Many find FSX satisfactory arguying that it is far superior to FS9 when it was first released few years ago. A more correct approach, IMO, is to compare FSX to today's excellent tweaked and "addoned" FS9. And there, it is a real disapointment.Progress in computer technology is extremely fast compared to most other industries. A few years means tremendous improvements. Microsoft should sell a FSX which, out of the box, is at least at par with today's beefed up FS9, not merely a bit better than a three year old product. After all, when buying a new car ( or any other manufactured product) we do not compare it to a fifteen year old one, but to a recent model.

I have to agree that the visual component of FSX is behind of FS9 plus add-ons. However, I think that MS has given us a great tool to work with. In a few months time we'll see add-ons a la Ultimate Terrain for FSX, GE Pro, some good landclass and some improved autogen. At the same time DX10 is going to get released and while I don't think it'll be the holy grail of performance improvements and totally bug-free, I tend to think that it'll be a tremendous improvement.Granted, FS9 plus addons looks better than FSX, but we don't have to forget some more things that have been improved: flight modelling and dynamics, fly-by-wire, weather generation, shaders, bloom, more tweaking options, dynamic ground traffic, SDK upon release, mission, multiplayer with ATC, voice chat, improved texture resolution and active participation from MS.Yes, I am miffed about the frame rate issue, the poor landclass, loading times and other minor bugs, but it still doesn't make me think that this release wasn't worth the release. I did keep my expectations low and therefore have not been overly disappointed. History has also taught us that MS will release 1 or maybe 2 patches for every FS release, so I am not holding my breath that they will release anything in a short time frame. As tdragger stated earlier, they're in the phase of collecting information and trying to identify the best approach to translate a maximum of fixes and known issues into a patch.We all knew from the beginning that people will whine, loudly complain, flame, make immature and non-constructive comments about the release. Has been the same with every release, because people don't know how to be patient and expect a full-fledged FS9 with $300 of add-ons right away.In about 6 months time, noone will talk about any comparisons to FS9 anymore, because FSX will become the standard and that will be thanks to developers like PMDG, Peter Wilding, FSGenesis, HifiSim, Eaglesoft, Flight1 and many more that I forgot to mention. This small group "made" FS9 look and feel stunning and my hopes are up that we'll see more stunning releases than we have ever done before.Let's give it some time to mature and don't start jumping to conclusions one week after release.Pat

FS9 w/ a decent subset of add-ons = $600.FSX = $60.

FSX = $60Vista+DX10 =$300DX10 card =$350 ----- $710Addons $600 ----- $1310 -----If you are gonna do the math, do it right.

I would say a little more expensive for a DX10 card then $350.

FS9 - $50Addons - $600DX9 video card - $350 + $1000Not bad afterall. Besides if we include hardware prices, how many of us upgraded our computers for FS9? I know I did.-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

Great!A. Now add to FS-X the cost of:Windows VistaDX10 graphicscardNew processor to get decent performanceB. And still:Texture improvement to counter the desert effectBeter landclass to battle desert effectGood add-on airliner that has a decent FMSRealAir quality add-on aircraftEtcThe things under B will always be bouight by serious simmers. The things under A are needed because FS-X is so future oriented that it will not run on current hardware.

You want to compare a tricked out FSX with a tricked out FS9? Great, we can do that comparison when the required add-ons are released. That's not what this thread is about though, is it? Maybe you and Mike should go back and re-read the original post. The author wanted to compare a fully tricked out FS9 with FSX today, right now. Of course a fully tricked out FS9 is better than stock FSX. It's also at least an order of magnitude more expensive. To return to the original poster's car analogy, it's like comparing a $20,000 2003 model car with $200,000 of after-market add-ons to a $20,000 2006 model car with everything factory stock. Which do you think is going to be better?Dollar for dollar, FSX offers more and delivers more for the same money than FS9, even today. And for what it's worth, FSX runs just fine on my system without Vista, DX10 or DX10 hardware.

