odaat 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 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 I rarely fly default aircraft in FSX. Time will tell about FSX's future. Looks like Aerosoft and many other payware companies are banking on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altstiff 28 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Let see some cockpit shots with frames. I fly from the cockpit and in FSX the frame rate is just brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Let see some cockpit shots with frames. I fly from the cockpit and in FSX the frame rate is just brutal. I'm now comfortable with mine locked at 20... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc W. 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I'm now comfortable with mine locked at 20... With my 6 months old PC, my framerate is also very nice, outside towns I even can max ALL sliders. I never would go back to those ugly fs9 textures .... :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 With my 6 months old PC, my framerate is also very nice, outside towns I even can max ALL sliders. I never would go back to those ugly fs9 textures .... :? Depends on what you expect and how well off you are. If you can afford to buy everything new, then it's probably better, given time. There are hardly any addons to speak of right now. Also there aren't any planes to speak of and I can't be bothered to use one of the default ones to be annoyed by all the missing features and a very simplified flight model. The screwed up landclass is yet another hindrance. Taking off near my home isn't any kind of enjoyment, since there's a whole mountain missing. I understand very well, that not every geographical detail is included, but in times of google earth and a MS!! tool for earthviewing, the major landmarks should be where they are in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 With my 6 months old PC, my framerate is also very nice, outside towns I even can max ALL sliders. I never would go back to those ugly fs9 textures .... :? I find this difficult to believe - especially with all the trees unless you're flying in a desert or an icecap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I find this difficult to believe - especially with all the trees unless you're flying in a desert or an icecap... I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altstiff 28 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Ok lets see a cockpit shot on short finals @ somewhere like KROC (a medium sized airport). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odaat 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 This is usually where these ######ing contests start getting ugly. Someone implies that someone else is not being truthful and demands proof. Proof is either shown or not shown - if it isn't, then someone crows that they must be right because no proof is forthcoming - if it is, it is discredited one way or another, and on and on with no conclusion other than those on the FS9 side will continue to trash FSX and those enjoying FSX will continue to do so despite some problems. In the south here in the U.S. you can start the same thing by saying Ford or Chevy. 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 This is usually where these ######ing contest start getting ugly. Someone implies that someone else not being truthful and demands proof. Proof is either shown or not shown - if it isn't, then someone crows that they must be right because no proof is forthcoming - if it is, it is discredited one way or another, and on and on with no conclusion other than those on the FS9 side will continue to trash FSX and those enjoying FSX will continue to do so despite some problems. In the south here in the U.S. you can start the same thing by saying Ford or Chevy. 8) Without Vista being out, without the DX10-DX10 video card combination being out, I find it doubtfull at best that anyone can run effectively FSX with sliders full right, even in towns without any resized textures, etc with a 6 month old system.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altstiff 28 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I'm not trying to be an arse. I see all these wonderful shots with high frames but none of them are practical to me (I don't fly in spot view). With all the tweaks and stuff I have yet to get or see FSX running smoothly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 This is usually where these ######ing contests start getting ugly. Someone implies that someone else is not being truthful and demands proof. Proof is either shown or not shown - if it isn't, then someone crows that they must be right because no proof is forthcoming - if it is, it is discredited one way or another, and on and on with no conclusion other than those on the FS9 side will continue to trash FSX and those enjoying FSX will continue to do so despite some problems. In the south here in the U.S. you can start the same thing by saying Ford or Chevy. 8) Not completely true since Kofi actually uses FSX. He's not trying to bash but to call someone on what seems like someone stretching the truth. He's not really a basher (can't say the same for myself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris 0 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Without Vista being out, without the DX10-DX10 video card combination being out, I find it doubtfull at best that anyone can run effectively FSX with sliders full right, even in towns without any resized textures, etc with a 6 month old system.... Vista or DX10 won't be the cureitalls from dr. wonder's lab. Things will look a bit better, but performance will be even worse, since Vista in itself is more demanding than XP. So the best hope is the promised performance patch. And honestly, I don't see any reason why FSX is such a system hog. My best guess is, that they still mainly use CPU instead of GPU power. And with FSX not taking advantage of multicore systems, things get messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc W. 0 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Someone implies that someone else is not being truthful and demands proof. quite so! frankly, I do not give a rat's behind, if some do not believe what I wrote. I'm happy with my decent frames and that's all I need for flying. The missing lc will be filled in eventually, there are enough other areas to explore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 This is usually where these ######ing contests start getting ugly. Someone implies that someone else is not being truthful and demands proof. Proof is either shown or not shown - if it isn't, then someone crows that they must be right because no proof is forthcoming - if it is, it is discredited one way or another, and on and on with no conclusion other than those on the FS9 side will continue to trash FSX and those enjoying FSX will continue to do so despite some problems. In the south here in the U.S. you can start the same thing by saying Ford or Chevy. 8) Please show where I demanded proof? Did I express doubt? - Yep Did I demand proof? - Nope... If you assumed I implied, then you're incorrect.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB 11 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Ok lets see a cockpit shot on short finals @ somewhere like KROC (a medium sized airport). ...and Kofi wrote: My screenies on page one of this thread showed that it is possible to get up to 70 FPS and yes, these are external views. OK, so some folk don't fly in "chase plane" mode. The cockpit views weren't much slower in VC and it really does depend on your system specs too. Kofi's far too polite :wink: ...and I am showing off because I have a kickass system - which is already outdated Already there's faster PCs around and in the wings. I was on FS98 for a looong time and jumped to FS9 only towards the end of 2004. But what is upsetting to me is to see bad language creeping into this thread. There's no need - even if FSX is desperately slow for some people. Even I get slideshows at times. One advantage of FSX though, and here's a useful tip perhaps, you can save different configurations to suit what and where you are flying. If you do this, you can zip over to the display settings menu, load up a pre-saved configuration while you cross LA or land at that crowded airport. Do an instant replay after loading the higher res settings and take your screenies. In the meantime you can envy us fortunate few who could afford the hardware now and remember, when you upgrade, we'll be the moaners and enviers :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB 11 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Oh, and perhaps it's time for admin to lock this thread, before we overheat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Oh, and perhaps it's time for admin to lock this thread, before we overheat... Open cowl flaps :!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altstiff 28 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I think everyone has been mature to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I just want to show you what I meant by saying, that fs9 with all my addons installed is better than FSX. Just take a look. Both shots show the military base LOXT near Vienna. Above the vanilla FSX scenery looking like the Nevada desert. Below fs9 with Austrian airports, AT2004 professional and UT Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I just want to show you what I meant by saying, that fs9 with all my addons installed is better than FSX. Just take a look. Both shots show the military base LOXT near Vienna. Above the vanilla FSX scenery looking like the Nevada desert. Below fs9 with Austrian airports, AT2004 professional and UT Europe. Default FS9 might look better than that FSX shot. Can you post that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't want to disbable all my scenery entries for that, but the major gripe I have with the vanilla scenery of FSX is that Fall and Winter in Europe are looking like some midwestern desert. Also the autgen buildings feature barn houses and water towers like in the USA. That's the main difference to the vanilla version of fs9 as far as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Default FS9 might look better than that FSX shot. I don't think so Dan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't think so Dan... Is that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris 0 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't think so Dan... Depends on where you go flying. The major US city areas look much better than in fs9. Also some major European cities. But the seasonal textures are definetely worse. At least Autumn and winter. They seemed to have used only one kind of texture for the whole world. That's what's making my above desert short. And I just wanted to prove, that - as opposed to some opinions - fs9 with many addons is looking better than the vanilla version of FSX. FSX with many addons will probably look even better. But that requires time (for the addons to be developed) and money. So, until then, the fs9 experience is the better one for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts