Hi,We are currently reading so many posts stating how much better FSX is than FS9. Is it? Well, in many respects yes it is, of course, but I would venture to suggest that it will be some time yet before many of us with a dual installation will no longer feel the need to have FS9 on our HDs.If you compare the respective out-of-the-box installations then there can be no doubt, FSX is way way ahead of FS9 and one can understand that this comparison would indeed compel simmers with these standard installations to rush to remove FS9. However, if my experience means anything at all, the same cannot be said for an FS9 installation that has been customized to the point that it is barely recognizable in terms of visual quality and simming depth with the out-of-the-box-version.I just wish those who make such sweeping statements would qualify their position by giving us some idea as to their level of experience and immersion in both sims and whether they are in fact comparing apples with apples. Perhaps this is unfair, but is it my imagination or do most of these posters have a relatively low post count?FS9 3 years down the line with all it's superb 3rd party addons and customizations remains a remarkable sim in its own right. It does not deserve to be dismissed so lightly.My position is clear. I have both sims installed, but still find myself spending far more time in FS9 than FSX. I do enjoy FSX a great deal and, certainly, it does have much to offer. If I were a RW pilot, then the improved flight models and the general in-flight experience would undoubtedly entice me away from FS9. However, the visuals are another matter entirely. My 45+GB FS9 installation still remains, for me, a very convincing world.FSX, like a fine wine, needs time to mature and, rest assured, I will be with it every step of the way. Meantime, FS9 in all its rich and bountiful flavours continues to satisfy this discriminating simmer's palate admirably. Without it I would feel lost.Three cheers for FS9.....hip, hip, hooray!!Mike

I'm with you"...FSX, like a fine wine, needs time to mature and, rest assured, I will be with it every step of the way. Meantime, FS9 in all its rich and bountiful flavours continues to satisfy this discriminating simmer's palate admirably. Without it I would feel lost...." It's all fizz with FSX. Wait til the novelty wears off. That's when simmers look for addons. . . oh dear!! My FPs have dropped!!

I was never able to install FSX on my system (MS wanted me to reformat... sheesh!), and right now I'm thinking I may be lucky. My FS9 install is tweaked to perfection (for my style of flying) and with this coming Vista/DX10 combo I'll lay low and enjoy FS9 for a few more months until the dust settles on the new OS/DX/Hardware.Greg

FSX does not represent a qualitative change. Except for the MS team relationship to the community. MS strategy has apparenbtly been significantly inspired by probably less than 1% (that would be us) of its marketing target.As a result, several ideas born from this marginal population and its passion for FS have been integrated: earth is round ( Fly!), Active Camera's idea of head-latency (perfect example of creative intelligence, probably the best ratio file-size/CPU-load/effect ever attained, I would venture), pioneering work on air files, etc... The engine has been made (I think) more open and less proprietary, allowing for more, easier and faster contributions. The result is a much more realistic FS in a world who couldn't care less about realism when compared to fantasy and spectacle.The result is also, therefore, similarity of both products in the lack of revolutionary changes, which are apparently left to the community. Not that it's a bad thing, on the contrary.ATC and weather engine are two cases in point, not to mention the landclass/texture huge problems. ATC is still relatively non-intelligent and the weather engine not very realistic (e.g. continuing difficulties with O/C condition, variety of clouds limited and not associated to actual meteo conditions, e.g. stratocumuli). Both completely central aspects of a convincing reproduction of the reality of flight.So is FSX better than FS9? Yes. In my view, mostly due to the increased and more open appeal to the very restricted population of FS fanatics.

Do you know, Mike, it seems to me that FS X is the direct result of all the complaints that people here have voiced the last few years.Please consider:1. "Ground textures are so blurry, they are crap. Why can't the FS Team give us higher resolution so that they aren't blurry at ground level?"Result: ground textures are now about 1 meter per pixel resolution, compared to 4.8 meters per pixel in FS 9. File sizes are 16 times greater thus increasing load times and lowering performance.2. "Autogen is crappy, lots of people are putting out better autogen files with a lot more buildings and trees. Why can't crappy Microsoft do better than that?"Result: There is so much autogen now that ground textures are completely filled. Performance has decreased immensely.3. "The graphics engine in FS is crap. Why doesn't Microsoft forget about old-style graphics calls and use more modern, less crappy techniques?"Result: A lot of the display in FS X is now pushed through the shader pipes, and of course this leads to much lower performance.4. "Default airplanes are so crappy, I never fly them and always trash them. I only fly third-party airplanes that aren't crap."Result: The news FS X aircraft are polygon-happy, and have broken the limit on number of polygons used both inside and out. In addition, all textures are much larger, and there are bump and specular maps for everything. You guessed - performance plummets.5. "The default VCs are just crap. Everybody can make a better VC than crappy Microsoft."Result: All default Virtual Cockpits are now high-resolution, completely clickable, and resource-intensive.6. "I am bored! I just can't get excited over FS anymore. Does anybody have any ideas? What can I do?"Result: The new FS has missions, with birds, and elephants, whales, traffic on roads, on airport aprons, moving tugs, refuel trucks, etc. Yes, all that takes on toll on performance.7. You get the idea, just add here any past complaint about crappy FS.It is a shame that people spend so much time complaining. Obviously, many of us, and undoubtedly the FS guys, knew that satisfying all these people would inevitably lead to much lower performance. There is no way around it.Of course, Microsoft does not have a choice. They couldn't just fix the bugs in FS 9 and try to sell that - nobody would buy a bug fix.So, they have to create a new version with a lot of new features that generates excitement and tries to satisfy their customer base.Too bad for those of us who were happy with FS 9 and did not complain. Now, we have to suffer for the complaints of the vocal few, and pay for it with "crappy" FS X performance.And isn't is ironic that the same people who complained about FS 9 and its lack of features, have now finally gotten everything they wanted, and what do they do?.... complain!It's just all a part of life. Nothing new.Best regards.Luis

