>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.>I disagree - I believe the only relevant comparison of the two is their out of the box state, running on current hardware of the day, and no addons.regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

>>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.>>>>I disagree - I believe the only relevant comparison of the two>is their out of the box state, running on current hardware of>the day, and no addons.>>regards,>Mark>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg>XPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256fanboy tbhTechnology has moved on exponentially since fs9 and so should have fsx

That is the closes apples to apples comparison.Even looking at FSX vs a tricked out FS9, FSX has enough under the hood that make it superior-Round earth (finally!)improved flight modelinggreater extensibility for third party designershigher res texturesMore dynamic airport environment (vehicles, jetways etc)slightly tweaked AI atc- default use of multiple runways.a better base than fs9 scenery wise. Not perfect, but far better. I view the core product of FS as a foundation to build off of. This is a an excellent foundation.I am thinking that this is really designed to be a DX10 title but shipped as DX9 due to the delays there. Will DX10 be a dramatic improvement in performance? Maybe. Time will tell.

>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!I've been thinking just the opposite. FS9 still had the stutters (more than not) & FSX is running fluid with no stutter. I guess I lucked out, and got the round wheel version of FSX. :-hah And I still haven't done any tweaking. L.Adamson

I just love the folks who tout how they get 20 FPS and everything is so wonderful... Are you flying GA in the middle of nowhere? What is going to happen when you take your add-on PMDG, LVL-D, PSS etc... and try to fly it into an LA or Heathrow or better yet Seattle or New York LOL.If you are happy with 20FPS in a default FSX staying away from the cities I hope you never intend to add any add-on heavies with sceneries and additional Mesh and things like UT. Enjoy the 20FPS you are getting with a default FSX because personally I do not think that we can handle the add-ons everyone is waiting on with FSX in its current state and our current H/W configs. TBH, I don't really care about a vanilla FSX and the thought of the FSX we have today with an A/C like PMDG leaves me cringing at 2-3 FPS on approach.Time will tell though, we are ALL just speculating at this point. See my other post, you can be bi-simulational and proud :) No need to pit one against the other, for right now both FS9 and FSX can live side by side and hopefully 12-18 months we will all have forgotten about FS9 but it isn't going to happen anytime soon for a lot of us.Cheers,-Paul

>What is going to happen when you take your add-on>PMDG, LVL-D, PSS etc... and try to fly it into an LA or>Heathrow or better yet Seattle or New York LOL.>Probably as unflyable on many systems as they where when they came out for FS9.

Ill say this again and Ive said it at least twice already. There were VERY FEW folks who had the frame rate problems with FS9 that we are seeing with FSX. To be fair, there was an autogen problem which caused some ugly pauses and stutter. Most of that was fixed outright by disabling the autogen.xml file. Personally I didnt keep FS2002 on my box for more than about a week after seeing the vast improvements and PLAYABILITY(with FS9) on my then mid range system. Definitely NOT the same case here. I would bet about 80% of us cant run this sim at medium to low settings and ENJOY it. I am trying to figure out a way to convince myself I dont need autogen but so far I have been unsuccesful. Sorry Geofa ;) For most of us, who happen to be more system minded than most, FS9 ran acceptably out of the box at midrange to low settings. I actually remember it running quite well with two notches of autogen and 100% 3d clouds on my MID RANGE SYSTEM of the time. This is NOT true with what we have here. The folks who have decent frame rates have either:A. Killer dual core machines with huge video cards.B. Turned off just about EVERYTHING that is added to this version.C. Tweaked several files which destroy most of the added detail. I fail to understand why everyone doesn't see this. Plain and simple this version by no means runs as well as FS9 did out of the box. I know this isn't exactly quantifiable but I believe Im pretty objective about this stuff. I did a review of FSX over at SimHQ, pre release, and if you notice, I had some concern about frame rates. Unfortunately that concern does not seem to have been addressed. Sometime in the next few years I guess Ill have a box which can enjoy the eye candy. For now Ill stick with my old version where I can use everything and still get 25-30fps just about everywhere.Hornit

". . . 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.. . . "I'd forgotten about those Vauxhall Chevettes. . . . British cars making was going to the dogs for a while. I saw a mustard coloured Morris Marina the other day, but the ultimate was the rectangular steering wheeled Austion allegro. . . sorry to go off topic but cars are often used as an analogy on this forum!

> I fail to understand why everyone doesn't see this. Plain and>simple this version by no means runs as well as FS9 did out of>the box. Denial ;)