>Well it's good to know that all of us who like FSX are doing>so just to have the latest flight sim.>>I get average 30fps on FSX and it still looks and feels far>superiour to FS9. There's an incredible amount of>documentation that explains why FSX is superiour in terms of>flight modelling and immersion, but feel free to ignore all>that if it makes you feel better. I won't lose any sleep.>>JamesI've no vested interest either way but i feel compelled to ask you one thing: are you flying the game or the sales documentation?

MannyI like the word you stated "utilization". So often we lose the vision of the field in font of us and trend and or in some cases force ourselfs to a "final" point. As I see this this (MSFS) it is "evolving as a SIM'. I mean lets face it, if MS gets to real they are accussed of helpping terrorist plan attacks, (remember the deley of FS9 and the page that forwared the additional handbook for an extra fee or purchase at that time). ((Please note: All of Gods speed and well thoughts are ment with the mention of such that tragic day; to those whom suffered lose's)).Back to FSX, I wonder what is "politically" cool to mention "now a days". When I say mention, maybe they (MS) due to a trat of a law suite might have to place tech blocks untill there legal council can advise that is safe to to unlock all "realismims", (my bad a spelling error)that being both flight "feel" and VFR reality.As you can gather from this small post this is a statment and a question to which there may be no solid answer, I.E. it may be a journey that evolves and not our postion to dedicate ourselfs to being a pro FS9 or FSX advocate, rather a person that is appreciative of whats avalible and expects the bat to rise in the future.

"I am not stuck at 40 (which is more than you will ever need in a sim anyway), but pulling into KLAX or Cloud9 schiphol with 100% traffic provided by ultimate traffic tends to twist things a bit.For reason I feel and i get the impression from you too, that the people who force themselves into praises do so for the sake of having the latest and greatest simulator - period. If i could get 22, or even 15, with any decent graphics i would have kept my copy too. "If I was getting the performance you speak of I'd feel the same way.I am not-but then I don't fly out of klax with 100 % ultimate traffic-I got single digits in fs9 when I did that too. I don't find I am castrating the sim either-in fact I think it is well improved-but that is in the eye of the beholder.I also think the topic of the thread-fsx is the future-is more than validated by your standards when using the improved over fs9 real air 260-the improved over fs9 megascenery hawaii-with ai traffic and now moving car traffic-at 22-25 fps which you state is acceptable, and levels of scenery reality never seen before in a sim.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>..I hate to admit.>>Just take a look at this:>>http://www.fscloud9.com/php/projects.php?lang=EN&id=180>>I wonder why screen shots like these (really nice ones) never show the frame rate?

Hi Geofa,I agree with you 100% on the flying characterists. However for me, fluidity of the sim, no matter what the FPS counter says, would be my first requirement; flight dynamics would be second. I don't really care what the aircraft looks like, ie, are the antennas in the right place, windows the correct size and placement ...Sort of like the "chicken or the egg". The sim experience is fluid but the aircraft flight dynamics are horrible. Or the the flight dynamics are spot on, but the sim is a slide show. But now that I think about it, how would you determine that the FD was correct if the sim was choppy?The FPS counter is one good way of visually judging the product with just a still picture. A written review would provide more detail and hopefully touch on how the aircraft actually flys. I look at AI aircraft, but I fly all the others.Regards,SD

>..I hate to admit.>>Just take a look at this:>>http://www.fscloud9.com/php/projects.php?lang=EN&id=180>>If the scenery had been made for FS9 ...would it look any different?....or perhaps if Fly Tampa had made it for FS9 ... maybe even better? :-hah

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font color

The key word is "future". Yes it looks amazing but in order for it to be a product I can/will use...wheres the FS9 version? Companies that are putting all their eggs into the FSX only basket are chancing a negative effect. FS9 is the now and might be for sometime. Why Cloud9 is focused on FSX only releases at this point is beyond me. Yes the wet ground effect is very nice but aside from that and the "living world effects" that same airport could be made for FS9 with little to no difference and could be used "now" instead of in the "future".

Well, apparently they are making two versions FSX and FS9 native:http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=0

I wonder why no KMCO for FS9 yet if the EBNR one is scheduled to have a FS9 version shortly after release? Orlando has been out for more than a short while and perhaps they are just now able to start making native versions for FS9? All the better if so...

>I wonder why screen shots like these (really nice ones) never>show the frame rate?Of course because all Cloud9 products have fully working trial versions so, why post a frame rate counter for a beta version over a screenshot, when everyone will be able to assess performances on HIS OWN system, with the final release ?If someone would like to have an idea of the fps impact, KMCO has already shown that IS possible to make a detailed airport in FSX without impacting fps much (everyone can try the demo, of course), Bergen, being a much smaller airport, has an even lower fps impact comparing to KMCO, while is also of a much better quality, because it has custom ground and custom moving FSX-complaint jetways, and even higher textures resolution.

I'll have to agree with Geofa here. My fs9 performance with UT, FSgenesis, dreamfleet baron, asv6 was around 12-14 in rural through mountains and 6-10 in city. I couldn't imagine what the PMDG products would have done to that lowly system. The paradox for me is now I have a mid top of the line computer that could run fs9 with ease, but I've used FSX which runs very well for how I use it and I don't want to go back to the relatively blurry textures of fs9.Fortunately, I've had no frame rate hits running RC4, Traffic 2005 at 60/40, and the default aircraft along with cargo pilot or fseconomy. I've always been behind on the hardware curve and have finally reached a point where I'm just on the heels of the fastest computers and can run the most recent FS without too much frustration. Whether or not the more complex add-ons will kill my system I just don't know. I'd love to give the PMDG 737 ng a go if they update it and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. For now I'll just fly the smaller, less complex aircraft as I've been doing in FS for the past 3 to 4 years and hope my system can handle all the strain in store for it if I decide to pummel it with complex add-ons.Ian.

Cloud 9 team, You guys have really shot to the top of "quality" FS addon companies, I mean really, the products you guys create are top notch! So thank you! FSX really (as much as others disagree) is the furure as the original topic starter had said, and I really believe that we will see some amazing stuff from developers like you guys, PMDG, Flight 1, and all the others.Thanks again, and keep doing what you do!Jeff

I agree with Geofa. I am using Vista with FSX and it's never been better. When I turn on the FPS counter the numbers are usually in the low teens on the tarmac and in the high teens when in the air. Yet, the sim is always very smooth. I have a modest system by today's standards (2Gib RAM, Radeon X1300 512MB, 3GHz PC). My FPS is hard coded at 20. I never need more than that.I remember some add-on scenery packages in FS9 that would reduce my FPS to mid-twentys with mid-thirties in the air and still I would have stutters near the airport.I will gladly trade FPS numbers for smooth flight any day.Regards,

"Well, apparently they are making two versions FSX and FS9 native:"It's nice to see Cloud9 backing off that FSX only bandwagon (as was the case with KMCO)..."I wonder why no KMCO for FS9"Well they were on a mission with that release. I guess sales made them see things in a different way. We may very well see an FS9 version if they wish to sell more copies of this product in the near future. :-lol

Of course FSX is the future ... but remember FS9 is not standing still.My FS9 gets better and better every day! .... and with developers still developing for FS9 will keep getting better. :-jumpy

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font color