FS9 is king

[seahawk09 0]

Hey all,

I think FS9 will be around for year's to come, FSX has just not met alot of people's expectations for quality I hate to say this but it look's like Microsoft failed again they made a good program in FS9 why not just stick with something that work's it sad really that they fell back to rock bottom with this Flight simulator the addon's for FS9 have really taken off pardon the pun. I think Microsoft should cancel there flight sim 11 I dont think it's going to be a barn burner and i think everyone who has Fs9 should keep using it for a bit so what that you cant fly online biig deal i just like flying around any where I can. so support FS9 by using it and enjoy your flight's even more with your addon's that you have.

Anyway that's my opinion on FSX.

Have a very Merry Christmas Everyone

Richard

[Marc W. 0]

Hey all,

I think FS9 will be around for year's to come, FSX has just not met alot of people's expectations for quality I hate to say this but it look's like Microsoft failed again they made a good program in FS9 why not just stick with something that work's it sad really that they fell back to rock bottom with this Flight simulator the addon's for FS9 have really taken off pardon the pun. I think Microsoft should cancel there flight sim 11 I dont think it's going to be a barn burner and i think everyone who has Fs9 should keep using it for a bit so what that you cant fly online biig deal i just like flying around any where I can. so support FS9 by using it and enjoy your flight's even more with your addon's that you have.

Anyway that's my opinion on FSX.

Have a very Merry Christmas Everyone

Richard

*yawn* same sour grapes as with each new incarnation of FS ...

... everyone rants till they finally buy a new machine ...

luckily I have mine already and am getting good frames like thousands of others

[paavo 0]

*yawn* same sour grapes as with each new incarnation of FS ...

... everyone rants till they finally buy a new machine ...

luckily I have mine already and am getting good frames like thousands of others

A new machine does nothing for the vast areas of missing land class.

[Marc W. 0]

A new machine does nothing for the vast areas of missing land class.

this is easily fixed with a lc add-on, there's already one on the market and more certainly will follow!

anyway, people generally don't rant about lc but about their pc's lack of power

[paavo 0]

this is easily fixed with a lc add-on, there's already one on the market and more certainly will follow!

anyway, people generally don't rant about lc but about their pc's lack of power

The one that is on the market is horrible, it turns the grand canyon into a sand box, and there are still areas around Mt Rainier that look like the Kalahari desert even with it. This is something that should not have to be fixed by add ons, improved yes, much like UT did for FS9. The fact is half the US is missing landclass, not poorly done landclass, but it's not there at all. I've gone back to FS9 because it looks and performs better than FSX, I respect your opinion, but to me FSX is FS2000 all over again.

[Hodge 0]

I just dont get the part where you say

"so what that you cant fly online biig deal i just like flying around any where I can."

I fly both fs9 and fsx on the same servers. If you would like any info on how just shout.

[skydvdan 2]

Hey all,

I think Microsoft should cancel there flight sim 11 I dont think it's going to be a barn burner ....

NOOOO!!!

If history repeats itself then just like FS2000 they will eventually make FSX decently flyable. Then FSXI will be good as was FS2002. :wink:

[MCDesigns 2]

Hey all,

I think FS9 will be around for year's to come, FSX has just not met alot of people's expectations for quality I hate to say this but it look's like Microsoft failed again they made a good program in FS9 why not just stick with something that work's it sad really that they fell back to rock bottom with this Flight simulator the addon's for FS9 have really taken off pardon the pun. I think Microsoft should cancel there flight sim 11 I dont think it's going to be a barn burner and i think everyone who has Fs9 should keep using it for a bit so what that you cant fly online biig deal i just like flying around any where I can. so support FS9 by using it and enjoy your flight's even more with your addon's that you have.

Anyway that's my opinion on FSX.

Richard

:roll:

Please don't speak for anyone but yourself, words/phrases like 'everyone" are not valid unless you have stats to prove it (which I know you don't!). FSX is all I fly and I see no point in buying any more addons for FS9 (unless it works fully in FSX) and will not support it any longer.

I hate to say this but it look's like Microsoft failed again they made a good program in FS9 why not just stick with something that work's it sad really that they fell back to rock bottom with this Flight simulator the addon's for FS9 have really taken off pardon the pun.

There are features in FXS that you just cannot get in FS9 due to the way it is programmed, many of which I have longed for. FSX is far from perfect, but I am enjoying it and will continue to do so.

For me, FS9 was king.

[abaris 0]

With all my addons installes fs9 is much better than FSX. I occasionaly use FSX, but until there's a boost in updates - and I mean updates, cause buying everything a second time would be beyond my financial capacities - my main simulator stays fs9.

