So what is the bottom line?

[Guest crabster]

I've been away from flight simming for quite awhile and am now ready to return. After reading the various posts, what is the actual bottomline? Just stay with FS9? (please don't let this turn into a flamefest-thanks!)

[Guest JIMJAM]

Live a little and buy FSX.Try it.There is no bottom line just countless opinions.

[doc1956 0]

Crabster,Yes, it really is a subjective question, but for me the bottom line is that I had to try FSX so I did buy it. However, the result of that was that I ended up also buying X-Plane because I am not very pleased with the FSX performance (insert polite cough here). FS9, though, lets you use all those add-ons you may already have purchased, and fly with good frame rates but perhaps scenery isnt as realistic as some would like. In direct contrast, X-Plane's scenery is superb, but their add-ons do not allow the absolute realism (yet) that FS9/FSX permit.If you are happy with FS9, consider staying with that until FSX is either patched to improve performance for mid-range and above systems or until there are viable video cards/CPUs that can handle the requirements of FSX without requiring a new house mortgage. If you enjoy a slightly less realistic cockpit but just like to fly and enjoy the scenery then have a look at X-Plane 8.50, it is excellent.Paul

[Guest Stoopy]

Not to confuse things, but part of determining what the bottom line will be on your system might be demonstrated easiest by trying the demo out. Reports indicate that the full retail version will perform somewhat poorer...mileage will vary slightly so you could at least use this as a "possible best case" bottom line:http://www.fsinsider.com/Downloads/

[Guest Tingoose]

If you like to enhance yor simming with quality payware addons, I'd go for FS9. Two reasons:1. FS9 with the best addons is much more of a complex, challenging and immersive experience.2. FSX isn't going to run updated addons anytime soon and those who have updated like Eaglesoft are bumping down the FPs even more as one would expect, for a detailed addon. Some will mention that they can run mesh and FS9 textures but they would of course not have an impact on FPs.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

My bottom line - The Shelf.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[Mike T 208]

YOUR bottom line: its your money so if you have $50 to waste...errr...spend, feel free to pick up a copy. The DVD case is vary attractive, best DVD case I've seen in a long time. I think that in the history of MSFS there has not been a better release of a DVD case. I give the DVD case two thumbs up and I think that the release of FSX will go down in history as the best DVD case ever relesaed. MY bottom line: I should left the FSX DVD inside the FSX DVD case.

[GHarrall 494]

Mike,Now that was funny....:-xxrotflmaoOn another note, is there going to be an AVSIM review of FSX?I hope it's more objective than the garbage written in the review over at Flightsim.com, including some bizarre statement about a 7800GS being the 'fastest GPU money can buy"!!!

[Mike T 208]

I'm sure we'll do a review in time. I'm also sure it won't be me because I've uninstalled FSX, defragged the space, and I'm gonna mail the disk to my buddy in Mississippi. (However I may keep the DVD case, the graphics on the FSX DVD case are way better than FS9)

[Guest spiffy_scimitar]

If you like flight sims you'll find something to like. Since I know you like flight sims, you'll like FSX. Whether or not you'll like everything better than FS9 is something you need to decide for yourself. Is $50 really a deterrant for something you may enjoy for years to come?

[Guest FxF3]

Its your money. I love FSX myself warts and all. Kind like my 7th wife.You could spend $50.00 on something worse. Just be warned FSX has some problems. It needs a landclass and or texture fix for parts of the world. Some posters have not been able to run it for whatever reasons to their liking, others have.

[Guest FALC]

I'll just say, if your a GA fan you **might** like it,depending on your system and once you go through allthe tweaks. But if you like flying the 'heavy iron'dont waste your money or your time. You'll be thoroughlydisappointed. The panels are better eye candy wise. Butother than that.. Phhtttt.But then again MSFS always has been a GA sim right from the begining of time. The only thing that made jet aircraft flying enjoyable and realistic was the third partyadd-ons (LDS , PMDG et-al). You aren't going to see them fora long time in FSX.Jim

[LAdamson 240]

>Yes, it really is a subjective question, but for me the bottom>line is that I had to try FSX so I did buy it. However, the>result of that was that I ended up also buying X-Plane because>I am not very pleased with the FSX performance (insert polite>cough here). FS9, though, lets you use all those add-ons you>may already have purchased, and fly with good frame rates but>perhaps scenery isnt as realistic as some would like. In>direct contrast, X-Plane's scenery is superb, but their>add-ons do not allow the absolute realism (yet) that FS9/FSX>permit.>>If you are happy with FS9, consider staying with that until>FSX is either patched to improve performance for mid-range and>above systems or until there are viable video cards/CPUs that>can handle the requirements of FSX without requiring a new>house mortgage. If you enjoy a slightly less realistic cockpit>but just like to fly and enjoy the scenery then have a look at>X-Plane 8.50, it is excellent.>I picked up X-Plane (updated to 8.50) with Global scenery, along with FSX around the same time. As I now have FS9, X-Plane, and FSX all installed on a much better CPU, I find that I really prefer FSX, for an improved feel of flight, over the other two.I've installed FSGenesis mesh, as I enjoy mountainous topography, but usually at biz jet levels. X-Planes global scenery has excellent topography too, and in some places, better or worse than MSFS with mesh addons.I'll be interested to see what's offered for FSX in the way of addon aircraft. My preference is something such as the RealAir SF260 which has been very frame rate friendly in FS9. If I'm unable to obtain 3rd party planes such as this; then I can always go back to FS9 with it's less than desireable blurry ground textures as compared to FSX's, and it's lack of feel regarding moving airmasses, which FSX does rather well. Yes, FS9 will seem somewhat of a downgrade compromise in numerous ways, but you have to do, what you have to do.........I suppose.:-hah L.Adamson

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I've recently been asked this question by a few friends who have simple needs and even simpler computers (compared to us FS freaks anyway), and I've wholeheartedly recommended FS9 for the best out of the box experience (ie. no stuffing around to get it all to work at a satisfactory performance level). In time I hope I will be able to recommend FSX the same way (did somebody say PATCH!).Gary

[Guest otter55]

i have done all the tweaks and now have fsx running very well on my laptop with no autogen. imho autogen is no longer needed. the fsx textures are that good.i have no stutters at all. fsx is smooth as silk as i run it.i had a great time with fs9 (with all the addon textures/etc) and i tried xplane 8.50, but fsx is now my sim of choice.i fly only the trike because i fly mostly ultralights in the real world.for my type of flying fsx cannot be beat.otterlaptop amd turion 641 gig ramati radion express 200 m