Jump to content

Have FSX, but JUST Ordered FS9


worldted

Recommended Posts

FSX is actually very good with airliners too, if they have been developed with FSX in mind. The FSX version of the PMDG MD-11 has very good frame rates, much better than the 747X and the Level-D 767. Not surprising at all, as the MD-11 was created for FSX first, then ported to FS9 - not the other way around, like almost all other complex airliner addons I know of.

Just as an FYI, PMDG actually have sold many more copies of the MD-11 for FSX than for FS9. See the post by Ryan Maziarz in this thread: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...5&start=25) (sorry, I don't know how to link to individual posts).

Nobody expects FS9 users who have invested a lot of money in addons to scrap that and move to FSX without very good reason. In fact, because the lead time on complex addon development is so long, there are still addons being released for FS9 first, e.g. the Airsimmer A320. But ultimately, since FS11 is off the table for the time being, I'm sure that the FS9 addon market will shrink relative to FSX. So if the OP in this thread has decided to bet on FS9 instead of FSX, good on you - but I'd advise you to spend your money on addons where you get both FS9 and FSX versions if you buy one or the other. You will eventually want to go FSX.

Cheers,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FSX is actually very good with airliners too, if they have been developed with FSX in mind. The FSX version of the PMDG MD-11 has very good frame rates, much better than the 747X and the Level-D 767. Not surprising at all, as the MD-11 was created for FSX first, then ported to FS9 - not the other way around, like almost all other complex airliner addons I know of.

Just as an FYI, PMDG actually have sold many more copies of the MD-11 for FSX than for FS9. See the post by Ryan Maziarz in this thread: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...5&start=25) (sorry, I don't know how to link to individual posts).

Nobody expects FS9 users who have invested a lot of money in addons to scrap that and move to FSX without very good reason. In fact, because the lead time on complex addon development is so long, there are still addons being released for FS9 first, e.g. the Airsimmer A320. But ultimately, since FS11 is off the table for the time being, I'm sure that the FS9 addon market will shrink relative to FSX. So if the OP in this thread has decided to bet on FS9 instead of FSX, good on you - but I'd advise you to spend your money on addons where you get both FS9 and FSX versions if you buy one or the other. You will eventually want to go FSX.

Cheers,

Tom

Thanks for the link and your comments, Tom

Yes, i know that the MD-11 runs relatively well in FSX as i bought the combo version (FSX and FS9). I achieved some "ok" frames in my current system around TNCM with it when i ran FSX with all settings to the max, but when i loaded it up at KJFK with the same settings, i got about 4-5 FPS and after 30 seconds i got an "Out of memory" message and the flightsim shut down.

Of course my computer is getting old, no doubt about it, but experiencing what happened at jfk makes me think that even the best hardware out there today can't run FSX at settings like that in environments like that, at least not yet. Even people with top-end hardware don't reply to my questions when i ask them the frames in the conditions i have described.

The day i can run FSX with ASA or REX, Ground environment, ultimate terrain series, PMDG's airliners at airports like JFK, SFO, ORD and LHR in cloudy, rainy and stormy weather with frame rates above 30 fps, is the day i will switch to FSX, but until the day i can find hardware that can do that i will remain with FS9, and i have a feeling i will remain with FS9 for a very long time.

Have fun

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

The day i can run FSX with ASA or REX, Ground environment, ultimate terrain series, PMDG's airliners at airports like JFK, SFO, ORD and LHR in cloudy, rainy and stormy weather with frame rates above 30 fps, is the day i will switch to FSX, but until the day i can find hardware that can do that i will remain with FS9, and i have a feeling i will remain with FS9 for a very long time.

********************************

Hi Jan. Are there not people with the new i7 quad cores who can do that very thing? I just got a new i7 and what I'm experiencing in FSX is astounding. I fly GEX and UTX for North America, plus some Megascenery tiles thrown in. I also fly LondonX, very dense and demanding scenery, with AI traffic at 70%, and it is phenominal. And most of my flying is still in the F-16, a plane that's known to cut a few frames. And another anecdote... a very complex gauge (G-1000-ish) I developed really slammed down the framerate in my old middle of the road system; with the i7, this gauge gets eaten alive. Beautiful.

The solution to all this debating is simple:

everyone go get an i7 machine!!!! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds very promising indeed, Saprintz :)

If that's indeed the case i may consider upgrading my hardware sometime in the summer months, because if the hardware have finally caught up, then it's the time i've been waiting for and will mean the end of my frustration with FSX.

Thanks for the answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Thanks for the link and your comments, Tom

Yes, i know that the MD-11 runs relatively well in FSX as i bought the combo version (FSX and FS9). I achieved some "ok" frames in my current system around TNCM with it when i ran FSX with all settings to the max, but when i loaded it up at KJFK with the same settings, i got about 4-5 FPS and after 30 seconds i got an "Out of memory" message and the flightsim shut down.

Of course my computer is getting old, no doubt about it, but experiencing what happened at jfk makes me think that even the best hardware out there today can't run FSX at settings like that in environments like that, at least not yet. Even people with top-end hardware don't reply to my questions when i ask them the frames in the conditions i have described.

The day i can run FSX with ASA or REX, Ground environment, ultimate terrain series, PMDG's airliners at airports like JFK, SFO, ORD and LHR in cloudy, rainy and stormy weather with frame rates above 30 fps, is the day i will switch to FSX, but until the day i can find hardware that can do that i will remain with FS9, and i have a feeling i will remain with FS9 for a very long time.

Have fun

Jan

Allow me to answer a few posts with one post.

Yes I think you will be running FS9 for a long time, perhaps even for ever. For what you describe I think it is the best sim at this moment. I actually don't think I ever disputed that. The reasons for that are varied. But let's go over them;

1) Vista sucks on games that need a lot of memory, Vista with DX9 sucks even more. Windows 7 is brillaint though.

2) MS told people GPU's matter while everybody with some serious knowledge by now knows that the cheaper the GPU the better FSX runs (as long as it is modern and has at least 512 mb of mem)

3) When you spend a whopping lot of money and time in a FS2004 project and FSX is slow to pick up it is attractive to port the aircraft/scenery from FS2004 to FSX. But it will never look good, it will never be fast and it will never use the new options of FSX. Just check the SDK of FSX to see what's new and available, then check what of these things have found there way into products.

4) MS messed up (and I am using kind words) with big airports. It is just plain hard to do then well without getting slow, certainly if you are not willing to TOTALLY drop fs2004 code. And believe me that is VERY rare. Only now are we learning the tricks and we got some airport scenery that will simply be fast.

5) FSX has mesh and landclasses that are as detailed as FS2004 plus many addons sold right now for FSX as well. Don't get me started on this. When we meet users at meetings they very often ask what addons we got loaded in FSX to make it look so good. Most of the time it is just FSX.

I don't think I will ever convince you to move to FSX. But that's fine. Check out Hamburg we just released. Check out the Innsbruck scenery that will be FS2004 based. There is a lot more to come. But we are also working on a Airbus internally that is rather stunning. Perhaps not for you because we don't really care if you are able to import the AIRAC of March 2009 and we won't have all the holdings the FMS knows about. But it will have killer looks (Catalina standards) and a very solid set of features. As I say not for you, but these are the things that sell, sell easy. Even if it will be for FSX only (and we can't do it for FS2004 because is simply does not have the features we expect in this day and age).

So be happy with FS2004, there is still some good stuff to come (though the schedule for late this year is really empty for FS2004). Just don't expect serious progress. We like to advance FS2004 but we need limits on animations, polygons and many other things removed before we can do so. And that will not happen. You're a happy FS2004 user. We can only be glad that you are a diminishing minority because Aerosoft would not be as it is right now if this would not be the case.

Oh and please... if you (not you Jan) like to tell me I am wrong and that FS2004 is still FAR more potent then FSX, do send me some serious data on that. I mean I am looking every morning at what people actually buy and am getting a bit tired of people who tell me they like FS2004 and hate FSX and think Aerosoft is crazy to do so much FSX stuff. How many FS addon companies can you mention that hired a high end modeler for FSX projects this week? How many can you mention that have grown by 45% since FSX was released? How many can you mention that are out of business because they did not move with the time, (hell, I can mention some I worked for in the past! (even the start page keeps on loading on something called BlackBean which sounds like something that gives you gas))

Jan we agree to disagree, I totally respect your point of view. In your shoes I would most likely choose the same. But I am not really interested in the last details of a 747. I just like the great sense of enjoyment when you drop below the cloudlayer and see the runway 500 feet below you and directly ahead. But I also like to land a helicopter at Monaco Heliport, take a tour around Manhattan in an F-16 when I feel like it or try to find my way in the valleys with clouds that get lower and lower. Or even better try to do some of the amazing thing you see at airshows using the missions we made.

You see FS as a very limited simulator. One where you fly a large aircraft from a major airport to another major airport. I like aviation. From ultralights to 380's. From Lord Howe airport and the small air strips in Tahiti to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVAQyfbnMRc. But you know what, Tahiti X sells about as good as Paris CDG. Even though one is a major airport made for FSX and FS2004 and the other is an off the major path FSX only project. We don't care as we said all along we make and sell what our customers want to buy. In money we most likely make more on a sale of Tahiti X than on Mega Airport Paris Charles the Gaulle. That's what allows me to pay my morgage and that's what is making a a few thousand customers of Tahiti X very happy. 15 Euro get's you thousands of miles of tropical paradise, perfect to explore with the Twin Otter or the Beaver.

Ok the many links were sort of a joke, but these ARE the products we sell best at this moment. This is what simmers are buying most at this moment. In fact they are buying it more then simular FS2004 products two years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying to my post Mathijs.

I have been wondering a long time how windows 7 will work on FS9. So what you are saying is that windows 7 is good for FS9 also? and not just the latest software?

You may be right about me not moving towards FSX, like i said i have some very high demands, maybe even unrealistic demands to some, but if hardware indeed does (or have) caught up, like saprintz have hinted about, i may consider upgrading towards this summer/autumn, so never say never, Mathijs :)

Also as i have said earlier, i don't expect to see any more FS9 compatible aircraft from you again, as you have different goals and/or agendas than i have. I find it real rewarding to learn a new aircraft's systems and functions as it's real world counterpart does, and that's a reward that i gain mostly from the PMDG's product lines, aircraft from wilco, CLS.. and the likes is just not even close. I find it rewarding to read the manuals, try different tutorials and in the end be able to operate the aircraft as close to the real world procedures as possible, but i do respect that not everyone have that goal in flightsim, cause in the end it is just a game.

I have no doubt that your coming airbus will look awesome and as you say it will probably not be for me, i guess Airsimmer will be my best choice in what i expect form an airbus addon.

Although my primary usage in flightsim is to fly airliners, i do sometimes like to take a break from it and fly old warbirds, like the spifire, P-51 mustang and maybe even some piper, cessna and some other G/A aircraft. But i guess if you look at my profile on your sales page you will most likely see that i mostly buy medium to large airports and AES credits, but i have also bought some FSX addons, not that much though.

We will probably have to agree to disagree as ou say, Mathijs, you and i have some very different goals/purposes in flightsim and i fully respect that.

Have fun with whatever flightsim/addons you use, cause that's the most important thing. As long as you're happy with what you use for yourself, that's what truly matters :)

Kind regards

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Thank you for replying to my post Mathijs.

I have been wondering a long time how windows 7 will work on FS9. So what you are saying is that windows 7 is good for FS9 also? and not just the latest software?

You may be right about me not moving towards FSX, like i said i have some very high demands, maybe even unrealistic demands to some, but if hardware indeed does (or have) caught up, like saprintz have hinted about, i may consider upgrading towards this summer/autumn, so never say never, Mathijs :)

Also as i have said earlier, i don't expect to see any more FS9 compatible aircraft from you again, as you have different goals and/or agendas than i have. I find it real rewarding to learn a new aircraft's systems and functions as it's real world counterpart does, and that's a reward that i gain mostly from the PMDG's product lines, aircraft from wilco, CLS.. and the likes is just not even close. I find it rewarding to read the manuals, try different tutorials and in the end be able to operate the aircraft as close to the real world procedures as possible, but i do respect that not everyone have that goal in flightsim, cause in the end it is just a game.

I have no doubt that your coming airbus will look awesome and as you say it will probably not be for me, i guess Airsimmer will be my best choice in what i expect form an airbus addon.

Although my primary usage in flightsim is to fly airliners, i do sometimes like to take a break from it and fly old warbirds, like the spifire, P-51 mustang and maybe even some piper, cessna and some other G/A aircraft. But i guess if you look at my profile on your sales page you will most likely see that i mostly buy medium to large airports and AES credits, but i have also bought some FSX addons, not that much though.

We will probably have to agree to disagree as ou say, Mathijs, you and i have some very different goals/purposes in flightsim and i fully respect that.

Have fun with whatever flightsim/addons you use, cause that's the most important thing. As long as you're happy with what you use for yourself, that's what truly matters :)

Kind regards

Jan

I actually think that XP is the best for FS2004. It seems best optimized for single core processing, 2 gb memory and DX9. I doubt anything will ever beat that. As a CPU you need something that runs 2.4 as standard and can be overclocked like hell. Some of the older Intel's should be best for that.

You know the good thing about FS2004? You can get a killer FS2004 rig for $500. It will run superb. As always price is the main incentive for running behind the curve. I keep telling others in Aerosoft we should lower the prices of FS2004 software to match the price of the hardware needed. But it's complex.

And you and me never had a fight, we just disagreed. You always made sense, you always used arguments. That's respectable. In fact the next FS2004 addon you want from us is for free. Contact support@aerosoft.com and link to this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think that XP is the best for FS2004. It seems best optimized for single core processing, 2 gb memory and DX9. I doubt anything will ever beat that. As a CPU you need something that runs 2.4 as standard and can be overclocked like hell. Some of the older Intel's should be best for that.

You know the good thing about FS2004? You can get a killer FS2004 rig for $500. It will run superb. As always price is the main incentive for running behind the curve. I keep telling others in Aerosoft we should lower the prices of FS2004 software to match the price of the hardware needed. But it's complex.

And you and me never had a fight, we just disagreed. You always made sense, you always used arguments. That's respectable. In fact the next FS2004 addon you want from us is for free. Contact support@aerosoft.com and link to this post.

Thanks for the advice, Mathijs, i will probably stay with my current system which is a stock E6700 CPU with the 8800GTS 640mb video card, 2gb of PC6400 corsair ram and 2 WD 150 GB raptor harddrives in raid 0, at least for a while.

I also want to thank you for your understanding during our disagreements, and thank you very much for the FS9 addon :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice, Mathijs, i will probably stay with my current system which is a stock E6700 CPU with the 8800GTS 640mb video card, 2gb of PC6400 corsair ram and 2 WD 150 GB raptor harddrives in raid 0, at least for a while.

I also want to thank you for your understanding during our disagreements, and thank you very much for the FS9 addon :)

Just returned from a week on the road and wanted to apologize to Mathijs if my comments were taken as a personal insult. I in no way intended to be rude, disrespectful or insulting.

Apologies if it came across that way.

In the end it looks like this turned into a somewhat positive thread so I do not regret my comments but I do apologize if they came across the wrong way...

-Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run FSX 80% of the time but I love FS-9 because it runs great on my Duo-core 1.8 Ghz. Aerosoft's airports for fs-9 are absolutely fabulous! Great Aerosoft traffic and airport vehicles. The FSX versions have the just adequate default FSX motor traffic and airport vehilces <_< I am running and keeping FS-2004 just for Aerosoft's FS-9's German Airports! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Just returned from a week on the road and wanted to apologize to Mathijs if my comments were taken as a personal insult. I in no way intended to be rude, disrespectful or insulting.

Apologies if it came across that way.

In the end it looks like this turned into a somewhat positive thread so I do not regret my comments but I do apologize if they came across the wrong way...

-Paul

No problem what so ever.

In these forums we allow a lot of straight talk and we got rather a lot of members that are not welcome on other forums. Personally I am rather allergic to the whole political correctness idea. If somebody writes nonsense others can say he writes nonsense. I am not easily offended.

Here is a story... I was banned from Compuserve forums because I made a typo. I written that to do this and that the user had to type shift something. I forgot the f in the word and written a word that the moderators considered inappropriate. Well here you are welcome to write that word. Get my point?

There are just a few things that tick us off.

  • ANY (and we are serious about that one) any reference to the level a person handles a language. If we understand the post all is fine, but we got a lot of users who are afraid to make mistakes in language and to look silly. The only way to make sure they are not afraid is to ban any negative comment on typos etc. I speak 4 languages badly and I am not afraid to make mistakes.
  • Attacks that are personal and not directly related to public posts (they should not be public).
  • Negative comments on competitors products, makes getting free beers from them and the next show harder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use