Another User Back To FS9

[Geofa 108]

I've been running fsx fine on my 3 year old technology....Seems like we have seen this thread many times-though thankfully it seems to be fading into oblivion-beauty,performance, and slider usage are in the eye of the beholder-if fs9 sets your fancy go for it-and if fsx does go for it too.This is the first time since 1981 that I haven't run out and got a new system to run FS. I did upgrade my video card and ram-total about $300.Nothing like the past $3000 upgrades I made for every new version of Fs.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>I've been running fsx fine on my 3 year old technology....>And I seem to be running FSX on my "new" upper end mid grade machine!Of course it runs FS9 much better too! And I still have to make compromises with both sims, as I can still drag FS9 into the low teens with certain addons & weather scenarios.To say that it's not possible with FSX, is more a case of ignorance, or an agenda. I'd say that it's the "agenda"! L.Adamson

[Guest ha5mvo]

Agenda??what agenda?The simple truth is that people are just venting their frustration.Frustration over the FACT that after all the tweaking and compromises they are still paying too dear a price in term of performance for the nice graphic featurs FSX brings.Good for you that you managed to find a golden middle to your satisfaction, however, the overwhelming majority did not.Can you blame them for being frustrated? or just tell them "shut up and enjoy".....what they can't??Goefamy impression is those threads are fading not because people have suddenly seen the light, but rather that they lost hope that things would improve anytime soon.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

And I'd like to close with a simple thought...to me, all of this is similar to everyone who gets caught on the general "upgrade treadmill." Just because the new software is out, that doesn't mean you NEED it. That applies to FS as well. If you like FS2004 which is a great flight sim, just stay with it. Wait till you get a new machine for FSX. I got FSX because I got a new machine, and I got a new machine because mine was 5 years old and it was time. That's it, it's simple. As the user above me stated; it is supposed to be FUN :)

[LAdamson 240]

>Can you blame them for being frustrated? or just tell them>"shut up and enjoy".....what they can't??>That's an idiotic statement! This is the way it is...........If your CPU won't handle FSX with the form of simulated flight that you prefer, then fine, use FS9. Make NO attempt to enjoy FSX if it doesn't work for you. I'd never say "shut up and enjoy", so don't make any attempt to quote false statements from me!Until I upgraded from a five year old CPU, to what is now considered a high end mid grade, I didn't whine loudly that the FSX demos wouldn't work for me. I just didn't use them, and continued with FS9.As it turns out now, FSX works surprisingly well for the type of simulated flight I prefer. For others, they can continue with FS9, while FSX offers a better experience for me, in my type of flight.In the meantime, I don't need them, telling me; that what I'm seeing isn't possible, because it doesn't appear to fit their "agenda" of informing the masses, that it's all impossible! Whould it help if I visited the FS9 forums daily to comment that FS9 looks like #### everytime I'm on low approach thanks to it's muddy unfocused 4.8 meter textures & ridicously looking cartoon auto-gen houses? Probably not...But that's where I am. I'm now "frustrated" everytime I land in FS9, but will put up with it, without a daily whine session...... I suppose.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>And I'd like to close with a simple thought...to me, all of>this is similar to everyone who gets caught on the general>"upgrade treadmill." Just because the new software is out,>that doesn't mean you NEED it. That applies to FS as well. If>you like FS2004 which is a great flight sim, just stay with>it. Wait till you get a new machine for FSX. I got FSX because>I got a new machine, and I got a new machine because mine was>5 years old and it was time. That's it, it's simple. As the>user above me stated; it is supposed to be FUN :)>Same here. Last machine was a full five years old.

[boshar 6]

>Goefa>my impression is those threads are fading not because people>have suddenly seen the light, but rather that they lost hope>that things would improve anytime soon.I think you are right on that one. I rarely browse the FS-X section anymore. Every now and then I scan the headlines to see if anything has improved.Its probably a monthly visit for me now and I'm still dissapointed about the product. It went back too the store and thats it.Maybe the promised performance patch will help. Only time will tell.See Y'all next month!

