FS.9 Vs. FSX

[krishcanag 0]

HiI was wondering what people's experience is of using FSX compared to FS.9. I am still using FS.9 mainly because I have heard that FSX is far more resource dependant which I suppose will pull down frame rates. Is this correct?At the moment while flying at 27k I get with default aircraft 50/60 fps and 30/50 with add-on aircraft. Which is just about good even though I still see shuttered when on the ground.regardskrishan

[ryanbatc 12,775]

A) What sort of system do you have?:( While not a great predictor of what the full version is like, why not try the FSX demo and see how it runs on your system?http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul.../downloads.html

[Guest fireflyfx]

Cue 40 page flame-war.

[krishcanag 0]

HiMy system isdual core E64002G RAM250 SATA H/DPNY 7600GT 256M GRAPHICSOK system I guess, but still always get slight stutters on the ground.krishan>A) What sort of system do you have?>>:( While not a great predictor of what the full version is>like, why not try the FSX demo and see how it runs on your>system?>>http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul.../downloads.html

[soaring_penguin 428]

Before the usual flame war starts.FSX will run slower (less FPS )on your system then FS9.Depending if you are a bush or a "big iron" pilot, you may or may not like FSX.If you are willing to overclock, it is possible you will get satisfactory gameplay.Search the forum for other posts, there are already several long ones.On a personal note, I prefer FSX and never go back to FS9, even if it is installed, but it runs much slower (FS9 90FPS, FSX 23 FPS).disclaimer : it is possible you get blurries. People here are still investigating the cause.Jan

[jackcnd 0]

I found to really enjoy FSX one needs a Intel 3GHz+ dual or quad core processor and a 8800 series video card, and to run it without addons.That will get you 15-30fps and if your like me, youll never use fs9 again.

[Manny 1,293]

Hi Krishan,If you don't have too many addons for FS9, then look to see how much you can over clock your PC if you are willing to go that route and then run the demo and see what you get and see if you like the FSX...awesome water an all. You might like FSX.On the other hand if you were spoilt by all the amazing addon airports which we don't have for FSX (not much atleast) then you may want to keep the FS9 as well. I use both..FS9 and FSX.Even though FSX gives me new things, there are amazing flying zones in FS9 that I do not have in FSX. Ability take off from a very realistic airport and fly over very realistic scenery and land at a realistic airport. You can do that pretty good in FSX during night if you get Ultimate Terrain. FSX Rocks flying at night. For day time, this is sorely lacking in FSX. But if you are new to flight simming you may not notice this issue. FS9 E.g.1. Flying from KPDX(Flight scenery) over North west Megascenery into KSEA (Fly Tampa)2. KLGA (Sheaz addon) over Aerosoft's Manhatten over Megascenery NY to Flight scenery Providence and Fly Tampa's Boston.3. Aerosoft's Frankfurt to Aerosofts Wusserkupe (Amazing sloping runway)4. Japan Narita (Amazing addon) to Hong Kong's Amazing Kai Tak 5. Awesome Kathmandu into Aerosoft's Lukla in the Himalayas.All with super duper frame rates and no stutter.Manny

[bkeske 0]

>Hi>>My system is>dual core E6400>2G RAM>250 SATA H/D>PNY 7600GT 256M GRAPHICS>>OK system I guess, but still always get slight stutters on the>ground.>>krishanYour biggest weakness if your video card. The rest looks good. You may a desire PCU upgrade *down the road*. I have the 6400, and am thinking of going to the 3.0 when prices lower a bit more. Don't expect as high of frame rates, but expect more smoothness.To decide not to make the 'switch' just because of framerates is not a good determinant or benchmark IMO. Do it for what else FSX has to offer. And if you have enough room on you hard drive, install both. I did, as I didn't think I would ever really use FSX, but installed it more out of curiosity. I have flown exactly one time in FS9 since.Make up your own mind, and don't depend only on what others tell you. It really isn't that big of a decision, as the FSX program cost less than many add-on FS products......what do you lose from trying it?

[krishcanag 0]

Thanks guysI have tried the FSX demo and did not like it, not an issue with frame rates but for some reason poor secenry, worse than fs9 on the carb landing.I think overall, I am better sticking to fs9 until I get a PC with more punch and a 8800 graphics card, really that would might as well be a new PC given a new PSU will also be required.regardskrishan

[Guest Neil_Hill]

Hi, my $.02,I have installed both, and upgraded to an AMD 4000+ and 7600GS card.FS9 has much higher FPS but more stuttering, especially during turns. Resolution is less, seen especially at low altitudes. Airport locations are often inaccurate, really noticed when adding using photo realistic sceneries. If FSX only upgraded the resolution, accuratly placed the airports and cured the stutters I would have been VERY happy camper.FSX did upgrade the resolution, more accuratly placed airports and runs more smoothly, even with the vastly lowered FPS. But it was also changed in enough other ways to make addon's more difficult to produce so there are not near so many. Oh, and the service packs (SP's) seem to have left as may issues and they cured. I'm thinking of going back to running only the RTM version.I mostly fly FS9 using Holger Sandmann's SE Alaska sceneries, they run very smooth and are BEAUTIFUL.Neil

[Guest jshyluk]

My system and especially my video card are very similar to the original poster's. FSX runs well enough for me that I write reviews for the add-ons. The biggest frame rate hits are bloom and water effects, and autogen and AI traffic densities. It also greatly depends where I fly. Over Wilkie, Saskatchewan, I get 60fps. Over Seattle, 20fps. FSX seems to have mostly eliminated those "stutters", but it does get "blurries", and you will probably have corrupted night water textures with your 7600 card. Certainly, run both FS9 and FSX if you have the room and money for them. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[krishcanag 0]

Hi JeffDo you think provided I upgrade my PSU will a new graphics card be enough to have a clear performance impact with my SATA H/D 7200RPM 8M, and 2G RAM? If so what card would show such a improvement?regardskrishan>My system and especially my video card are very similar to>the original poster's. FSX runs well enough for me that I>write reviews for the add-ons. The biggest frame rate hits>are bloom and water effects, and autogen and AI traffic>densities. It also greatly depends where I fly. Over Wilkie,>Saskatchewan, I get 60fps. Over Seattle, 20fps. FSX seems to>have mostly eliminated those "stutters", but it does get>"blurries", and you will probably have corrupted night water>textures with your 7600 card. >>Certainly, run both FS9 and FSX if you have the room and money>for them. >>Jeff Shyluk>Assistant Managing Editor>Senior Staff Reviewer>AVSIM

[McCrash 3]

>Hi>>I was wondering what people's experience is of using FSX>compared to FS.9. I am still using FS.9 mainly because I have>heard that FSX is far more resource dependant which I suppose>will pull down frame rates. Is this correct?>>At the moment while flying at 27k I get with default aircraft>50/60 fps and 30/50 with add-on aircraft. Which is just about>good even though I still see shuttered when on the ground.>>regards>>krishan>FSX needs a Cray computer. lolNot to much for aircraft yet. I would wait and see if a seperate sp2 patch comes out for FSX and see how things are. Maybe by then there will be more newly developed aircraft.

[bkeske 0]

>>Hi Jeff>>Do you think provided I upgrade my PSU will a new graphics>card be enough to have a clear performance impact with my SATA>H/D 7200RPM 8M, and 2G RAM? If so what card would show such a>improvement?>>regards>>krishan>I'm not Jeff, but I would say yes, you would see a nice performance increase with a nVidia 8800 series card with 512 MB. Although I'm a Radian ATI 'guy', right now the nVidia seems to have the ATI cards beat for the money vs performance vs the power requirements necessary.Your 2 MB of RAM is fine, and before I would worry about your HD, I would look to upgrading the CPU.I have an 512 MB ATI X1900XT, and it does the job nicely, but is hard to find for less than the new nVidia 8800 cards are going for. From what I have seen, you can get an 8800 series card for about $260-300 US.The Core 2 Duo 3.0 MZ can be purchased for as low as $275 US.As I stated...I also run the 6400, but will be getting the new CPU above pretty soon. As always, FS is more CPU hungry than anything else, but FSX does like a minimum of 512 MB on the video card.

[spilok 1,132]

I installed it on the 1st day it was out. I'd never go back. Even though lower frame rates may occur, the smoothness is superior in FSX. The scenery and the water are superior. The PLANES (default) are much superior. I have a good system, and I'm currently waiting to buy an 8800GT...but it's out of stock everywhere. The future is FSX.