Cartoonish... Of course it depends on the system and tweaks, but those FSX pics make my eyes bleed. Today FSX demand high end hardware and tweak treatment to get a acceptable result, there is no other way. But it IS possible already. Those are some of the pics i made with an overclocked Conroe E6600 and a X1900XT with smooth 20 - 30 FPS on our multiplayer world tour. It isn't cartoonish, is it...FS9 with the all the greatest addons can be very beautiful indeed, i have it still on my second PC. If your FSX perform lousy and give you visuals like in your pics above you should stay with FS9. No doubt... edit: how do i make those thumbnails show up correct ? Oh well, never mind...

Howdy Simmers, I have been sitting back skimming through post's. I have noticed people seem to be comparing FSX stock with FS9 Stock.. Which in my humble opinion both suck... I have FS9 with a moderate system and about $500.00 worth of add-ons... ActiveSky, GroundEnviroment Pro, Flight Enviroment, FSGenesis Mesh, Ultmate Terrain. And Real-Air GA Planes and Level-D well the planes would take forever. Oh yeah and Fly-Tampa makes great replacement airfields. As far as I am concerned from what I read. Not even a $1000.00 processor with even a descent setup can not even run it to the level I am currently running FS9 with all my add-on's FSX can take a flying leap for the time being. I will not step further until I see or hear of better icing conditions and flight characteristics and people start taking the time to really pay attn to weather and sure the #### not fly a C-172 right smack through the middle of a level 5 or 6 storm like a do-dah day without thinking twice. "IFR" or not.. Sorry to break any hearts or fire anyone up just laying it out like it is for the time being. I will continue to recon this situation and if things change for the better I will make the change. I do know this. FS9 never really hit it's max potential. And some 3rd party developers may stay alive and really cash in still yet off of FS9. Happy Landings, Josh

Dang Mango I think you just did 360 backward flip slam dunk on this thread with those shots.:-hah

>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...:D There seems to be a lot of shots of Yosemite out there floating around..and I certainly couldn't resist the temptation to take FSX there because I got engaged to my girl on top of Half Dome..!http://www.mudspike.com/adventure/california/cal09.jpghttp://www.mudspike.com/adventure/california/cal15.jpgI flew in there with a bit crappier weather though..so the terrain comparisons won't really show...http://www.simhq.com/_air7/images/air_263a_194.jpghttp://www.simhq.com/_air7/images/air_263a_195.jpgRegards..BeachAV8R

Congrats

No offense Mango but your screenshots don't mean nothing. I have almost the exact same machine as yours and I can barley pull a steady 15fps in highly dense parts in FSX. Who cares about 30fps while flying over farms and open land, let's see the same fps around major airports and cities with ai traffic! Anyone with a half decent machine can pull at least 20fps with most of the sliders to the right and almost anyone can slew or pause in FSX and take some pretty screenshots but it doesn't mean anything if the fps aren't steady. Yes FSX does look better then FS9 out of the box but with add-on's I think FS9 gives FSX a good run for it's money because at least with FS9 you can pull 30+ no matter what. Down the road FSX will blow FS9 out of the water but we have to wait so until then think we can all agree that FSX runs like crap on most machines (even high end) and FS9 with add-on

Nice shots. A tad over sharpened, but excellent compared to most FSX shots seen here.Again, FS9 and FSX is the same engine. Most of the code probably dates back to FS2000 if not earlier. In my opinion FSX should have been a complete re-write; FSX can't handle it's own new features. There's very little room for expansion & I don't think future hardware will make as significant an improvement as we'd hope for. The engine is WAY past its sell-by date & is without doubt the poorest performing 3D title currently on the market.I recently read an interview in a UK based magazine with the creators of IL2. They are working on a new sim due out in late 2007. They considered re-using the IL2 engine but decided against it in favor of writing a new engine that could cope with their new feature & take full advantage of DX10, dualcore etc.

>Dang Mango I think you just did 360 backward flip slam dunk>on this thread with those shots.:-hah >>:-wave Well, except the Goose livery it's pure default. Those pics can barely give an idea about the experience how it feels to fly with this visuals.

Hey Mango:-wave Chris627 from fs2004.com here!Yup, fsx has a feel to it that fs9 will never be able to achieve.