[Mace 1,902]

>Sorry for expressing my point of view here. From now on, I>will look for YOUR posts when I need to find MY point of view.>Sorry to those bothered by this post.>> Jim:-) jim It's nothing personal. Fly what you want. It's just that your post would have been better off in the FS9 forum, or not said at all--a post just to vent and rant is of no benefit to anyone in the long run. It might make you feel better for a while but after that, it only serves as a vehicle for trollers and flamers (and there are some of them here in this thread).Like I said, fly what you want and don't worry about it.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Mace 1,902]

Len you are wrong to say "the people have spoken". That's like one political party getting 50.1% of the vote majority, and saying "the people have spoken". Actually the people spoke, and about half of them went Republican, and half of them went Democrat. But that is hardly any consensus.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[slashed2 53]

Same here, my upgrade cycle coincided with the release. As far as performance, I'll say this again, my old machine choked in the cities and was great in sparse areas with FS9 and all the add-ons, as it did with FSX and considering a default FSX is arguably just as aesthetically pleasing as a fully loaded FS9 in respect to mesh and texture detail and the upgrade/addition of aircraft, I can't question why.It's a personal decision as to which version will be used based on user preference and there is no right or wrong. If FSX doesn't meet an individuals desired performance needs then using FS9 or both until either those needs are satisfied via new hardware or MS upgrades is a good choice to maintain the enjoyment of flight simming. Considering some of the scenery available for FS9, a 3 year old piece of software with certain limitiations, just imagine what will come out for FSX in a year after the performance/hardware issues have been hopefully resolved.I personally don't understand the competition between the two. If you don't like FSX, don't use it, return it for a refund and of course vent in the forum.But as I've noticed people who like somthing get somewhat annoyed when someone starts telling them it's not a good product and they shouldn't like it and vice versa. There are too many people with different tastes and likes for a uniform consensus on either version.FS9 ran poorly on my old machine and FSX runs great on my new machine, but my perception of what is enjoyable is completely different than everyone else which is good because I enjoy being an individual.Ian.

[Guest ha5mvo]

.

[monnie 1]

>>These threads are tiresome. If you like FS9 (and I do) then use it. If you like FSX (and I do) then use it.80 GHz2.00 GB RAMNVIDIA GeForce 6200SEConexant Falcon II NTSCXP SP2

[Guest Len]

>>I've been running fsx fine on my 3 year old technology....>>>>And I seem to be running FSX on my "new" upper end mid grade>machine!>Of course it runs FS9 much better too! And I still have to>make compromises with both sims, as I can still drag FS9 into>the low teens with certain addons & weather scenarios.>>To say that it's not possible with FSX, is more a case of>ignorance, or an agenda. I'd say that it's the "agenda"! >>L.Adamson"Agenda"? What the &*ll agenda would that be? I paid $70 for a frame sucking overbloated retro coded behometh. That's my bloody opinion after flying every #### one of these back to my C-64 days and the Sublogic simulator. Since when does it become an agenda when people lay down their hard earned money and have an opinion on something they've used for years? Does it make you an MS dupe because you have a contrary opinion? I guess if you want to ascribe a motive to me I'll return the favor.

[Guest Len]

>Len you are wrong to say "the people have spoken". That's>like one political party getting 50.1% of the vote majority,>and saying "the people have spoken". >>Actually the people spoke, and about half of them went>Republican, and half of them went Democrat. But that is>hardly any consensus.>>>Rhett>>AMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS>A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD>250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian caseTake a look at Amazon.com. 136 reviews. Total score for FSX: 2 1/2 stars. Pretty good consensus there. Poor.

[Guest FxF3]

Why do you fight over a Sim?:) Just fly FS9. Seems like some people just have FSX working if you don't you would not understand I guess why we love FSX.