Hi,When I first looked at these images I marvelled at how the author had managed to create them in FSX. Yet there was something about them that looked strangely familiar.... ;) http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=247290&page=Not wishing to add more fuel to the fire, but I do hope Microsoft/ACES are still paying attention. If nothing is done to convince folk like me who are, at this point, sitting on the fence and wondering whether FSX is really worth all the hassle, then screen captures such as these will only serve to entice us back to FS9 full time. Like thousands of others I too have all the addons installed which harmonize together to reproduce similar wonderful images at little or no cost to performance while running on current medium spec hardware. I'll wager too that most of us in this situation have continued to hedge our bets by keeping our carefully customized FS9 installations on our hard drives.FSX certainly has the potential to become a truly great simulator in its own right and I am amongst the first to agree that, in many ways, it already is. I just hope that those behind its creation will recognize the pressing need to find appropriate ways to provide some much needed framerate headroom and, by so doing, prevent it from sinking into what could prove to be the catastophic mire of flawed performance. Until that happens I suspect not many 3rd party developers (freeware and payware) will be feeling very eager at the thought of investing all that time and effort when there could be a very real danger that their potential user base may dwindle away before their eyes. That would indeed be a great shame. The consequences of such a scenario becoming reality could be far reaching and might well put at risk the future commercial viability of the Flight Simulator series. I would hate to see that happen.MikeASRock 939Dual-SATA2, AMD Athlon 64X2 3800+ (2000MHz)(K8 Manchester), 2GB Crucial PC3200 DDR400 Ram 1CMD (Dual Channel), (AGP 8X) Saphire ATI Radeon X800 XL (R430) 256MB (Omega 3.8.273 (Catalyst 6.7), SB Audigy2 ZS Platinum (Drivers version 5.12.0001.1196 WHQL), CH Products USB Yoke, Pedals and Fighterstick, Plantronics Headset and Mike combo, TrackIR Pro ver. 4.1 (build 29), Logitech MX1000 Laser Mouse, Windows XP Home Edition (SP2), DirectX 9.0c, AGP Aperture = 256MB

What are the FPS on a totaly loaded FS9. I have never seen a screen shot posted with the FPS going when FS9 is loaded down like that. I no of my own experince with FS9 I have just posted it stock with everything maxed out 19to 21 FPS. FSX with the same settings 29to 31 FPS plus thats with photoreal scenery.So for me FSX is better For others FS9 must work better. I would just like proof when this photos come out.:) I say fly what makes you happy and let others also. Nice photos of FS9.Oh I meant to add if you want great looking weather in FSX let real weather set it up for you they have really out done them self with this version.

There

Hi 'FxF3', My experience is somewhat different:I'm using the KSEA example posted in your other thread.Default B747-400FS9 - SPOT VIEWhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161807.jpgFSX - SPOT VIEWhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161808.jpgFS9 - VChttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161809.jpgFSX - VChttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161810.jpgSliders maxed out in FS9 (installation not stock), very conservative settings in FSX (stock)(including 10% air traffic).Mike

I have not purchased any payware scenery or landclass. Only freeware stuff. When I started FS9 the other day it looked like a cartoon to me. When I went to the default FSX same city same time of day and same aircraft it blew me away how much better FSX default is. So I guess just make sure we are comparing apples with apples. By the way FSX did have lower framerates but anyone would expect that with the amazingly higher level of detail with FSX. Have you guys seen the pilot's eyes blink!!!! Amazing

>There

The images are reasonably balanced. The FSX shot above is setup to provide a minimally acceptable FPS of around 12-25FPS. Here are some more FSX shots in the same area with the sliders totally maxed; All the good FPS killers like bloom n' max autogen.Way beyond any flyable Frame-rate, but it

Hi Elvis5 you really can't add in bloom or max Autogen and be fair. Max autogen is what about 20 times more then Maxautogen for FS9. And bloom effect in any game is a wasted FPS killer. Maybe another couple of Video cards away.Fly overs in the boonies everybody gets good FPS there.:) I want a loaded for bear FS9 shot with a high quality payware plane.Setting at seattle or any busy airport looking out the window.:)

I dont know, Im too busy flying the plane to be hanging on thenose looking at some pilots eyes blink. What a waste. I wishthey had taken that talent and created a even half a**ed FMSfor the jets. Even a generic one would have been better thannothing. Rather than waste it on blinking eyes and elephantsand giraffes that no one can see unless your flying some"mission". Oh well, 'twas ever thus.

Hey FxF3,The bloom & max autogen was just a test. I usually have all that good stuff disabled.Bloom is now common place in most games. I've not been forced to turn it off for years. Battlefield2142, Company of Heroes & Starwars Lego, all have good bloom effects & play an FPS we can only dream of in FSX. Those are just the last 3 games I remember playing. ICO was the first game to feature realtime bloom & that came out 5 years ago.

So FS9 with GE Pro, special landclass data, ultra high resolution mesh, special roads and rivers vtm data, replacement sky textures, oh *and* ActiveSky, looks better than fsx default with low/midrange settings? Gee what a surprise. ;)Anyone notice the conspicuous lack of water in those shots, with that oh so lovely FS9 extended texture ring nonsense? Hehe.In fairness, anyone want to post those same shots with FS9, pre-tweaked, with default everything? Probably not. It would be a fairly short argument.Leaving framerates out of the equation for now, wait until all those products are fully updated to support fsx, and then make a comparison. I think the outcome will be quite different.FS9 was great, loved it. Love FSX a *whole* lot more, and it has much more potential for enhancement than FS9 did. Bottom line there is that you simply *must* have fantastic hardware to experience it. Depressing, but that's life.And it's been said before, but the FSX bashing is kinda getting old at this point. Yes it's buggy, yes it has some issues, yes they made some very dubious decisions about current and future hardware support, but I'm pretty sure they're all too aware of its deficiencies at this point. They have at least 30 bug reports in their inbox from me alone. It wasn't finished, but MS told them to get it out the door. That's always been the way of the games biz, the tail wagging the dog. My only hope regarding that is that Aces deviates from their historically slow or nonexistant patching schedule, and makes some real fixes soon. They could certainly take a page from Bioware regarding this.The default aircraft are average, as they have always been, because they've never been a priority. MS knows addon developers will always do better, so why compete? Same thing goes for mesh, textures, and just about any other visual aspect of it. Look at any new release of FS as a platform rather than a completely finished product on its own and it all makes a lot more sense. Flight modeling? Now THAT is ACES' job, and they did pretty well this time around, so I'm generally happy with it. I'm no a really excited user, its shortcomings are very evident, but overall its a big step in the right direction in my opinion.Looking forward to this screenshot comparison in a year's time, should be a good laugh.

Yeah-but in the Yosemite shots which I am quite familiar you cover the distant mountains with clouds-and fsx is just much more accurate here-let alone the terrain of Half Dome...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Excellent comparison shots Mike. Certainly, FSX can be made to look prettier than FS9 stock by virtue of the higher slider settings that FSX offers. But as you show, and as I have personally experienced, FSX set to FS9 graphics levels yields 1/3 to 1/4 the FPS in the same area. What exactly is FSX doing while chewing up the other 2/3 to 3/4 of potential FPS in the same visual setting?Gary

FS9 Seattle loaded up with Addons & high quality payware aircraft(Feelthere 737)Still kicking out good enough frames. All sliders to the right. Custom AI from Aardvark & Evolve AI.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161824.jpg

In fairness, anyone want to post those same shots with FS9, pre-tweaked, with default everything? Probably not. It would be a fairly short argument.Leaving framerates out of the equation for now, wait until all those products are fully updated to support fsx, and then make a comparison. I think the outcome will be quite different.No, the short argument is that none of those addons could function at the beautiful level of FS9 and concurrently have excellent flyable fps in FSX. I tried to port over UT and took out everything except those beautiful lights. With no autogen in FSX it brought FSX to its knees at KSEA with a default plane. I had to remove UT and now I'm left with the same old default lights. And since no existing system can make FSX look like a boned up FS9 (those shots are breathtaking) there is no argument to made which can justify its current state except as a stripped down wannabe. FSX can shine at default in bush flying. I bought another gig and it helped a little bit more in overall speed (menu changing and load ups are much faster). But flying in city airports is a huge exercise in frustration still.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 2 gig DDR II 533 ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe video