I have implemented all the tweaks found on various sites in a futile attempt to turn FSX into a viable simulator that would at least match my beefed-up FS9: to no avail! Before stuffing the FSX box in a remote corner, I have been wondering if any of the rare goodies of the new software could be brought into FS9. As far as I know, it does not work for complete airplanes, but sound files are no problem. I rename the FS9 sound file and replace it by a copy of the corresponding FSX file. Thus, I can enjoy, for instance, the excellent sounds of the FSX Beaver which surpass even that of the Aerosoft FS9 Beaver. Same for the Lear, the Piper and so on. I was wondering if other "retro-imports" where possible. Maybe, the water reflexion textures and other features where FSX seems to show real improvement over FS9.

Man, I just don't get it. FSX is the best thing that's come out in a long, long time...in my opinion.Sorry that you can't get it to run well on your system, but I can honestly say that I have ZERO stutters, and frames that, although not as high as FS9, are good enough that all flights (with the exception of a few major airports) are smooth and closer to reality than anything that's come before. The new dynamics of the default craft are also superb. Hope you get to enjoy it soon.

I went back to FS9 the other day for about 2 minutes thats all it took for me. The way some of you guys have been going on about the great FPS that FS9 offered I thought I was missing out on something.So I jacked ever option to max loaded up some free photo-real secnery, added some really high mesh 19mm. Installed a couple of high end aircraft went to the photo-real airport with maxed out traffic and got 17 to 18 fps. So stop with the FS9 is all that and then some tell the truth FS9 boggs down also when you put it on the same level as FSX.I would rather have my 17 to 18 fps in FSX the in FS9 thank you.

>Man, I just don't get it. FSX is the best thing that's come>out in a long, long time...in my opinion.>Sorry that you can't get it to run well on your system, but I>can honestly say that I have ZERO stutters, and frames that,>although not as high as FS9, are good enough that all flights>(with the exception of a few major airports) are smooth and>closer to reality than anything that's come before. The new>dynamics of the default craft are also superb. Hope you get to>enjoy it soon.>>>> Wow!!! Stan did you have to spend a grand on that 4 gigs of ram to be able to run FSX? I hope not! I really want to get FSX but I am not going to spend a pilots license on a computer to be able to use it period! Happy Landings, Josh

Gee-I spent about $150 to upgrade my 3 year old computer to 3 gigs of ram which allows me to run fsx at acceptable performance-about 1/2 hour of flight time in my Baron..certainly not the cost of a pilot's license. :-sun1

>Gee-I spent about $150 to upgrade my 3 year old computer to 3>gigs of ram which allows me to run fsx at acceptable>performance-about 1/2 hour of flight time in my>Baron..certainly not the cost of a pilot's license. :-sun1 Howdy, Yeah I was feeling a bit on the rowdy side that moment (grin)... I will be heading the FSX route I am sure soon I am gonna continue waiting it out awhile though till It is capable of running on VATSIM through squawkbox and has some top notch 3rd party add-on developers involved. I am really hoping for better implementation on icing. And T-storms. Which anyone that is a pilot or studying to be a pilot weather is top priority. No one in the right mind would fly a C-172 right through a level 5 or 6 storm and not say a prayer or a fill a barf bag through some unexpected aerobatics training (grin) Oh on flight rates on this end. $48.00 an hour for sundowner and about $67.00 an hour for an A36 Bonanza. Happy Landings, Josh

Those rates sound awfully cheap-I assume they would be "dry"?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Those rates sound awfully cheap-I assume they would be>"dry"?>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg Geofa, Nope that is wet. I couldn't believe it myself. That is through the Raytheon/Beech Hawker flying club out here at KBEC. I am a servicelineman out at KICT. (fueler)... Had my share of fueling the baron's (grin) Happy Landings, Josh

I'll do something radical here and actually answer your question.The sounds are portable, providing you are aware you have to edit the filenames to match those shown in your sound.cfg file. Some textures might work. Aircraft certainly not. FSX uses separate internal and external models.I agree with you though. My FSX runs _ok_, and I'll keep it installed, but there's just nothing to do! :-) FS9 certainly has life yet.And all this talk about improved flight dynamics, I notice no difference to FS9 whatsoever.

>And all this talk about improved flight dynamics, I notice no>difference to FS9 whatsoever.>The noticeable improvement is in the airmass itself, although perhaps not at 35,000' for the airline simmers. I really don't know, as I seldom use those flight levels. I do switch almost 50/50 with FS9 these days, and the "feel" of FSX's airmass is definately for the better. L.Adamson

>>Which anyone that is a pilot or studying to be a pilot weather>is top priority.Yes, in the majority of GA aircraft, you avoid it, go around it.:7 You could even get a GPS with XM Satellite weather overlays to avoid hopefull guessing, or sitting it out all together.IMO, icing effects and thunderstorm destruction effects are in the catagory of "crash effect" animation, and not really required for flight simulation. I'd have no problem with simulating all the effects of ice, if someone wants to go to the trouble of doing it. I know that it's been done on a limited bases, already.At the moment, I "cheat" with flight simulation, just to blast through the snow & ice with real weather, just to see how far it is for the blue skies & sunshine above. Would never do it in real life, as bad "winter" weather around here, usually guarantees icing conditions. L.Adamson