>No matter though, there were some basic changes with FSX (as>compared to FS9) that are not problems with FSX, but were>changes I understand ACES felt were necessary and>unfortunately these changes will prevent me from ever using>FSX. I'm most assurdly want everyone to understand, I am not>complaining whatsoever, it just that the way I us FS and such,>FSX simply is unuseable for me and at this time, FS9 will>probably be the last version of Flight Simulator I will use,>at least for the forseeable future.>Steve, I'd like to see your reasons, regarding basic changes in FSX.IMO, the total impression of flight has improved in FSX. The new version of the RealAir SF260 has even better flight and spin characteristics in FSX. It's not what I'd call dumbed down by any measure!In fact, I doubt that I'll ever purchase an addon for FS9 again. L.Adamson

I did a flight last night in FS9 from DFW to ATL in the default 737 after spending some time in FSX and using its 73. What I've come to like very much about FSX is the inside of the plane and yet still love FS9 for everything outside of the plane.I plan on buying a new computer next year with the sole purpose of FS9. By that time I can get a top of the line system of today at middle of road prices tomorrow. With all the addons and a system that will give great FPS which will make me very happy. My current system is only bottled necked at the FSB, Ram and Hard drive speed for the most part.I'll wait to see what the patch does for FSX but as long as I have FS9 loaded then I have no problem using FSX out of the box for just being inside of the plane. Flying in Alaska with no big cities, no auto-gen, no AI traffic just the 3d weather, the new ground textures and mesh and water effects.There's plenty of trade offs but there's also plenty of opportunities if you use both instead of just one.

Hey Bear; just to let you know. . you have my sympathies, but it isn't going to cost you $4200 bucks to upgrade to a "decent system. I run a C2D and she was nowhere near what Dell quotes. Dell doesn't HAVE a system that can run FSX, so build your own - get a buddy to help if you need to. I still run FS9 with all my fabulous addons, and I run FSX with the three or four compliant aircraft in the "GA mode", as the DF 727, FS Pax and FS Nav aren't available yet. There's nothing in FSX to compare with FS9's Portland and Rhode Island for scenery, and with GE Pro and N. American FSG the rest of the world is pretty darned good, BUT, as Larry Adamson says - the flight model, lighting, scenic realism and aircraft like the new SF 260 - make the promise of better things to come an approaching reality. So I'm keeping both, and I fly both. Here's my specs, and what I invested in $Can:gpu: $535 http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=309822cpu: $369 http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=129605ram: $346 http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=16452mobo: $145 http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=129713p/s: $95 http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=10693Total $1490 Canadian. I also bought a new case and gave the old "stuff" to my wife. This would be around 12-1300 bucks U$, I guess. FS9 will FLY and FSX will be "pretty darned good". Go get it, man, build it and open up another world! Best Wishes for a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Seems FS9 is still "hangin' on"!Yes I think so. I am back with FS9 after a short escapade with FSX.Jozef K. http://homepages.onsnet.nu/~jkusters/signature.jpg

. . . and I agree with you - there IS a most definate "learning curve" to be able to understand the new keystrokes (like the "A" key. The external view was an issue, too, until I found that pausing TrackIR (with F11) in the VC before you hit "S" to go external - fixed the stoopid exterior view. I think there's more for me to learn about setting up the camera.cfg file yet, but I've got patience. . (at least that's what I call it!) I followed most of the tweaks here and now have a very good system, one that I thoroughly enjoy as much as FS9.

Last night I got round to installing the FSGenesis US Landclass and some Canadian landclass from the Flight Ontario guys (I didn't realize that FS9 landclass worked fine in FSX). I'm quite shocked as to how much better FSX looks now that those dreadful 'sand' textures have been eliminated. How did FSX ever ship like this??I have also used the UT USA and Canada FSX port patch, and while not perfect in FSX it has improved the landscape in Canada 100%I might have to get the cloud 9 European landclass now as well.Even with the supposed improved 'smoothness' of FSX, I am still finding, personally, that anything less than 18FPS is totally unplayable and completely ruins the immersion factor. After some playing around I have now removed all autogen buildings and left only the trees in place (I love trees for depth perception), disabled the 'default.xml', used reduced cloud textures and set the water to 'none'. With these settings I am able to get 20FPS in most areas (locked at 24) with the exception of major, major cities like NY, LA, Altanta etc. NY drags me down to 8FPS in some areas! It's only taken me two months of playing around and tweaking to get to this point. God help anyone who doesn't know how to manipulate the .cfg or visit AVSIM!I am still VERY concerned about the lack of headroom in performance for addons and have fingers and toes crossed that ACES pull a rabbit out of the hat with Service Pack 1Even having said all this, I still found myself going back to FS9 with UT, GE, FE, FSG and AS6 with my DFA36 flying VFR around the excellent new Victoria+ from Jon Patch. All at a constant 30FPS and looks fantastic and with AS6.5 providing the "Airmass" simulation, I certainly don't feel like FSX is a massive leap over a tricked out FS9.Glenn

After reading this forum, I never did install my copy of FSX Deluxe. I am so thankful that I didn't waste my time, after reading this thread, and especially "Bear's" comments. FS9 with add-ons is still a marvel.Yes, I'll plunge too someday, but the price penalty right now is to great in the world of fast changing technology. Vista/DX10 results are going to be curcial. If that fails, I don't know where FS ends up. While some on the Aces team did a marvelous job with FSX, I still think that the lack of multi-core support was an out and out upper management blunder.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

PaulJ,I was only using my quick rundown of Dell's new line of "Gaming" systems (designed to upgrade to Vista and DirectX10 down the road) to make a point, nothing more. The bottom line is that I probably could get by with purchasing the items you listed, but that still means an investment of a $1,000 or more and then I would still have a flight sim that would operate marginally at best is something I'm not willing to gamble on at the moment.There's much more to my reasoning than the few minor things I pointed out in my previous posts.I've already invested thousands into FS9 (my Aircraft folder in FS9 is just slightly over 131GB in size and my Addon Scenery folder has got to be huge as well). I have addon aircraft from just about everyone and this only scratches the surface as there is another long list of payware addon scenery as well and I haven't even mentioned the long list of freeware addons I have (none of which are capable with FSX). Flight1: Cessna 177 Cessna 421 Cessna 441 PC12 FSD International: PC6 Porter C115 Commander C17 Boeing T38 Cheyenne 400 Navajo Aerostar 700 Piper Seneca V P180 Avanti Cessna 337Aeroworx: Beechcraft B200Carenado: Bonanaza F33 Bonanza V35 Piper Archer II Piper Dakota Piper 180Cessna 182Q Cessna 206 Full PackCessna Centurian 210Aerosoft: de Havilland Beaver DHC2RAZBAM: Douglas Skyraider AD5 A4 Skyhawk (all 3 packs) T-2BuckeyePMDG: Boeing 737NGLevel D Simulations: Boeing 767Shockwave: Full "Wings of Power" set P-51D P-47 ThunderboltAlphaSimulations:Boeing B-52Boeing B-47McDonnell F4 Phantom II setB1-B LancerB-36 PeacemakerB-58 HustlerC-5A GalaxyC-130 HerculesF-8E CrusaderF-22A RaptorF-105 ThunderchiefF-111 AardvarkHarrier AV8Harrier GR7Harrier T10Lockheed U-2SBlackbird SR-71Lynx (helo)PBY CatalinaV-22 OspreyMiG-17 FrescoMiG-25 FoxbatSu-27 FlankerTu-22 BackfireTu-16 BadgerP2V-7 NeptuneGrumman F8F BearcatNorth American P-51D MustangT-34 MentorWestland Merlin (helo)Sikorsky Seaking (helo)Feelthere:Cessna CaravanLAGOUltra-Light PackageMiG-21 FishbedTwin-Otter packageCaptain Sim:Legendary 707Legendary 727 ProfessionalC-130 packageMiG-21 FishbedCommercial Level Simulations:Airbus Collection (A300, A310, A300-600 Beluga)Classic Warbird Team:Grumman F6F HellcatRealAir Simulations:SF260Decathalon-Citabria-ScoutSpitfireSo you see Larry, Paul, and everyone, I just don't see myself jumping over to FSX anytime soon, if ever, and its not because there's anything wrong with FSX, quite the opposite actually, but considering all of the payware and freeware addons I have for FS9, my personal dislike of a number of minor changes with the new sim's operational functions, and a sim that has extremely limited performance on my current system, well you can see I am in no hurry to move on. Steve (Bear) Cartwright

Lol FSX is Idle at my HD and FS9 is working hard real hard :-)As for running FSX no problem but all my favorite add-ons lolRunning C2D E6600 @ 2,7 with 2GB DDR 667 and a 7950GT with 512 MB DDR3@ 570/1400 default :-)Andr

Yup. I will be reinstalling FS9 and all of the add-ons at the end of Jan when Vista will also be installed. I tried it briefly with Ultimate Terrain and the PMDG 737 and the frames were liquid with everything maxed. It will be FSX for everything except the heavies. They will be on FS9.