If I buy something new for fs9, I'm of course looking for FSX compatibility.

But the guy with the landclass gripes is right. In the Vienna area there's a whole mountain missing and they still haven't managed to put the Danube where it's supposed to be.

[ChrisB 11]

Yeah, FSX sucks - I can only get 70 FPS...

Weeeelll, between 12 and 70 depending on what and where and individual setup.

You don't believe? The following two pics in basic default, mesh up to 19m, all traffic and shadows off, water effects down... and no major tweaks to configs or the like.

The biggest problem is realising first, that FSX has been developed to be aple to reach "speed" on hardware that's not really due out for another year or two. FS9 was pretty horrifying at first too, and there weren't that many tweaks as for "X".

Also, there are already plenty of advice sites around with some easy and sensible tweaks. You have to be patient and study the options a bit. AMD 64 type processors, 3Ghz and up, plenty of DDR Ram - DDR2 if you can and your motherboard allows.

A reliable power supply - if you're running underpowered, that too may cause stutters and overheating.

Using the Autogen and fibre frame tweaks are great FPS boosters.

Defrag is a good booster too - FSX installs deem to be very fragmenty.

Kill all background tasks.

Search this forum and simflight forum for "tweak" - there's tons of help now. But the best tip I can give is to move everything to minimum and work up. Once you find a configuration that works for a certain flight, you can save it. Then configure FSX for a different situation and save that setup too - it's easy then, to load any saved configuration in seconds, rather that twiddling each time you start a flight.

[paavo 0]

I notice the scrrenshots you posted are in areas with simple landscapes, lots of water, and very simple aircraft, what fps do you get over downtown L.A. in a complex airplane ? We all know about the sliders, problem is once you turn them down it looks worse than FS9, so why bother with FSX when FS9 performs and looks better. I can get great fps in FSX when 2/3rds of the screen is water just like your first shot.

[ChrisB 11]

Only one answer... hang around for five minutes or so while I go configure...

Of course, it does depend a bit, just a wee bit, on the PC...

[ChrisB 11]

Well, it was a bit more than 5 minutes, but it was worth it in a masochistic kind of way.

Everything maxed, ActiveSky live weather, TrackIR headset - 3 to 7

Default everything locked at 25 - 20 to 25

My preferences - 16 to 20, with tweaks as per various fora.

But I generally don't fly over big towns... So my "tweaked default" is usually a bit better. Also, it varies with aircraft. The "Trike" is usually good for a plus in frames. Glider's good too.

[paavo 0]

19 fps with car traffic, not bad. You have to admit that a freeway on top of a parking lot looks funny.

[odaat 0]

Well, from what I can tell, with the addition of this thread to the Aerosoft forum, there are now officially no forums left that don't have at least one pointless "my flightsim is better than your flightsim!" thread.

From a satisfied FSX user: Live and let live - use what you like and enjoy it! 8)

[paavo 0]

Well, from what I can tell, with the addition of this thread to the Aerosoft forum, there are now officially no forums left that don't have at least one pointless "my flightsim is better than your flightsim!" thread.

From a satisfied FSX user: Live and let live - use what you like and enjoy it! 8)

I tried to stay out of it, I really did. I shall now bow out of this thread, happy simming to all, fs9, fsx, x plane, doesn't matter, as long as it's fun.

[skydvdan 2]

I tried to stay out of it, I really did.

I can't though. This just proves my point even more. Where is the room for addons? We're still looking at a default FS world. That is not how we sim. And if anyone here says that they do then I have to ask why are you at a payware site? 15-25 fps on low settings without addons? Come on people, wake up!! :roll:

It kills me that this is the first time that I've not switched over 100% from the old version of FS to the new one. Hell, even FS2000 had me switched over at this point after the release.

From a satisfied FS9 user: Live and let die-Aces messed up and has admitted it in a few threads - most of us know crap when we see it and FSX still has steam rising from it. I'll use it eventually but not anytime soon the way it is. But hey, use what you like and enjoy your slideshow of default, mostly desert landscapes, ridiculous framerates, with pretty water. :wink:

[Kofi 0]

I can't though. This just proves my point even more. Where is the room for addons? We're still looking at a default FS world. That is not how we sim. And if anyone here says that they do then I have to ask why are you at a payware site? 15-25 fps on low settings without addons? Come on people, wake up!! :roll:

It kills me that this is the first time that I've not switched over 100% from the old version of FS to the new one. Hell, even FS2000 had me switched over at this point after the release.

From a satisfied FS9 user: Live and let die-Aces messed up and has admitted it in a few threads - most of us know crap when we see it and FSX still has steam rising from it. I'll use it eventually but not anytime soon the way it is. But hey, use what you like and enjoy your slideshow of default, mostly desert landscapes, ridiculous framerates, with pretty water. :wink:

Dan,

Let me save this post by you for "reference" use only, one year from now... :twisted: :twisted:

FS2004 was a slide-show when I first got it....

But I still also enjoy FS2004 too

[skydvdan 2]

I'll use it eventually but not anytime soon the way it is.

No need to save it. As I said above I'll use it eventually but it bothers me that every other version that I've bought I've fully switched over to 2 months after it's release but this one I can't. Sometimes it took a little hardware upgrade, which I didn't mind, but I switched. I'm not saying that it's completely horrible the way some retards are but the issues are just too many. How do you release a FS to the public with missing landclass? Not the wrong landclass but just plain missing? But the performance is the killer. NO room for quality addons. I shutter to think what the Aerosoft F-16 will do to a flight with twice as many polys as the last version. There's just not room for it right now. And by the way, what kind of sense does it make to create a sim for a computer that only exists two years from now. By then the next version of FS is due. This is a stupid cycle and it needs to stop. Build the sim for a high end computer of today and leave room for expandability. Aces has already proven that they can't predict the future so build for today.

So in closing, I don't want to enjoy it in two years, I want to enjoy it now. In two years I'll be trying to enjoy FS11.

[Kofi 0]

...I understand what you're saying and yep, I agree that the landclass is definitely screwed up in many areas :roll:

That being said, I distinctly remember that with FS2004 upon initial release, I had my sliders in the middle, and had to download some frame-rate-friendly clouds before I could achieve decent framerates

I then upgraded one time but I still couldn't run "full right" until my second upgrade

But like I said, there's still PLENTY OF "go" left in FS2004 as I'm still using it quite often in 3 forms, Golden Wings 3, "Default FS2004", and another "VOZ" installation

[abaris 0]

I bought fs9 when it first came out and it actually performed pretty well on my machine. That being an Athlon 2000+ with a Radeon 9600 Pro and 512 MBs of Ram.

I can't say the same about FSX though. It delivered slide rates on my Athlon 64 3700+ with an ATI 850 XT. That is, if I didn't want to have my scenery look like Los Alamos sometime in July 1945.

It works better on my newly built rig with an E6600, the 8800GTS and 2048 MBs of Ram. I can set the addon scenery to normal and have some sliders fully right. But there's still the question of addons. As long as I have to stick mainly to the default planes and sceneries, FSX can't become my primary simulator. It still looks and performs worse than fs9 with all my addons installed. Also there's no challenge, since I won't hop into one of the default Boeings to be dissapointed by the absence of a glass cockpit and a simplified flight model.

That shouldn't mean, that FSX is bad. That's saying I should have waited in purchasing it until my favorite addons are FSX enabled.

[Kofi 0]

It still looks and performs worse than fs9 with all my addons installed. .

I have to disagree with you here. There are some areas where FSX really outshines FS2004 in "default scenery" mode...

But like I said, there's ALWAYS room for good 'ol FS2004 on my drive (hence my 3 installations of it). 8)

[Kofi 0]

I should also state that products like "Budapest" where you get not only an F2004 version but also an FSX version are truly the "way for the future" for at least the next year - year and a half

[abaris 0]

I should also state that products like "Budapest" where you get not only an F2004 version but also an FSX version are truly the "way for the future" for at least the next year - year and a half

That's why I bought it. But in my case the problem's still the same. For total immersion I need some of the more sophisticated planes and - at least a few - airports.

[Mo 0]

Hey all,

I think FS9 will be around for year's to come, FSX has just not met alot of people's expectations for quality I hate to say this but it look's like Microsoft failed again they made a good program in FS9 why not just stick with something that work's it sad really that they fell back to rock bottom with this Flight simulator the addon's for FS9 have really taken off pardon the pun. I think Microsoft should cancel there flight sim 11 I dont think it's going to be a barn burner and i think everyone who has Fs9 should keep using it for a bit so what that you cant fly online biig deal i just like flying around any where I can. so support FS9 by using it and enjoy your flight's even more with your addon's that you have.

Anyway that's my opinion on FSX.

Have a very Merry Christmas Everyone

Richard

Hello Richard

I completely agree with you. The FS9 is the best. Easy to add on, easy to reinstall, no headache for reactivation etc, etc. As for the FSX, for those are flying default aircraft, obviously they are happy with it but personally I would hate to fly default aircraft. Could be wrong, but I can't see any future for FSX, even in 2 years time. (Good for Microsoft but bad for the developer in the future).

Regards

Mo