going back to FS9

[LAdamson 240]

>well i just had a great flight in FS9 KLAX to KSFO in>external view i was getting sometimes over 100 fps,And this is why I don't sim too much at the moment. That "external view" in FS9 is just isn't up to the standards of FSX unless you're flying in specialized addon scenery areas. I use to enjoy those Sunday morning flights in the RA SF260 over my home area mountains; yet FS9 is too much of a let down in terms of resolution, crispness, and the look of a more photo like 3D mountainous depth.But it's what you want to do I suppose. When flying in real life airliners, I always want to be lower, but not nessesarily a whole lot slower. Perhaps it's the reason that so many commercial airline pilots have small planes in hangars next to mine. In fact, I share a hangar with an airliner pilot for his "after work" Pitt's.:D Anyway; will be looking forward to reloading FSX someday (got corrupted), when I feel that I have time to relax a bit. And in the meantime, will take a few short Sunday flights with FS9 and Flight Scenery Portland, while trying to fly within the "restricted" boundaries of the Flight Scenery area. So in a sense, I'm back to FS9 too, but not because I prefer it... :-hah L.Adamson

[Lord Farringdon 491]

Hi Clayton,If there is one thing that is very clear in this hobby, it is that everyone uses FS for different purposes including VFR, IFR procedures (like you with the PMDG 747), military fast jet nap of the earth flying, helo, mountain flying, seaplane flying, gliding, bush flying, airshow manoeuvres, aircraft spotting, just ships and boats, missions, multiplayer and for some even just listening to ATC, although in this latter case players may already be seeking professional help :). I haven't even mentioned those with interests in scenery, model building and special effects enhancements. The point is two fold. Firstly, what a fantastic diversity of special interests can be accommodated in one piece of software and secondly, some of these diversities can be accommodated/processed/rendered more easily than others in FSX using today

[Guest Circling737]

You should be getting very acceptable performance with the hardware that you have. My rig is a little brother compared to yours.I get 24 FPS solid with a C2D E6400 (OC'd 31% to 2.8GHz) and a geforce 9600GT card.Here are my specs:Hardware setupMSI P7N Zilent nForce 750i SLIIntel Core 2 Duo E6400 OC'd to 2.8 GHz8 GB TwinMos DDR2 Twister (4x2048GB) PC6400 800 MHz CL5-5-5-15Point of View GeForce 9600GT 512MB GDDR3 1ns 650MHz/1.8GHz PCI-E 2.0 x 16Zalman NP9500 CoolerTower casing with 10" blue LED side fan (cooling the Zalman)1.16 TB SATA2 HD's internal, 1.5 TB externalCore temperatures under load 41⁰C/38⁰ C @ 2.8 GHzSoftwareMS Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1MS Flight Simulator X, SP1 and expansion packForceWare version 174.53Vista system rating 5.2 (CPU 5.5 / Memory 5.9 / Graphics 5.9 / 3D 5.9 / HD 5.2)Flight Simulator X settingsTest aircraft Baron 58 Blue stripesGraphics1600 x 1200 x 32Target Framerate fixed at 24 FPS Filtering: AnisotropicAnti-Aliasing ONGlobal texture resolution VERY HIGHLens Flare ONLight Bloom OFF --- This will have a 10FPS drop when set to ONAdvanced animations ONAircraft:Global settings ULTRA HIGHCast shadows on ground ONCast shadows on itself ONHi-Res 3D cockpit ONSceneryLevel of detail radius MAXMesh complexity 100%Mesh resolution 10 mTexture resolution 60 cmWater effects MAX 2.xLand detail textures ONScenery complexity EXTREMELY DENSEAuto-Gen OFFGround scenery shadows OFFSpecial effects detail HIGHWeatherGlobal settings MEDIUM LOWCloud draw settings 60miDetailed clouds ONCloud coverage density MINIMUMTrafficAirline 13%General aviation 11%Airport vehicle MINIMUMRoad vehicles 0%Ships and ferries 10%Leisure boats 15%Aircraft labels ONI am happy with FSX, no problem