I fired up FS9 last night and flew from Salt Lake City to Denver cause I love landing in blizzards. The flight was perfect, Radar Contact gave me perfect ATC from Clearance Delivery until taxi to the ramp at KDEN. Great looking clouds by Active Sky along with great snow effects, radar display of snowstorm from AS6, and turbulence on the approach, 100 foot ceiling 1/4 vis and hand flying the Level D 767 was great as usual.. No stutters, no crashes, Ultimate Terrain and FS Genesis make wonderful terrain in the mountains. Everything worked flawlessly.... Would I consider buying FSX after trying it twice, what for?

This is the only version of the entirety of this flight series (read:C-64 Sublogic) where I've actually gone back to the predecessor, here FS9. Never have I done this. FS9 with addons for commercial flying is still the king. I can go into a beautiful addon airport from Fly Tampa for example, e.g., KTPA, with a high octane frame grabber such as PMDG 747, with 80%+ traffic, full UT on with that beautiful nightlighting, with excellent framerates, and fly all the commercial flights I want without single digits and huge cutting back of scenery to skeletal levels.I notice by the way that the last few days has had more FS9 freeware than FSX.Unless the performance patch can breathe new life into this version then it will only be a 50% use software - for me bush flying. Not very flattering. Is this series dead? Possibly.

This is first time I haven't bought the latest MS FS within the first couple weeks of release. First off, I can certainly tell from this forum that I will need to buy a new computer. And I have a few things I want to see happen before I do that.Not in any particular order:FSX updateDX 10 hardwareVista release (plus a few weeks to see how it's going)PMDG 747 and/or PMDG MD11 for FSX release.To get a computer now seems like more aggravation than I need. DX10 upgrade, Vista upgrade, FSX tweaks.I only mention this because I wouldn't doubt there's others in a similar situation. And why FS9 is still going pretty strong.So for me right now, I'm content with FS9 and the addons I have.I'm crossing my fingers that the end of February may be a good time.

Actually, a lot of the items uploaded to FS2004 file areas, will work just as well with FSX. So really a lot of those items could be classified as FSX items, if one wanted to make such a trifling semantic distinction.I think it's good the way it is though. I mean, if a file works with FS2004, it should be in the FS2004 area. If it happens to work with FSX, fine. If it happens to work with FS2002, fine. But a file should be in the area it was specifically designed for.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Personally, I can't wait to make the transition to FSX. After all, the new graphics capabilities are most apparent. Also, I'm really looking forward to flying live pilot and co-pilot in a heavy the way it should be.That said, strictly personally speaking of course, there is nothing in FSX to warrent a transition from FS9. Most aircraft and airport sceneries are not yet available for FSX and the performance on my system is not good. So, yes, I'd rather look at 1m textures of cities, but since poor performance in FSX means that I cannot fly over or land in cities in FSX so for me its moot.I suspect that FS9 will continue to have legs until something dramatic happens with FSX, which we are all praying (well at least those of us who don't think 10 FPS is smooth) that Aces will come through with the first patch. Equally, even if that does not live upto expectations Aces still has two more swings at the plate with their DX10 refresh and multi-core patch. BTW, I emphasize multi-core beause by the time such a patch is ready, quad-cores will be the order of the day and a dual-core patch may become obsolete the moment it is released! So, the transition from FSX may well be very slow and painful and all we can wish for is a happy ending.In any respect, I'm looking forward to the time where FSX is the only simulator on my HD and these days of FSX uncertainty are all water under the bridge, but for me, FS9 is the order of the day, and unfortuantely, that means I cannot support developers with my credit card who are releasing FSX only products JUST yet. I suspect a year from now, we will see FS9 becoming very obsolete if all goes will with Aces.