FSX or FS9? What's the verdict

[JSkorna 137]

Some of you are ready to fall into the "show me for the hundredth time" trap again. There must be too much snow in the sandbox today, so they decided to come inside and play. We need one more member to come along and then it will be "the gang's all here"!No matter what, the "sandbox gang" will never be publicly satisfied.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[N562Z 4]

Geof let me rephrase that..what I meant to ask was, is the performance hit imposed by the aircraft in your photos of a similar magnitude to what we would be dealing with using something like the default 734 or A320? http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Mike T 208]

But the thing is, NONE of those shots look better than FS9. That's the point, FSX has the capability to look far greater than FS9, but that is not reflected in your screenshot or your apparent settings because just to get a measly 22FPS you have to dumb FSX down so that you end up with about the same features as you had in FS2000.Of course you can get a steady 100 FPS but at what sacrifice? Being that I work in Chicago every day, your lack of autogen makes the whole area look absolutely WRONG...not to mention that the default forest around Soldier Field (GO BEARS!!!!!) is insane! At the end of the day, you have to kill all the things that make FSX better than FS9 and end up with less features than FS9 in the first place! What a paradox.

[LAdamson 240]

>But the thing is, NONE of those shots look better than FS9. >That's the point, FSX has the capability to look far greater>than FS9, but that is not reflected in your screenshot or your>apparent settings because just to get a measly 22FPS you have>to dumb FSX down so that you end up with about the same>features as you had in FS2000.>>Of course you can get a steady 100 FPS but at what sacrifice? > Being that I work in Chicago every day, your lack of autogen>makes the whole area look absolutely WRONG...not to mention>that the default forest around Soldier Field (GO BEARS!!!!!)>is insane! >>At the end of the day, you have to kill all the things that>make FSX better than FS9 and end up with less features than>FS9 in the first place! What a paradox.>Mike, I'd certainly agree, that in MANY places, FS9 with all the goodies is going to look better. Of course, being in the new construction housing business for 35+ years, I could also say that standard auto-gen houses look "hideous"! :-hah Thankfully, we just don't "stare" at them, I suppose! :)As I've said previously, my KSLC area looks better in FSX. My Hawaii addon for FSX looks sensational! My SF260 fly's even more realistically in FSX, yet JFK looks far better in FS9. And I'm sure it would be the same for KORD with several addons.At the end of the day, I can use both, and feel quite good about it! No excuses, no nothing...BTW--- did you see my FS9/FSX pics farther up the thread? edit: pics on #44 L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>Geof let me rephrase that..what I meant to ask was, is the>performance hit imposed by the aircraft in your photos of a>similar magnitude to what we would be dealing with using>something like the default 734 or A320? >>This Marchetti SF260 is almost exactly the same as default aircraft fps wise. No real noticeable fps hit, in FSX or FS9.

[AWACS 12]

The updated flight dynamics alone is enough for me to delete FS9 forever and ever when the DX10 patch and what not is released.Jeff

[virtuali 4,421]

>But the thing is, NONE of those shots look better than FS9. THIS one does:<<<<>>>>System it's Intel E6600, 2GB, nvidia 8800 GTX. Settings in FSX> are not dumbed down, but regardless, it looks far better than FS9 and at a good frame rate, WITH an add-on scenery. Only tweaks applied, 2000 max autogen trees and 0.15 fibers time.The only advantage of the 8800 GTX, right now (waiting for the DX10 patch), is that I can use 1600x1200 with 8x FSAA with no fps loss at all.regards,Umberto Colapicchioni

[Geofa 108]

I would disagree. In the Chicago shot-fsx has more buildings-a good deal of them have moving smoke coming out of them, and there are moving cars on the highways. The sharp textures look sharp at low altitude and not a blurr like fs9. The real air 260 flies and looks better than the fs9 one. If that is what you called dumbed down so be it. Fly the sim you like! I like this one-you like that one-great!I don't agree-which is why we have a fsx forum and a fs9 forum. :-)Now having said that-there are many places fs9 can look as good, and with some add ons like the Portland scenery better. Here is the shot of fsx with full autogen-looks like sim city 2000 to me but if that looks more realistic to you fine-it doesn't to me-I've flown into Meigs field several times and it didn't look like the autogen one either. However my post was not to say that my sim looks better than yours which these threads always end up becoming but to answer a post that claimed one can only get decent frame rates in the "boonies". I spend the majority of my time not flying in the boonies ,and I do get decent frame rates.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165682.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165683.jpg

[Geofa 108]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165684.jpg

[Geofa 108]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165685.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>Now having said that-there are many places fs9 can look as>good, and with some add ons like the Portland scenery better.>By the way-here is the shot with autogen-looks like sim city>2000 to me but if that looks more realistic to you fine-it>doesn't to me-I've flown into Meigs field several times and it>didn't look like the autogen one either.>I can "honestly" say... :7 That if I was sim flying a jet aircraft, then I'd rather wait that few seconds for FSX's photo-real textures to kick in, than staring at auto-gen.However, with FS9 scenery such as the "Portland", where I do a lot of airport to airport slow flight, then autogen has it's good points. But I just don't stare at it, as those subdivsion houses do in fact, look very cartoony! Yet the many trees and houses add to the three dimentional effect. FSX's textures, from much lower altitudes than FS9, become sharper much quicker. This is a real FSX advantage! A beautiful setting in FS9! http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165686.jpgJust don't stare at the houses! :-hah http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165687.jpg

[cat 2]

Keep up the good work, Geofa!Peter Sydney Australia

[N562Z 4]

Jim:Didn't your parents ever tell you: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? We're not all as smart as you. Find another forum to heckle. Some of us are trying to learn something, and excuse the H -E- Double-Toothpicks out of us if we don't accept what we're told, question authority, and defy whatever it is your expectations are. Have a splendid day.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[N562Z 4]

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.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Geofa 108]

At 10 no. I am usually at 25-35-which is yes! :-) By the way-graduate from peabody..lived 5 years across the Pratt Library on Mulberry st.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg