Hello,I own all three of the sims - FSX, FS9 and Xplane 8.5. I have a fairly capable computer system (ASUS an8-sli delux, AMD64 3500+,2 gigs of Corsair RAm, 2 nvidia 6800's in sli mode and a rather complete GOFLIGHT setup with CH yoke and pedals).1. I can fly FS9 (all addons - at least at 20FPS and usually at about 40fps.2. I use X-plane and fly it with smooth gauges and scenery3. I cannot, after all the tweeks, fly FSX at anything over 9 FPS except with a minimum default setup on the sliders.My readings of posts on the forums reveals that most people who praise FSX think that it is the "cats meow" because the textures are far superior to FS9. So here is my question to users of FSX - if these are flight simulators, why is the texture display quality the driving force for acceptance of a sim that most of us cannot fly ?Respectfully, I like the flight experience of these sims and bought FSX in the hope that it would exceed my FS9.1 setup and become its replacement. Today, I have it uninstalled and use X-plane for "training" and FS9 to refly the training flights that I did in X-plane.Cheers,Ron Sagel

Many FS users never buy any add-on at all, and because the default airliners are simply ridiculous, they're more or less strictly GA pilots in addition. I dare to say that VFR is what almost all of them ever do, so it's of major importance to them how the environment looks like they're flying in.I guess this group of FS users is the vast majority, that alone would explaint the efforts MS put into the graphic area of the new sim. They simply want to make those people happy.If you're a more serious simmer, everything else but the eye candy has precedence (ground effect, flight dynamics, systems modelling, weather influences etc. just to name a few).The bad thing is that even today's computers are far too weak to handle complex simulations especially in the graphics area, so if you try to get acceptable eye candy, there's absolutely nothing left for anything else to simulate.So, it's a big compromise between simulation of the reality and displaying nice pictures. The latter has a direct impact on how the majority of FS users experience the sim, so it's consequently the most important aspect when developing the game: in the end, MS wants to sell the title, and nobody would buy it if it were only an FDE simulator alone ;-)FSX now is the result of market demands on one hand and the requirements of a small group of users on the other: I think it's superior to FS9 in many important areas, but the price is what we see as low FPS.It's clear because of these facts that most FSX users are happy users. Granted, the default textures of FSX look better than the ones of FS9, but what serious simmer uses any defaults at all? And conpared to GE's textures, the FSX ones are anything else but great. Same goes for almost every graphical aspect of FSX: there's better mesh, Active Sky brings better clouds and weather, and it won't be long until Ultimate Terrain and FS Environment will replace the rest of what FSX brings by default in the environment area.Then, new airplanes like PMDG's MD-11 will replace the default ones.In the end, the serious simmer will have replaced everything that comes in the box, leaving only the core of the sim, that what's the real "simulating part" of it.And because the overload of things to simulate now is too big a burden of todays hardware (the complexity of the replacements by far surpasses what originally came with the game), the result is low FPS, end of the story.The only way out is to switch this or that off, depending on personal taste and situational requirements (e.g. when flying PMDG's A320 one could disable all AI, effects and autogen 'cause it's most important to have high FPS during the landing process). I guess it would take a whole bunch of years until the day would eventually come when hardware is fast enough that all sliders in FSX could be set to maximum...It's a pity that FSX performs so badly compared to X-Plane, and that X-Plane is therefore only a niche player...Andrea

Hello,Thanks for the thoughtful response. The other troubling thing about FSX is the potential for very high replacement cost for hardware. While I realize that it always gets faster, I thought that my one year old system would last a long time. My only addition was more ram (thought it would help my FSX system). Other than disk access, it really did little for performance.Cheers,Ron Sagel

"I dare to say that VFR is what almost all of them ever do" "If you're a more serious simmer, everything else but the eye candy has precedence " etc.etc.I guess you are lumping me and others like me into this "non serious" group? I have been flying serious real ifr for 17 years, and simming for 26 years-here is yesterday and the day before's session: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7345RBy the way-I own xplane and fs9-and I prefer fsx for its "seriousness". I consider the "ground effect, flight dynamics, systems modelling, weather influences" seriously upgraded in fsx-perhaps one of the biggest upgrades in this area in a long time. If you don't like it fine-but saying it is not for "serious" simmers is just not right. I know how the fsx Baron compares to a real Baron, and the fsx one is an improvement over fs9-otherwise I'd still be flying fs9. Xplane never did it for me-though it was always very smooth.Jets-I have no personal experience and can't judge. I bet a lot of the simmers flying them don't either. That is no problem-it is after all for fun-even when serious! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Amen. Interestingly to get my FS9 to look like FSX (sans hi res textures in FS9) my FS9 FPS hovers around 25 FPS in my FPS test scenario, FSX on the same machine is almost the same. Most pictures showing FPS on the forums are useless because the comparison images do not show exactly the same scene plus the settings for each sim arn't published so we don't know that the extended FSX features were turned off when doing the FPS comparison. for example, enabling traffic kills fps whether a road is in the screenshot or not.I only ever flew the PMDG or Level-D machines as I like machines heavy and preferred IFR but so far I am enjoying the FSX payware GA type machines and doing a bit of sight seeing (while waiting for patches to my FS9 aircraft). Obviously some people cannot accept that FSX is running well with good FPS (~20 - 25) and visuals (compared to stock FS9) on some of our machines, it is a bit sad but as each FS release has shown us there is always a noisy bunch that love to complain.

Dear unknown (please sign your posts next time),I can impossibly speak for everyone, only express my personal impressions and thoughts (isn't it all subjective?).I never said FSX is not for serious simmers.The word serious for me has nothing to do with people who think they're better than others 'cause they think of themselves to be the real and thus "serious" simmers, nor do I mean freaks here who have each and every hardware piece needed for "serious" simming, following the checklists by the letters and simming all day round.I just dare to say for most people, FSX is what's printed on the box: a recreational game.A serious simmer for me is nobody who fires up the sim and then flies aroung with a quickly loaded default plane with switched off panel for instance to make the environment better visible.That for me is more gaming than simming, 'cause in the real world you would at least check the machine before you start it and make sure about the fuel on board - it's no bycicle, it's a plane after all and things there tend to be a little more complicated (agreed, even there exist people who just jump in and fly - but I guess that's the exception of the rule)."De gustibus non est disputandi" - in the end, the fun is what counts.Peace.Andreas

My name is on my graphic...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

"Dear unknown (please sign your posts next time),"Are you spending too much time in the PMDG forums ? :-) I wonder who does not know Geof by now! one of the most valuable contributor in this forum in my opinion!PS: my name is in my login LOL

>I just dare to say for most people, FSX is what's printed on>the box: a recreational game.>I have my own definitions:X-Plane-- Not bad, but seriously hyped market wise! It's certainly not anymore "real flying" than is FS9 or FSX, although some might tend to think so, based on what they read, advertising wise. Moving to X-Plane does not bring anyone closer to the relm of real flight.As one who enjoy's mountain topography, the global scenery discs are a great addition, but the simulated world is rather bland, and doesn't keep my interest for long. Another X-Plane strong point is creating simulated aircraft, that will often get into the ball park of how the real one might fly. However, that is not my interest either.FS9--- Still marketed by Microsoft under games. If it runs best on your CPU, and especially in crowded airport enviroments, then that's the route to go.FSX-- I sure enjoy taking real life aviation photography, and "fly" as a pilot for the look of the earth below, and not to take passengers from point A to B. I'm surrounded by the Rocky Mtn. area of the western U.S., which is very interesting country for VFR flying, and can be very icy for IFR. When using the simulation, the more it replicates my real life flying, then all the better. At this point, I prefer FSX for it's updated topography data bases, and the finer resolution of ground textures. I also run it with a few compromises on slider settings, but some of these just happen to look better. I tend to run very close to 25 fps all the time.FSX also has an improved airmass, which is very noticeable.And there you have it. I fly real aircraft throughout the Mountain West, and not being a commercial airline captain or FO, I have less interest in flying simulated airliners into heavily traveled airports. Therefore, in many situations, but not all, FSX is the truest representation of my type of flying. I've always figured "eye candy" and flight dynamics to be a 50/50 operation. I don't consider my self to be a devoted serious simmer. My interest in simulation, is to see just how close it's creation of virtual reality, gets to actual reality. In many ways, FSX does it well.L.Adamson -- and I do own FS9, X-Plane 8.50 with global scenery, as well as FSX. edit: Athlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256meg/1600*1200*32 res.Water effects and autogen off for flights other than low level bush type. I prefer the photo city textures with auto-gen off. All mesh and scenery sliders, as well as aircraft on the high side. AI traffic at minimums. This does allow for 25 fps along with FSGenesis mesh.

Reality Proud Pilot? Or is it in that blue smudge on the left. Maybe it realy is time to get my eyes checked ;-)Bye...oh yea,Harry

Better? My eyes are starting to go too. :-beerchughttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hey Jean Luc! Thanks for the nice words and great products. Can't wait for an updated DF Baron!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

...and check yer latin, too ;-)

>FSX also has an improved airmass, which is very noticeable.>What do you mean? How is it noticable?

>If you don't like it fine-but saying it is not for "serious">simmers is just not right. I know how the fsx Baron compares>to a real Baron, and the fsx one is an improvement over>fs9-otherwise I'd still be flying fs9. But in FS9 we have the dreamfleet Baron 58. Do you know how it compares to the real Baron? I think the DF Baron is better than the FSX Baron. It feels much smoother. But I have never flown a real Baron.