I thought these type of post went out of style last week.:)

Great post Luis. It reminds me of what one of my teachers said to the glass about an old car called the Edsel. It seems that the Ford motor company put out a survey to try to see what people wanted in a car.When they got it back they tried to give them what the wanted In doing so the made a very expensive car that nobody wanted to pay the price for. Not that the edsel was a bad car it was not it was a fine car for its time just to much to soon because a company gave the people what they wanted.Hope that FSX is not the Edsel of the Sim world.:( http://www.edsel.com/In case anybody has never heard of it or seen the car the link will let you look at it.

So, they have to create a new version with a lot of new features that generates excitement and tries to satisfy their customer base.I'd be willing to bet a good sum that MS made a new sim because they're in the software biz. It's what they do. I doubt anybody forces them to make a flightsim.Too bad for those of us who were happy with FS 9 and did not complain. Now, we have to suffer for the complaints of the vocal few, and pay for it with "crappy" FS X performance.If you're happy with FS9 then you're problem is solved. No suffering because of the complaints of others (although you certainly get points for a new and unique twist of logic), and you don't have to suffer with "crappy" FSX performance. See how lucky you are!And isn't is ironic that the same people who complained about FS 9 and its lack of features, have now finally gotten everything they wanted, and what do they do?.... complain!Yet another unique twist of logic, and one that deserves no further response.I thought these type of post went out of style last week.Since when does a reasoned and well thought out commentary go out of style?Take the time to re-read the OP's points in his first post. No where does he say that FS9 is better than FSX, or that FSX is a dud (only that the new sim needs time to mature... which all new software must do). Quite the contrary... he makes a point of stating that there is no problem keeping both sims on the hard drive. They each offer alot.Greg

Visit my web site, I've posted screenshots of both FSX and FS9.http://www.nocomsleft.com/SimulationsFS9.aspxhttp://www.nocomsleft.com/Simulations.aspxI prefer the water in FSX, but it isn't worth 30 fps hit over what I'm getting in FS9. I think FS9 looks better even with FSX visuals turned up. Some of the AC flight models in FSX do feel better (some worse) and so does turbulance. But like you, I find myself flying in FS9 far more than FSX.Rob

Did you miss my smilie face?:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) It means my post was joking.

So are you complaining about complainers?Not sure what your thread is about but it has made A LOT of assumptions and generalizations about how Microsoft operate, what "everyone" wants, etc. etc. etc.But if I get the meaning of your message, your saying something along the lines of -- if GM built an SUV with everything "some" vocal customers wanted such that the SUV became so heavy customer requested items that the engine could no longer drive the SUV faster than 20 mph, so it's the customer's fault for making the requests? Wow, that's some strange logic.My response in this case would be the same whether it was GM or Microsoft, build a better engine!Rob.

Did you miss my smilie face? It means my post was joking.Sorry, I did not intend for my reply to be directed specifically at you (although I can understand how you feel that it was). I just didn't want folks jumping on the "bad FSX, good FS9" bandwagon. Mike's OP was not intended to be such a post.Regards,Greg

I haven't got FSX as i really don't think my system will run it well but i like FS9 all the same. What i'm interested to see is how FSX will run when complex add-ons from developers like PMDG and Level D are ported over. It's all very well running stock airplanes but this will be the true test of the new sim.

Lucid logic is ALWAYS a joy to behold! BUT, if you pull out the radio, the backseats, rear windshield, spare tire, DVD entertainment system, plush floormats, turbocharger, front door speakers, left front wheel AND THEN install a smaller gas tank, strip off the paint and weld off the roof you will have no problem reaching 40 MPH. At least your got your dream vehicle right? :-lolBut at the end of the day, this is all a moot point. Those pleased driving in the abovementioned SUV will extol its greatness, and those not happy will simply go back to driving last years model that can reach speeds of 150 MPH with all the options still on. Simple as that and I think no longer worth debating.

>Lucid logic is ALWAYS a joy to behold! >>BUT, if you pull out the radio, the backseats, rear>windshield, spare tire, DVD entertainment system, plush>floormats, turbocharger, front door speakers, left front wheel>AND THEN install a smaller gas tank, strip off the paint and>weld off the roof you will have no problem reaching 40 MPH. >>At least your got your dream vehicle right? :-lol>>But at the end of the day, this is all a moot point. Those>pleased driving in the abovementioned SUV will extol its>greatness, and those not happy will simply go back to driving>last years model that can reach speeds of 150 MPH with all the>options still on. >>Simple as that and I think no longer worth debating.>>Now that's funny:-)