>>All this BS about how FS9 with a million dollars worth of>addons looks better than FSX is making me laugh. Don't you>guys have something better to do with your spare time?>>MS a really excited user coming to troll? Yeah, we have somthing better to do>than to waste our hard earned money trying to make this>version live up to its claims. Unless you have a special>secret you're keeping from all of us?Len,This is a computer "game"....Even FS9 won't impress the cute girls at the local bar...L.Adamson

>And the ground textures leave a bit to be desired. The>appearance of the autogen in FSX is lightyears beyond that of>X-Plane's autogen, as well.>>JamesI agree on the textures, especially the grass surrounding the airports is much better in MSFS. Also, X-Plane autogen sometimes is behind MSFS one, but sometimes it's not bad either:http://www.global-scenery.org/seattle/pictures/KSEA_12.htmlhttp://www.global-scenery.org/KSAN/pictures/KSAN_11.htmlhttp://www.global-scenery.org/KSFO/pictures/KSFO_09.htmlhttp://www.global-scenery.org/KLAX/pictures/KLAX_36.htmlFor swambast: you could have taken off nevertheless, there is no collision detection for autogen in X-Plane (except for buildings with helipad on top). :-lolMarco

> >>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've got a hunch that is from needing more video ramthat what you have. I've noticed this on mine. It runspretty well as long as I don't exceed a certain level of detail. Then it seems to gag for video ram. And I only have a 128m card.. So kinda make sense. To me anyway.I've noticed that as long as I stay under my limit, it's pretty smooth, and the panning is smooth. But the closerI get to sapping my video ram, it seemed to gag a bit.IE: frame rates drop, panning gets jerky and slideshowishinstead of smooth. I think the comparison is valid, if you want to compare lookson a certain machine. I think it was a toss, but the highalt jet pix looked to be in different places. Hard to make atrue call. The cessna at night? I liked the FS9 airport lights, etc, but the FSX panel blew them all away with it's improvednight lighting. The FS9 high alt pix textures might have been better, but again,looked to be slightly different locations, and the FSX pixseemed to have more haze. That can dull the landclass at certain views. So I'd have to see identical views, locations, etc to make a good call. The FSX aircraft looked slightly better to me. Meself, I don't see why the big "fight" over the sims. Run what ya want. This is nothing new at all. I see this jibber jabber on *every* single edition. Or at least sinceFS4 anyway.. Thats when I started. You think FSX runs slow?Remember when FS5 came out? Sheesh.. I was lucky to get 4 fpsat first on my then 386/33dx. But I didn't worry about it. I finally upgraded to a 486/80, and all was well in the world.Some of the other sims have had similar starts. Most of themreally..Myself, I'm having no problem running FSX on my 3.15 ghz P4, and a 9800pro/128. Yes, I can get a bit sluggy around the bigcities, but I'm using FS9 hardware still. Myself, I alwaysconsider a hardware upgrade as needed to match the softwareuograde. Thats the way it's always been, and really, if it wasn't that way, you wouldn't be progressing as much.Heck, I have a few places in FS9 I get a bit sluggy...And it's always big city airports. It's not immune. Anyway, to wrap up this novel, I could care less what anyone wants to run. Only the individual knows exactly what he wantsor needs. Myself, well, lets say since I started running FSX, I haven't used FS9 anymore since. Wanna know what my gripe is? My new"required" video card upgrade included a new capture driver, and the thing is broke. I can't record TV.. Waaaaaahhh!!!That's aggravating the heck out of me as I record and burn toDVD loads of movies. Usually 2-3 a day just on autopilot.But not now. I'm more hacked at ATI than I am anything aboutFSX.. :) I guess I'm gonna have to get a new TV card. But really I might as well think about uograding the whole thing again. But I'm in no big rush. It'll take me a couple of monthsjust to research whats the best bang/buck. I guess I'll splitthe video card and TV on the next one. "HDTV card" But the AIW card has been pretty good, until they ruined the capturedriver with a new "unified AVStream" driver that doesn't record.If I go back to a usable driver, FSX don't work no mo. Waaaahhh!You all fly pretty now. MK

Well, I really wish X-Plane was a serious VFR alternative to MSFS - but at this stage it's not even close in my opinion. Oh well, maybe another 5 years....????