>No offense Mango but your screenshots don't mean nothing. I>have almost the exact same machine as yours and I can barley>pull a steady 15fps in highly dense parts in FSX. Who cares>about 30fps while flying over farms and open land, let's see>the same fps around major airports and cities with ai traffic!>>>Anyone with a half decent machine can pull at least 20fps with>most of the sliders to the right and almost anyone can slew or>pause in FSX and take some pretty screenshots but it doesn't>mean anything if the fps aren't steady. Yes FSX does look>better then FS9 out of the box but with add-on's I think FS9>gives FSX a good run for it's money because at least with FS9>you can pull 30+ no matter what. Down the road FSX will blow>FS9 out of the water but we have to wait so until then think>we can all agree that FSX runs like crap on most machines>(even high end) and FS9 with add-on

Do you know that friend who are constantly repeating the same old story over and over again as if he didn't tell you a million times before..? And just the thought of yet again having to sit through the tediousness the next tim you meet him makes you kind of...cringe...? That is what these forums are starting to feel like to me these days...

http://www.fengzhudesign.com/fs2004/fs9_scenes_01.JPGFS9 looks great :)

>Do you know that friend who are constantly repeating the same>old story over and over again as if he didn't tell you a>million times before..? And just the thought of yet again>having to sit through the tediousness the next tim you meet>him makes you kind of...cringe...? That is what these forums>are starting to feel like to me these days...ROFL! My sentiments exactly.

Many thanks to everyone who has responded so far..In my comparison shot post I should have pointed out that my autogen slider in FSX was hard over to the left and the only tweaks currently in use are:FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.50TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=3000TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1500PoolSize=5000000In other words, only those tweaks supplied by ACES themselves.Hi 'bj00rn', "Do you know that friend who are constantly repeating the sameold story over and over again as if he didn't tell you amillion times before..? And just the thought of yet againhaving to sit through the tediousness the next tim you meethim makes you kind of...cringe...? That is what these forumsare starting to feel like to me these days..."I do understand how you must be feeling and, yes, I'm growing fed up with this constant repetition as well. However, the simple fact is that all this could be stopped in an instant if someone from ACES would chip in with some reassurance that they are taking onboard our concerns and are actively looking at finding solutions which will go a long way towards satisfying existing XP and future Vista users.Let's not forget that much of what we are seeing in FSX is the result of repetitious posting on these forums over the past 3 years. It could be argued that in no small part we all brought this situation on ourselves. Clearly there was a need to do it as the community desperately wanted to see changes implemented for the better. What we didn't realize, while all this constant badgering was going on, is that it now appears that ACES were relying on the existing software engine to cope with all these additional features and there were no extensive rewrites to take into account the emerging hardware base which was in common use at the time of the release of FSX. This revelation has proved disappointing and, indeed, very surprising if confirmed to be true. They may not have had 3 years to accomplish this ideal, but even a year of concentrated effort might have borne significant fruit.There is no escaping the fact that this has been a missed opportunity, but it is still not too late to put it right. I'm absolutely certain that we all want to see this title succeed.My own experience is mixed. I find I am tending now to avoid cities and large airports in favour of flying in mountainous and rural areas. I am loving it while, at the same time, regretting the restrictions being imposed. The other day I flew from KGCN in a default Bell 206B over the south rim of the Grand Canyon (a place I have visited twice in the past 5 years) and my jaw dropped at what I was seeing unfolding around and below me. This has to be the most accurate rendition of the Canyon yet seen in FS and the sim was ticking along smoothly (with autogen at sparse) at 25fps (where it is currently locked). Also the engine sounds from the Bell are far more convincing than in FS9. So there is no doubt that FSX can be enjoyed, in parts, by anyone with the determination to stick with it and explore all the possibilities. There is much genuine and legitimate concern about the performance of FSX being expressed here and on other forums. This alone should confirm the existence of issues which need to be addressed, and soon. If we don't continue to voice these concerns then there is a real risk that nothing will be done. I really don't know, but those of you who are not complaining may be quite content to explore FSX as is without feeling the need to customize it in the same way many have enhanced FS9. I happen to be among those who enjoy introducing enhancements and I regard this as a major part of the experience and what this hobby has to offer. And there lies my concern. Can this sim cope in its current state? What would be the point of releasing a simulator with sufficient open architecture to encourage 3rd Party activity if such development is hampered by insufficient resources imposed by the sim itself?I too would like to see us all move on and this could happen if only ACES would confirm that they recognize our concerns and are doing what they can to address these issues ASAP.Mike

The fact of the matter is that fsx deluxe is the #2 and fsx standard is the #5 top selling game in the world right now. MS doesn't see any problems from their point of view since this is selling like gangbusters. From their pov all is right as rain judging by the sales numbers. There will be no patch to make things better. If we are lucky we will get a dx10 patch that adds a few visuals. The sales numbers tell the story. That's why it is so important to keep singing our performance issues from the rafters so that they know we mean business and that the internet community is not happy about the slow performance. I too am tired of reading about it, but it is very important that it keeps being said. You can always choose not to read or participate in a thread if it bothers you that much. That also has the added benefit of preventing us from having to read your rant about being sick of reading about performance issues. 2 birds right there with one stone!