I love FSX. It is tweaked so I can fly any where and looks great. My FS9 is beginnig to be a faded memory now. It was easy for me I don't have a ton of great payware addons. For some body like Steve Or maybe even Mike I can understand not leaving FS9 if you have tons of great payware addons you got the best Flight Sim going with FS9.In fact when all this great payware addons sale at a lot cheaper prices for FS9. I may pick up a few myself.:-)

I remember seeing a post, either here on Avsim or elsewhere, where someone had found out that the FPS you're seeing displayed on your screen in FSX are actually 50% of what you are actually getting. He was using some program that displayed what his graphic card was actually running at. If this is true then that means if you think you're running at 10 FPS, you're actually getting 20 FPS. They backed this up with screenshots that showed the discreptency. He also suggested that this is why some people are claiming to be running smooth at only 10 to 15 FPS. Can you verify this? If it is true, why would ACES (MS) do that?Also, by reading the advertisements for Vista I get the idea that it is mainly a security upgrade to Windows XP , with the improved graphics being a secondary feature. This is confirmed by our company's computer specialist. He's not a flight simmer, but he has serious doubts that MS is going to be worried about how games play on their new system. At least in the near future. I'm not trying to stir up trouble ( I read the latest rant post too ), but I'm starting to wonder about the future of FSX.John M

I read that somewhere, but I don't believe it was correct, and pointed out as so. I'm sure that when the program says I'm running 17 fps, that it's 17 fps, since 34 fps would in fact be much smoother. For anything but high altitude flight, 17 fps is NOT smooth. Just this evening, I used the Airbus wing view over the LAX area, which was hitting 17 fps. No stutters, but not smooth like the cockpit VC view at 25 fps.But in the meantime, I'll just tell everyone that my FSX easily obtains 50 fps instead of 25!:D L.Adamson

It's not about hardware it's about performance, especially with highly detailed complex airliner add ons. Why would I give up my nice detailed add on planes for stock Microsoft planes that perform considerably worse?. These may be updated to "X" but at what performance cost. If you had just stock FS9 then I maybe understand the quick switch. AS for me I like FSX for GA flying with my Carenado props but when I wan't to fly my Level D, PMDG ,PSS, etc. FS9 still rules. Then there are the detailed add on airports. Vauchez, Fly Tampa, UK2000, Aerosoft, etc. None of this in FSX yet except maybe Cloud 9 Orlando which is the worse looking of all the Cloud 9 airports because of the lack of detailed ground textures and use of some default FSX objects. I really hope FSX gets a patch and performance improves. If not it will just be good for just GA type flying away from big cities and big airports.Regards, Carlos

> If not it will just be good for just GA>type flying away from big cities and big airports.>Experience so far:The mountain/cityscapes of the Los Angeles basin look good when airborne in FSX, as I still get around 25 fps with auto-gen off. The New York area is an fps killer.It's really a case of check the area and see. Some larger cities really look good in FSX.

just bought a new PC just for upgrading to FSX but ended up being so pleased with the preformance of FS9 that I could never enjoy before (all 3D clouds, full Wx over a big city, etc. with great fps) that I'm in no hurry to upgrade to FSX. Still getting my money's worth out of FS9.- dcc

FSX has a lot of good things under the hood, and developers will be able to create some wonderful new planes, with capabilities far superior to FS9.But until they appear, FSX is just a curiosity for me. Nice to get rid of the blurries for sure.With the exception of the RealAir Marchetti (which is amazing, got it right away) there are no good quality planes available for FSX yet. The planes that have been reissued with redone installers do not count, there are too many flight model changes in FSX for them to work correctly.I'm just wondering about the folks that "deleted FS9 when FSX came out" -- what exactly are they flying? Not to be sarcastic, I'm just genuinely curious.* Orest

I got FSX for christmas from my daughter so upgrading to it was not much of an option without disappointing her. So, I converted all my megascenery and then deleted FS9 and never looked back.At first, my frame rates were atrocious. But when I went to the megascenery website and changed my settings to the ones they suggested - boom - HUGE performance improvement. In fact, with the new settings, my FSX runs better in some circumstances than FS9 did. And not just in megascenery but in all my scenery. The key here is the graphics and hardware settings. Oddly, the Megascenery website suggested many of the settings be opposite of what is suggested by FSX itself and FS9. Go figure!Believe it or not, I am running a 4 year old HP Pavillion 2.8 Mhz with 1 GB RAM and an ATI Radeon graphics card with little or no difficulty. So I don't think hardware is the issue here so much as the settings are.I love the new FSX and have already posted my own repaint. I am sure it will be the wave of the future and many if not all will jump on board. Many people said they'll keep their horse when the automobile was invented - but that didn't last long! LOL!

yes, you have the automobile, barely able to run FSX with default settings, while people running countless addons with FS9 and great framerates have the horse... LOLindeed

After hesitating for a few weeks and after having read the comments and reviews of FSX I decided to stay with FS9 for the moment on my older computer. And now i almost have forgotten abaout Fsx.For FSX I would need a new machine, so I will wait for Vista and DX10 being stabilised and also the patch for FSX before I buy a new computer and install FSX.I think that will not happen before the end of 2007.I even bought two new add-ons for FS9 for Christmas.And I am sure there are many people in the same situation and thinking the same way then I am.Guy

