FSX or FS9? What's the verdict

[Dillon 2,197]

You guys need to start taking this debate to You Tube. As been said before screenshots don't do justice to FSX. If all you guys are getting such good performance with great visuals, prove it... For the record birds or not, the screens above and below don't look that much better than FS9... :-roll

[Guest bj00rn]

Except the lack of multicore cpu support I honestly don't really get what all this fuzz (9-10 pages worth) is about.FS9 stock looks like crap IMO. Even when it came out I didn't really want to touch it (And it didn't run well on my hardware either). Especially because the scenery surrounding where I'm living at looked awful (It looks good in FSX though), but I'm digressing.The point is, FSX default in general looks much much better than FS9, and most importantly it has a much higher _potential_ (Of course it also comes with non-visual upgrades). Uhm, but some of this potential interlocks the FSX engine (General robustness of the image quality in addition to shaders f.ex.), which logically to be expected affects performance (I think if some of these are disabled you would see a hefty performance gain all over the line). In addition FSX displays many times the amount of polygons, textures and details in general, so of course all of these factors will in turn make a logical "general performance hit".####, even FS9 is still "demanding" at times. If I try to fly the CaptainSim C-130, with sliders on full, it runs about the same as FSX with an airliner in a detail-heavy area on my hardware.So what exactly is the surprise here? And what was expected? It's not like FSX comes boxed with a hardware upgrade.. FSX is just code which runs more..."stuff" - And more "stuff" demands more power - I guess? I for one expected something which I barely could run smoothly two years from now. But I'm pleasantly surprised it runs as good as it does on my rig - Now.I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's just me. So, I'm just probing.

[Dillon 2,197]

These pics look terrible with no autogen. It almost looks like I'm looking at FS2000 pics. You consider that with only 17FPS and it's a no brainier what a problem FSX is now...

[Dillon 2,197]

Scott I love the snow trailing off the wheels and the rain effects on the ground but outside of that there's still little improvement over FS9. Framerates are a little choppy even with autogen turned down. Frame ratest were really bad in space which surprised me for the shuttle. The Shuttle landing was a mess as well performance wise, most everything was turned off (scenery options) and it still was a choppy mess. It looked like FS2000... "I'm not enough of a flight sim fanatic"L.Adamson you sure could have fooled me with 4240 post to your credit in this forum alone (let alone the other Flightsim related sites)...... :-lol

[Mike T 208]

:-) Yup - its all good, never take this stuff TOO seriously! AND, at the end of the day, its all a moot argument anyway since we are three patches away from writing the final chapter on FSX, right? 1 - Performance patch should add performance.2 - DX10 Patch should add a bit more visual quality and some more performance.3 - Multicore patch, even more performance.As I see it, the way FSX is right now is just the preface to the book and we'll have to wait for Aces to finish the manuscript before we can give the final review of the book and the authors; so to speak.

[Dillon 2,197]

"Static photos simply don't do it justice."Well I guess so. You should post on You Tub so what your trying to convey get's better represented...

[Dillon 2,197]

Couldn't agree more Mike... :-)

[N562Z 4]

Well put, Mike, nice analogy. For now, my FSX book is mostly on the shelf, but I pull it down about once a week to flip through a few chapters.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[N562Z 4]

Umberto:Those are great shots and extraordinary frame-rates, but put a panel in the shot next time and let's what happens to FPS. If they stay above 20 with that scenery, I'll be very impressed.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest Water Mango]

Bj00rn if you don't get it by now it's a lost cause explaining this to you any further.Aces is working on a patch for a reason. FSX wasn't released with the code optimized as it was for FS9 and FS2k2 before it upon release (some of you don't believe this but it's true). If you think code is code for better or worse and all people need to do is upgrade their hardware, your in a place that isn't worth going.For the record add-ons should be able to bring the basic sim to it's knees especially if the add-on wasn't optimized correctly. In the case of FSX it brings it's own self to it's knees on most machines with sliders little over half to the right. You didn't need as many tweeks to get FS9 and FS2k2 to perform when they were released. The most you had to do with FS9 was get different textures for the clouds. Like I said if you don't get this by now it's a lost cause... Enjoy FSX in it's current state and don't bother getting the various patches when they come out.

[Guest RGH]

Hi Run Both,untill people stop supporting FS9 and have the best of both worlds.RegardsRex

[Drumcode 1,893]

>1 - Performance patch should add performance.>2 - DX10 Patch should add a bit more visual quality and some>more performance.>3 - Multicore patch, even more performance.>Mike,I'm sorry, I have been out of the FSX loop for a while as I thought it was worthless to get involved or even purchase the software only to be completely disapointed in performance, at least until ACES release something to improve it.I just wanted to ask, the above three points, is this something you made up or is this something that ACES are seriously working on?Thanks in advance,

[Max Kraus 339]

Oh Speedbyrd, what have you done here :)

[Drumcode 1,893]

LOL :D I don't know but I found this thread totally helpful after not being around for a while. ;)

[N562Z 4]

It sounds like for the first time ever the majority of us will run BOTH FS9 and FSX into the forseeable future. Regardless of all the subjective impressions, screenshots, framerates, and hardware debates, you have to admit that that says something about FSX. Time will tell. http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD