FSX or FS9? What's the verdict

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Now that I finally have FSX, for me I will still use both:- FS9 for all heavy iron work and to keep using the addons that haven't made the jump to FSX yet (fspax and heavy iron for the most part)- FSX for the missions and GA or low level VFR flying (ala DC-3) in non-city areas. Hopefully SP1 will expand this repetoire to accommodate heavy iron and city flying without choking to death like it currently would.Gary

[N562Z 4]

In response to Geof's birdstrike post, here is a link to an F-16 bird strike that was circulating around the net a few months back. So yes, it happens:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...rd+strike&hl=enIt would be cool if ATC could add bird flocks into multiplayer games as "traffic," like they can effect weather, and then broadcast their presence to the players as a sort of 'ATIS'...just a thought!http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest wyoming]

at the end of the XIXth century. Just 2 or 3 glitches to iron out and all would fall into place.

[AWACS 12]

>>Oh come on...really? Good grief.....not buying that for one second. How good can the feel of flight be at 10-17 FPS....Air mass my *ss, gimme a break.<

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Okay, so ends this topic.

[LAdamson 240]

>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. >What it say's, is that FSX is capable of running a much cleaner and crisper looking picture. This applies to the ground surface, panels, and aircraft exteriors. If you actually run and use FSX, you can't help but notice a definate improvement. And it's obviously "overhead", frame rate wise! If FSX was capable of running these higher resolution graphics at FS9 speeds, then it would be a no brainer to switch totally to FSX. But it can't at this point in time, and that becomes the compromise.And that's where I am. I run FSX with some lower slider settings because I prefer the higher resolution textures. FSX is much more capable of a photo look, even in default areas, compared to the more animated cartoon look of FS9. It's a must, that I keep FSX frame rates close to 25 fps for a fluid smoothness.I now consider FS9 "compromised", because in many flight areas, it's a "blurred look" compared to what FSX can produce. Outside of third party airport sceneries for FS9, some of which I really like, btw, I usually now prefer FSX. So yes, for the forseeable future, I'll be running both.L.Adamson