[Mike T 208]

For the last year and a half I've been bouncing back and fourth between hating and liking FSX. I've uninstalled it and reinstalled it probably 10 times and to date have never "seriously" used it for anything more than testing settings and curiousity.With that said, I went for my bi-annual last weekend and flew out of Chicago Executive (PWK - formally Palwaukee Muni) just north of O'hare. When I got back home, I booted up FSX and I can say that it did give me a comparable visual sensation of flight "low and slow" much more so than FS9. So, I plugged in GEX, ASX and UTX and I'm liking what I'm seeing. For this genre of flight I don't have to worry about AI traffic at major airports or the lack of detailed 3rd party major airports as I would if I were flying my heavies. I can crank up the scenery to Very Dense and autogen to Dense and I'm okay at that point. With AI traffic at 100% I get plenty of GA traffic to contend with as in the real world. Plus I stay away from Class B and C airports anyway so I don't get the big framerate hits.I've resolved that FSX does indeed have a place on my PC (especially with the Garmin 1000 equipped 172 since Palwaukee Flyers flight school has one I am going to get rated for). Then moving back to the heavies where I want ultimate airport realism, 100% realistic airline schedules and IFR, I simply go back to FS9.Yes, I still have huge fustration with FSX from many standpoints, BUT, it has its place for me. FS9 on the other hand absolutely screams in all regimes with my new system with frame rates and smoothness I've only dreamed of.So unless something changes the pendulum has stopped swinging for me and is now settled squarely with FSX for GA ops and FS9 for jet ops. I think I can live with that. Not what I had envisioned a year and a half ago and absolutely not replacing FS9 by any stretch of the imagination....but I guess "good enough" is, well, good enough.Regards,Mike T.

[clayton4115 56]

well thanks for all those who chime in, some say they use the default FSX AC for flying, well if i were to do that i too would be getting very acceptable frame rates in FSX, but i just cannot use these default AC - 747, 737 as they dont have a FMC which i think is absolutely important to fly IFR especially onlone in Vatsimwell my FSX is not on the computer but it is on the top drawer! i will stick with FS9 at the moment maybe time will change all that.But i am really happy MS give us the opportunity to experience new FS versions every 2 to 3 years and the bar just keeps getting higher and higher, ive been flying fs since fs98 and cannot see myself stopping anytime in the near future.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

>Hi,>>I still fly both although I spend 70% of my time in FSX. The>FSX VC gauge performance is far superior. I can't fly Flight>One's Pilatus, or Capt Sims C130 from the VC in FS9. The>gauges "step" up and down in all the FS9 planes with the>exception of Real Air's. In any case have fun!!>>Bob..------------------------------------'I still fly both although I spend 70% of my time in FSX.'Bob...that's probably my ratio between the two as well. I just can't say goodbye to the immersion factor of FSX. I'll be the first in line to extol the virtues of FS9---but if you can get FSX to run half decently---IMO, it truly,....is the ticket!Mitch

[BoeingGuy 0]

Clayton,I understand your decision. It's what I did with my old machine too. I couldn't take FSX. It drove me up the wall. Even FS9 struggled on it.Many people prefer frame-rates to visual quality, and I think that is what's going on here. I prefer a mixture of both, but more FPS if that.I can sit in KFJK airport with Airliner Traffic at 80%, GA at 40%, Road at 38%, and all ships and leisure boats at 40% and get a good 20 FPS. Here, it's all about visual quality rather than FPS for me.When cruising at 35,000 feet, I turn on light bloom and max out all settings (excluding weather and traffic) and get about 50 FPS. Here, I want nothing but FPS and visual quality.So it's personal preference, really.Forgive my rambling, but it's just my POV ;)Have fun with FS9.PS: I also need FSX because FS9 is screwed up for me :-lol