Fellow Simmers, Hi all. I am gonna try to share a couple pics here of FS9. I have many add-ons. Ultimate Terrain, ActiveSky, Ground Enviroment Pro and Flight Enviroment along with others. But to be honest I am very happy with detailing of Sky Ground textures with Flight Enviroment and Ground Enviroment Pro. Now for FSX please don't take this as a bash. But if it really is that much of a pain and Microsoft is making things so difficult why go to the trouble of buying and spending out the Empenage to basically have a FSX that equals a beefed up FS9? And with the great community of programmers out here that create all this better stuff to put into FS9. And if FSX is really that bad. Why doesn't the community just band together and work on some of the coding in FS9 to change things as far as icing and a little more stout thunderstorms that you would not want to fly a cessna through unless you wanted aerobatics training real fast. I personally have not experienced FSX. At the moment feel like I would just be feeling a bunch of heartache. But I really think as far as FS9 Is concerned. All it is missing is a few flight characteristics such as Icing conditions and more stout Cumulo-Nimbus's peeking at you wanting to chew you up a bit and spit you out. Oh and as far as detailed airports FlyTampa is the cream of the crop vehicles etc around the roads of the airport. Only time you are gonna see stuff like that is pretty much on Take-Off and Landing. It really makes me wonder for the simple fact that I personally think FS9 was really getting there. And now start over with all this stuff. What's the point in putting money into the piggy when you are just gonna crack it open for less than what you put in. Sincerly, Josh

For me the pros and cons of FSX are:Improved feeling of flightTerrain texturesImproved weatherImproved UIImproved default aircraft and VC'sLow fps are not necessarily detrimental to smoothnessLess stuttersImproved global MeshBetter mission creation70 dollarsCars moving on major highways, a setting of 20 for me is perfectMoving boats, again 20 for bothMuch improved water textures and animation, especially the ocean.No need to upgrade my computer for at least a year as performance is acceptable for my current flightsimming needs. That is probably the biggest pro or con for anyone thinking of switching.Cons:AI aircraft settings must be set to low, I miss the PAI traffic although in FS9, landing at a major airport at 10 fps was a nightmare at timesDesert textures out of place or too abundant in some areasMuddy mountains look like sandy mountainsStill can't fly around Major Eastern cities without seeing smoke billowing from my pc, though with lower settings there is lessOverall, FSX is progress and a new sim. It's challenging to start over but it has breathed new life into my flightsimming and I'm having fun flying, something I'd lost site of in FS9.Ian.AMD 3000+/6600 GT 128mb/1 gb ram

> Now for FSX please don't take this as a bash. But if it>really is that much of a pain and Microsoft is making things>so difficult why go to the trouble of buying and spending out>the Empenage to basically have a FSX that equals a beefed up>FS9?Because some people don't have a truckload of FS9 addons. And even if they do (like I did) they might not be too thrilled about the prospect of having to reinstall them all after a major change in their system. Also I found the task of keeping all those addons balanced and working correctly, in short: keeping a stable sim, to be increasingly difficult, time-consuming and frustrating the more addons there were.If FS9 with all your addons is working good for you - great. For me they became more of a burden than anything, therefore making a fresh start with FSX was the right thing for me.>really that bad. Why doesn't the community just band together>and work on some of the coding in FS9 to change things as far>as icing and a little more stout thunderstorms that you would>not want to fly a cessna through unless you wanted aerobatics>training real fast. Because alas this ain't open source and therefore incorporating such changes would be very difficult, if at all possible?> Oh and as far as detailed airports FlyTampa is the cream of>the crop vehicles etc around the roads of the airport. Only>time you are gonna see stuff like that is pretty much on>Take-Off and Landing.Please keep in mind that not everyone is flying the big irons exclusively... :-roll> It really makes me wonder for the simple fact that I>personally think FS9 was really getting there. And now startPersonally I think it got as far as it could get.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

I only have a few airplane add-ons (of which I only used one in FS9 in the end, which will probably be updated for free for FS X) and Active Camera (which won't be upgraded unfortunately). So... I'm very happy with FS X. It looks a LOT better than FS9, I can assure you. Besides that, I feel no pain whatsoever and I don't know what MS is making so difficult. All I know is that I've got a beautifull sim that's looking very nice for a LOT (and I mean A LOT) less money than you must have spend on FS9 and all your add-ons.Also, I almost never fly above 8.000 ft and do a lot of VFR flights, so I'm loving the cars down the road and all that beautifull autogen. And all that on my old P4 3.0 HT and Radeon 9800 Pro. (I will buy a new computer though when Vista/DX10 will be released.)All in all I'm a happy MS FS X customer with lots of money left in my pocket. ;)

>For me the pros and cons of FSX are:>>Improved feeling of flightA vastly under-rated aspect of FSX if you ask me. Somehow it just has a more immersive feel than FS9.Once the frame rates improve above about 15fps, the immersion really is much deeper.

I have to agree with all those pros and cons.What I would like to have an answer to, are we going to have zero compatibility issues again with the next release as well ??It would really be nice to know !