix.

X-Plane has 30fps in those shots and it usually never dips below 20fps for a very fluid experience. However, the lack of AI traffic and ATC is a little bit of a deal breaker. Other than that, it's my favorite for VFR flying. Also X-Plane autogen is MUCH better, more diverse and framerate-friendly. I'll have to take a look, if I can make some nice in-flight shots to back that up.Update: Here it is.http://www.ioxo.net/xplane_1.jpghttp://www.ioxo.net/xplane_2.jpgSloped runwayPat

I am sure Radar Contact 4 can be easily adopted to x-plane. As AI traffic is concerned, I might also have solution. The problem with me is, I only do things for money, LoL, and I don't see alot of money to be made by do those two. :=)

X-Plane with AI traffic, a good weather generator like AS6 and Radar Contact and it would be an absolute FS killer. As long as that doesn't happen, FSX will hold the crown for now.I am not a fanboi, but I am wondering how ONE person can develop X-Plane with such incredible detail and frame rates (plus cross-platform) and the giant MS with a multi-million dollar budget can't keep up with it. Just look at the level of detail of the landing lights (on one side with a nice halo), the lighting in general, the diverse autogen with framerates ranging from 30fps to 60fps and the scenery. This is the work of a true enthousiast.I am not saying that MS didn't deliver an excellent product, but the comparison itself is astonishing.

Good god... Not a X-Plane plug again... Where is the "face_sick" when I need it...

I am talking about a comparison with hardware that is available now. What is not fair with that? Same machine, same everything, different sims. I am not judging. I screenshots speak for themselves.Your comparison is quite fair. Indeed, try porting over Ultimate Terrain into FSX as I did, do not use anything except the lights of UT, and try another night shot. I did this at settings I thought were poor but manageable in FSX (such as 15% ai and no autogen) and it literally sucked the life blood from my system. Panning around I would get stuck waiting for redraw. When I finally managed to limp down the runway of KSEA with the 737 at a paltry 7-8 fps whenever I turned towards those beautiful lights my frames would dip to .5 to 1 i.e., it was completely unflyable. I had to remove UT from FSX. So much for addons with FSX.

>I am not saying that MS didn't deliver an excellent product,>but the comparison itself is astonishing.You forgot Airport scenery detail. :DJust a word in defense of Microsoft: the big advantage of Laminar Research is that it's an extremely small company (4-5 people AFAIK) and therefore it can be much more agile and "quick" with respect to MS. I'm sure ACES are much more constrained on what they can and must do.Moreover, Austin makes X-Plane as a product addressed to a strong focused target, while on the other hand MSFS aims to an extremely various target: from the most casual gamer just interested in eye-candy, to the PMDG+RC4+AS6 freak. This leds to a lot more compromises in every area of the sim.Marco