I also have not chosen to switch to FSX nor am I bashing it. I'm simply waiting for those who have the experience to solve the problems. Ihear alot of simmers saying great things about it but I don't really believe them all. My reason for that is that some of those who make claims of greatness complained of problems with FS9 and now they have utopia. Go Figure!Somebody said in a thread that there is still room for both sims in our hobby. I beleive that. I all comes down to what are you looking for in your experience. Heck...I still have FS 2002 on my laptop and fiercely trying to tweak it up. With FS9 I'm trying to tweak it to where it doesn't stutter, shimmer, and gives me a FPS above 1. I can't see going from one frustration to another just to have the newest sim.ACES will get it. They have alot of help from simmers with ability to help in the community.Til then I appreciate those who continue to develope FS9 Freeware and Payware. The technology in FSX will appear and effect FS9 and FS9 will get better in the process. So we will have the benefit of having a proven sim (FS9) performing on a plain with FSX.I'm sure FSX is going to be a monster sim in the near future. Til then we will complain , debate, uhh, and aah. Then we will start begging for FS*. and the process will start all over again.Should we be satisfied with what we have? Why? What more fun than have more fun.Disclaimer: I am not bashing anything. Any opinion express by me is purely my own and is intended for mature audiences. This post is rated PG13.Best regardsJan1,KINDWhen I push the button and it works, I'm happy:-)HP Media CenterPentium D 2.80 GHz2.00 GB RAMNVIDIA GeForce 6200SEConexant Falcon II NTSCXP SP2

I think the interest in FSX is pretty thin. Frankly, if you base the reaction by the die hard FS fans (people on the forum), it looks like MS has laid and egg. I don't necessarily think FSX is bad, it just seems like it is not getting a lot of attention. It has been two months since its release and there are very few FSX files available and a lot of people still releasing things for FS9.Take the POSKY 747SP as an example. In past versions, this would have been tweaked for FSX before the release and it would have been compatible. Not so this time around. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that none of the POSKY people own FSX. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that none of them were planning on purchasing it.Look at this thread. Most of the posts here confirm what I am saying. It looks like the die hard FS fans are sticking with FS9 for the time being. Less die hard fans=less add ons=less interest. For me, I don't buy FS for what is contained on the DVDs, I buy it for all of the wonderful add ons.On top of all of that, MS has still not delivered the free editions that they promised to the convention attendees. Right there you have over 300 die hard fans that haven't even sniffed FSX yet.Hopefully this will all change and FSX will be going strong in the future. For now, it looks like FS9 is still king.

I just got FSX for Christmas and have been very disappointed so far. I guess part of the problem is going from a nice customised FS2004 with plenty of 3rd party scenery, the availability of programmes such as Airliner Pilot or FS Passengers and superb plane add-ons from the likes of Aerosim, LDS and PMDG to the vanilla ice cream of basic FSX. However FSX does have some serious performance and optimisation issues. My PC is a P4 2.4Ghz with 1024Mb RAM and a 256Mb Geforce 6600 gfx card. Okay not top of the line anymore but it copes wonderfully with FS2004 and other programmes such as Freelancer or X3. With medium settings and running at 1024 x 768 (as opposed to the 1280 x 1024 capability of my monitor) I can just about squeeze 20FPS at high altitude in a remote area such as Scandinavia. However approach LAX - even with detail turned down so the view is more akin to Amiga A320 Airbus with few airport buildings etc. - and the programme slows to around 6 or 7 FPS. Road etc. traffic is on about 20% and AI air traffic 5%, i.e. virtually non existent!The terrain textures over Britain look wrong - since when has Northumbria been brown like that even in the winter.I dread to think what adding any custom aircraft will do. Realy will have to fly with Amiga graphics so what is the point when FS2004 delivers everything I want?Of course M$ have really stuffed us this time with the online activation meaning disgruntled customers can't trade the programme on Ebay etc. as the licence is in your name. Just glad I only bought the standard version.

I would also like to see Steve's list of basic changes to FSX that make it unusable for him .... THanksRegards,Vern

Hi,I started this post, and I'm really impressed with all the varied input written over the last week or so. I do notice that the real "hangers on" of FS9 seem to have a common element, and that is the value of the "addons" attributable to FS9, and the fact that most are not able to be added to FSX without frame penalty.What I notice about those who have moved progressively forward with FSX is the fact that they treat the program as a SIMULATOR, and not a GAME. Often, FS9 is compared to the ability to "play it" in the same way as other games and having the ability to load it with addons.. one thread contributor even claimed he spent "thousands" on the various addons to FS9.I guess as I plan to really take private pilot lessons in 2007, I see FSX differently. I see it as the closest thing we've ever possessed in this hobby to a real "simulator". The flight models, the flight dynamics, the scenery (even without Autogen), the water, the moving vehicles, and various flora (variety of trees and vegetation) and fauna (possible bird strikes).I do know that the REAL SIMULATORS costing hundreds of thousands of dollars have one (1) type of plane per simulator, and that the scenery one views from its expensive projectors is usually quite sparse. After all, the whole point of military and civilian simulators is "simulation of reality", and not necessarily how much can be added to it to enjoy the experience. The whole point, then, is to get the true feeling of flight, and how the model reacts to situations (missions), weather, and other variables.Perhaps we've become too concerned about how much we can "add" to the original to make it enjoyable. Perhaps not....after all, who am I to say?FSX seems to me to be a true simulator in the real sense of the word...or as close as we've come to one so far. This is my opinion, and I feel very strongly about Microsoft's Flight Simulator slogan...."as real as it gets". FSX is closer to REAL, and it requires, in many cases, that the investment in additional hardware be made. I had to upgrade for FS9, and for every FS volume before that, and FSX is no different.Thank you all for an interesting thread.