Like many others, I've been reading the posts that supposedly give a fair comparison between an add-on laden FS9 to a bone stock FSX.I'd agree that - with enough money - one can make FS9 look "better" than FSX in a particular location, under a particular set of circumstances.But I think some of you are missing the point. Those shots are showing a product that has been extended to it's very limit. There is no more room to grow within the FS9 framework. You can't increase the texture resolution any more, you can't add SM2.0 effects like bloom and water, you can't add more climate regions, you can't use SimConnect to extend the usability of the product, you don't have a stable/robust multiplayer platform...the list goes on.Don't get me wrong, I owned FS9 (and every version since FS4) since the day it was released. But the period in which FS9 looks/acts/feels/performs better than FSX is transient, and will not persist. FSX has so much growth potential its astounding.I wish the staunch FS9 supporters (FSX haters?) would take the time to see the big picture. If we want to see an FS11, we had all better financially support FSX.Nick Landolfi

For me FSX beats the pants of my FS9 installation with UT, AS6, FE, FSGenesis mesh and landclass in every catagory you care to name. FS9 in coming of the hardrive and getting donated to the brother in law :).

Well, I know I am not missing any point. And I think most eveyone has figured out FS9 is fading away, and that it is "extended to its limit." FS9 Plus, we'll call it, fully satisfies my flight simming needs, I have a hanger full of nice aircraft, and as you know, it looks and acts fantastic.FSX is the new release, with all its potential poised for tuning and 3rd party development. FS9 is fading away, but you know, it's not freakin half bad. It's an excellent product, and yes, can compete visually with FSX (I didn't say they were identical, I said they could compare/compete).I am going to try to exercise patience and wait til Vista, a very good DX10 card, and a new CPU subsystem, and the DX10 patch that is supposed to come along. Then, I'm confident that FX10 and it's best face for visuals, will be ready for take off and make the switch a no-brainer. If FS9 really had significant weaknesses (like the ATC, which apparently has not been much improved) I would be more inclined to upgrade. Just not worth the bother really. FS2004 to FS9 was worth the hassle, but I'm not seeing it here.As for supporting FS11 financially--this will come along as the hardware & DX10/Vista gives added incentive for folks to dive in, ie the improvements:hassle ratio is much more favorable than it is Oct 19th, 2006. The product cycle will be at least another 3 years, and I'm glad this is so. Hardware improvements are not moving fast enough to warrant more frequent major releases, and that's good so the 3rd party developers have time to work the thing to death!Noel

It absolutely is not - just flying some of the default missions I've seen scenery that looks far more realistic that my tricked out FS9 - the resolution of the textures alone is enough to do it - the 1m ones in FSX are far more detailed than anything for FS9 can ever be.

How's your performance in those areas with the PMDG 737NG or equivalent?

Yes, FSX certainly can look prettier but it comes at a significant performance premium at this stage of release. The couple of attempts I have had to dumb down FSX to what FS9 + mega addons looks like have resulted in FS9 winning out performance-wise by a long shot. Extra prettiness in FSX is questionably worthwhile if performance dips to a noticeably low level.Gary

you can't add SM2.0 effects like bloom And you can't add it with my system in FSX in any event. And water has to be greatly diminished and AI has to be cut to 15% which is scandalous. I tried using those far more beautiful lighting effects in Ultimate Terrain in FSX and no way. It completely crippled my flying.[iIf we want to see an FS11, we had all better financially support FSX.[/i]I want something that works and shows off it's capabilities not force me into spending thousands to meet it's current state. So if FS11 is going to be the same then keep the franchise or rethink it.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb.

Comes down to this.....FS9 AT MAX = FSX AT MIN.So much more headroom now with FSX and I look forward to growing with it.

>Yes, FSX certainly can look prettier but it comes at a>significant performance premium at this stage of release. The>couple of attempts I have had to dumb down FSX to what FS9 +>mega addons looks like have resulted in FS9 winning out>performance-wise by a long shot. Extra prettiness in FSX is>questionably worthwhile if performance dips to a noticeably>low level.>>GaryI rest my case. Your mileage may vary. Sounds very nice, but I am not willing to pay the performance price, and this because FS9 IS a very decent product as it is. I do look forward to FSX when performance is at least as good as I am having now and I expect this will take a new machine, Vista/DX10. I'm glad this machine has lasted as long as it has--almost 4 years with a new video card and new CPU added along the way. Right now . . . I continue to be pleasantly delighted with all of my FS9 flights :()

Len,You've posted numerous times now regarding your status with FSX.Of course, on your PC, FS9 runs MUCH smoother than FSX. No argument, this is fact.The point this poster is trying to make is that:1. You cannot expect to run FSX with full max sliders on a PC that does not have a current video card, 2-3GB RAM, and very fast CPU. Does a machine exist today that can deliver this? Probably not in our price range.2. FSX is designed for the future - future new capabilities, enhancements, and will take advantage of faster PC systems.3. You __CAN__ run a reduced-slider FSX today on most systems. Certainly not in high density areas, and you'd need to apply tweaks.Sure, I think most of us would have liked all the new features of FSX running on our current systems. That was not the intent of FSX. To get all the new wiz-bang capabilities, we need more horsepower. If ACES "dumbed-down" FSX to perform better, I'd say most of us would not buy it. I won't get into the marketing aspects we've read about here on in the posts if this was a good or bad decision. It is what it is.Here's the bottom line - don't get frustrated trying to run FSX if it won't perform in areas you fly with the sliders set to where you'd like them placed! Just don't get frustrated. Fly FS9! FS9 will not go away - it's on our PCs. I'll fly FSX for most of my entertainment, and I'll fly FSX as well for specific flight areas/types. I'll eventually move on completely to FSX, but the timing depends on PC requirements, any tuning/tweaks, etc.Enjoy either or both sims!JerryG

>For me FSX beats the pants of my FS9 installation with UT,>AS6, FE, FSGenesis mesh and landclass in every catagory you>care to name. FS9 in coming of the hardrive and getting>donated to the brother in law :).Yep for me this is also true in all fields now lets have some detailed aircraft systems back :-lolLook only at the texture stuff + detailed airport add-ons man some freeware texture updates and we have stunning airports...The sounds are from an other planet :-lolThe total enviromant the AI sounds men this is just great fun...Going to update my detailed shiphol :-lol and yes that will be freeware...Andr