>...FS-X is so future>oriented that it will not run on current hardware.As in will not run at all, will not run smoothly at all, or will not run to your standards? FSX runs perfectly fine on my system, and with the framerate locked at 20, it very seldom ever drops below it. And it looks great. The mesh is far superior to any FSX mesh I have ever seen. Just take off from Jackson Hole and look at those tetons! It's really amazing. And I didn't have to buy a new processor, Vista or a DX10 video card to get it looking like it does. Sure they could make it look better, but then you're talking added bonuses, not necessary items.So obviously it will run on current hardware, and smoothly to boot. Perhaps after FS9 and the many add-ons your bar is set higher? That's fine, and I agree that with the right tweaks and add-ons, FS9 rocks, but that does not mean FSX sucks.-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

So try flying at KSEA or take off from my home field EHRD and see if you can keep up the framerate.Rest assured that IF a tweaked FS-X on minimal to medium settings would have had a constant 20 FPS I would have kept it. Reality on my hardware was that it only kept the 20 FPS during bush flying away from the cities (hardware: AMD X2 4400+, 2Gb mem, Raptor HDD, ATI X800XL). I tried it on 2 other machines but the result where the same no stable flyable framerate around the cities.The fun thing is that you can have many of the high settings like full AI with 60% road traffic away from the cities and yes it looks great that way and the buildin head latency helps make flying more believable but... Come near a city (or fps black hole as I prefer to call them) and gone is the 20 fps and the whole thing becomes unflyable.The desert thing and the landbridges in the rivers is disappointing but the fps dropping below 20 fps even on low settings is the breaking point for me.

You want to compare the current situation?Just take the things I list under A because you need them to get a constant 20 FPS in FS-X.>> Dollar for dollar, FSX offers more and delivers more for the>> same money than FS9, even today. And for what it's worth, >> FSX runs just fine on my system without >> Vista, DX10 or DX10 hardware.I don't believe for 1 second that you can get a constant 20 FPS in all the places of the planet even with the sliders in a worse picture quality then vanila FS9 mode. I know this because I tried. You and I have a very different view on what 'running fine' actually is.Your new FS-X car has square wheels and doesn't run on regular unleaded fuel like that old FS-9 car you keep in the garage. Great that you like the new FS-X deser brown color, the mp3 player, thge flashy nobs and the improved seating arrangement just don't try to drive 55 Mph on the freeway this new car is meant for slow cruising.

FSX is indeed a car with square wheels. But if you like putting your head under the bonnet (tweaking) instead of driving (flying) then you'll be as happy as a pig in muck!

>Many find FSX satisfactory arguying that it is far superior>to FS9 when it was first released few years ago. A more>correct approach, IMO, is to compare FSX to today's excellent>tweaked and "addoned" FS9. And there, it is a real>disapointment.>etchi fellowsimmers,After 10 days of using FSX I am Slightly SatisfiedWhat i dislike mostly : 1. the exclusions made in FS9 scenery don't work for FSX.2. the autogen gives even in "parse" to many objects.Hopefully when all the adjustments are made and new designer add-ons are produced i gonna be really satisfiedIn the meantime i fly enjoy my own design scenery in my old FS9 with all the goodies.byeBert

Why do we have to moan or grovel, lets just understand and stick to the facts, fsx at the moment chuggs along like a vauxhall chevette on three cyclinders when its supposed to be a six cylinder bentley.With addons, this will get a lot worse, I'm afraid i have heard promises such as dx10 match and the attached marketing hype too many times before to get my hopes up, i think we have what we have. The guys that quoted the upgrades reqd for dx10 are spot on and i for one find this whole situation unacceptable and I'm looking forward to dx10.FSX should work and look great under dx9, its just shoddy programming and lack of investment that leaves us where we are. DX10 should be the icing on the cake.As i sit here i am staring at a 747 at 30000ft at 5 fps, this is completely unacceptable from a state of the art program that cost me

>FSX = $60>Vista+DX10 =$300>DX10 card =$350> -----> $710>Addons $600> -----> $1310> ----->>If you are gonna do the math, do it right.>Exactly!!!!! :) It would cost me a fortune to upgrade for FSX.