I'm interested in FEX, but...

[Guest phenom]

I have ASX/AGX. Is FEX noticeably better/different than AGX?

[bkeske 0]

Quite different overall....see my post below on a similar subject.If you have the money to spend, I think all three are valuable and works well together....but you must have a reason to want FE....in my case, it was the clouds...which is primarily the only reason I bought FEX. Other than that, I use the weather generated X Graphic textures/colors (i.e. sky color, water color, RWY lighting, etc), in addition to all the other textures available in X Graphics, and not a part of FEX.FEX does provide a quite interesting set-up to create your own custom graphics, which is really well done, but I doubt I will be using that function much at all, as I am more geared these days to modifying panels and planes instead.

[slashed2 53]

I still haven't pulled the trigger on this one but was wondering if anyone has tried the 512x512 clouds in ASX and how they compare to the 1024X1024 in FEX?

[bkeske 0]

Personally, thus far, I'm using the 512x512 clouds with FE, as I just don't see the need to go to the higher resolution....but that may change over time.

[GHarrall 494]

Using 512x512 here as well.As for FEX vs X-Graphics, well....the clouds, sky and water in FEX blow away anything I have seen in X-Graphics.However, X-Graphics has it's uses for other textures like the runways etc.They can work well together IMHO.Glenn

[Guest danny68]

IMO,512x512 look fine for the main cumulus/struats clouds.1024 though look better, (slightly close up)Big improvement for me is cirrus at 1024x1024, which look incredible at 1024, and there is an option to use different sizes for different types of clouds. i.e cirrus can be 1024 and main clouds 512.I have done some extensive testing and can't find a performace hit even if all clouds are 1024 and 32 bit.The clouds are awesome. The water is a huge improvement also.

[Guest Neal7]

I like what I see in FEX but is it really worth the money? I've seen discussions that there isn't any performance hit, no FPS hit. Thought I saw someone say they may even have a slight increase in FPS.I'm also contemplating MTX, I think this would do more for my experience, only wish they had a demo...

[Chalkman 0]

I'm on the fence as well. I like ASG/XG so far, and the FEX shots look great, but is it really worth the purchase if I only end up using the clouds?

[sightseer 895]

i dont have ASX/AGX so I cant make that comparison but if you have ever said to yourself "I wish that water were just a little darker and a bit more grey" or "why is that water so green?" ...FEX is the program that allows you to load in replacement texturesand create new textures and modify existing textures. Its really cool.If all you want is some cloud textures then I'm not sure you'd get much more out of FEX but I, personnally, love the ability to make it look like I want.I've taken two of the themes that came with FEX and modified them a little. I'm going to modify some more as I figure out what texturegoes where.Its great if you're the slightest bit creative.At first I felt like I may have spent too much money but now I'm glad I did. I can change any/all of the water, the sunrise, the sunset, the color of the sky during the day. The only thing I'm discovering is that they have already beat me to some of the best sky colors (most realistic). I currently use Kosher Sky with a modified sunset. water is 'grey storms' (made a little darker).you can also create your own clouds and modify their appearance as well.I dont notice any performance hit. I'm hoping their weather engine solves my most hated issue: instant visibity changes. It just cant be that hard of a problem to solve. But I dont really know, so...

[sargeski 16]

I own ASX/X Graphics and FEX. The cloud, sky, and water textures in my opinion are much better and make a very noticable (in big way) difference in appearance of these elements within FSX. I'm still using the sun/moon, road/railway and airport textures of X Graphics and as said the cloud, sky, and water textures of FEX. FEX is nothing short of stunning.The $44.95 cost of FEX was money well spent and has made my experience that much more realistic and immersive.

[Guest Don Stone]

Gday, I totally concur with these comments. I had it for 2004 and reckoned it was great and FEX is the same but better. Well worth the money and congratulations to the team who made it possible.:-beerchug

[Mace 1,902]

I'm more interested in the WATER than the clouds.Default sim water coloration is off a little bit...I THINK but don't know, that FEX addresses the water coloration issue...??RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[sargeski 16]

It surely does...just need to be careful with other textures interacting with FEX textures. ie UTX water textures in combination with certain FEX water textures....could/can produce some odd results.

[Guest phenom]

I have FE for FS9 as well and really like it, but I also think AGX looks pretty good as is. I do think the water textures could maybe be a little bit better, but will SP2 help that? Who can say for sure until SP2 is available, really?

[Tony P 160]

Lets just say....its betterhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178503.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178504.jpg