I have 'em both. I fly 'em both. I love 'em both. But I admit to flying FS9 less as time goes by.With FSX SP1 + UTX-Canada + Genesis mesh + FEX, it's starting to get the feel of a very sophisticated flightsim that FS9 cannot match. FS9 is, although still a wonderful program, starting to show its "limitations". Mind you, flying FS9 + Portland FZ02 + FE + GE Pro + UT + Genesis at 1920x1200 with 16AF & 8XAA with full AI at 30FPS is something no flightsimmer can do and not find an amazing(!) flight.I'm not saying goodbye to FS9 just yet, but within six months it might not be on my HD anymore. Kind of sad really. :(

I'm keeping FS9 around for a while...Every once in a while, I take a flight in an aircraft like the Dreamfleet Bonanza with the wonderful Reality XP gauges or the great Flight1 Meridian and love the experience. Having said that, the higher resolution scenery and the feeling of motion and the VCs and... in FSX are great improvements.

Well, now I may have to reconsider. I fired up FS9 tonight and I had forgotten how gorgeous the Bird's Eye View textures were. What a difference from the nasty brown terrain in FSX, and no blurries!Jm

>I've kept FS9 since installing FSX, but I've not run it>since. Now that we have Ultimate Terrain and Flight>Environment for FSX, and I have a nice fleet of payware>planes, I think it's finally time to say good-bye to FS9. It>will free up a tremendous amount of disk space for me.>>Hopefully SP2 will improve FSX performance even more and there>will be no need for looking back.>>Jim>I am glad I am waiting to even SEE FSX, until I assemble my new machine come January or so--whenever Penryn Wolfdales at ~3.2Ghz debut. As some have read here, I have a very effective cooling solution (of the dry version, that is) and so overclocking to the max will be very doable if I luck out with a good CPU. I think the quads will be too pricey at release, and at this juncture as long as the mainboard I find supports quads one can do the upgrade if and when it is obviously a good thing cost-benefit wise, which may be not in the lifetime of this next machine. Hopefully SP2 will be out, and that CPU plus a properly matched DX10 card, and the transition to FSX should go fairly well. Until then, FS9 still amazes me almost daily!Noel

Definitely keeping it. I remember when it was a struggle to get 10 fps with half decent settings but now with all the add-ons (UTX, GE, any airport add on, Ultimate Traffic) and the PMDG747 all settings maxed, 30 fps approaching UK2000 EGKK is too good to miss.When I can get about the same in FSX then FS9 will go.

I use both.Why do I keep FS9:1. Capt Sims C-130/707 still in my book the best rendered and flight modelled aircraft, particulary for FS9. I have not seen metal surfaces on the 707 rendered better - with the exception and equal score for the delivery MAAM DC3.2. The VOZ textures are far better than the default FSX textures (this will no doubt change with FTX but without the C-130/707 FS9 remains)4. Although I get good FPS with FSX SP1, it occasionally get stuck in the mud an overwhelmed for some unknown reason with sudden drops and variations in FPS.5. Despite the greater flexibility with cameras positioning in FSX its bit awkward to use lets face it (I actually wrote a program that positions 6 cameras around any chosen airport that accounts for runway length and orientation). But I still find the "moving tower" in FS9 a very convenient and quick way of viewing take-offs and landings "on-the-fly". Why not implement it in FS11 again as "the-eye-in-sky" rather than the tower.CheersWOZ

>I use both.>>Why do I keep FS9:>1. Capt Sims C-130/707 still in my book the best rendered and>flight modelled aircraft, particulary for FS9. I have not seen>metal surfaces on the 707 rendered better - with the exception>and equal score for the delivery MAAM DC3.>I agree on the C-130, as Captain Sim does wonders with exterior graphics! Here it is with Flight Scenery's Portland. Another reason I run both sims.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178732.jpgL.Adamson

Holy jumpin' that's a nice C130 screenshot.I, too, have both, though most of my flying is in FSX.But FS9 will stay for these reasons:Glacier BayFanda Dash 8 (An FS2002 plane that still amazes me)ISD sceneries for Naples and MilanRichard Probst's 727 panelTinmouse 732BlairCYOW

>I, too, have both, though most of my flying is in FSX.>Same here, due to my local mountainous areas, where no 3rd party has done a specialized enhancement. FS9 just looks very "crude" in comparison. I'm all for the higher resolution photo-type textures...About 16 times better, resolution wise! :-hah L.Adamson

I've been pretty strict on not allowing "I'm staying with FS9" threads, so this thread should fall under the same rule.If this thread devolves into flame either sim, it will be locked.

What do you define as flame Brian.?There are good and bad bits in both. A healthy discussion about these flaws and pluses will in the long run be beneficial for future developments in FS. I am sure you would agree.Cheers WOZ

Absolutely.In the FS9 forum, most of the "I'm stickin' with FS9" threads eventually become nothing but posts saying "If ACES had only NOT made their sim look like crap, it would be fantastic, but it still wouldn't have been as good as FS9 with my 37 add-ons" and then LAdamson comes in and points out that he uses both of them just fine and someone jumps down his throat and I have to lock the whole thing.I'm just saying, all things considered, I'd like to avoid that.

Yep, very sensible indeed.Cheers WOZ

Actually I have both still installed :-) and it will be for some time to come...Disk space isn't a issue...Cheers,Andr