So Happy!!!!

[Double_Farvel]

I recently got a new computer so I could play FSX, but never got around to reinstalling FS9. This weekend I finally got around to it and I am so glad I did. I am sticking to FS9 because my FSX does not even compare with this.

[ashaman]

Contrarily to what I usually write, and risking to give the FSX community whole a heart attack for what I'm going to write here now, FSX is not bad looking, far from it.

I go down all the way saying that, had it been coded with a modicum of intelligence, I would have already, if not jumped to it, at least installed it along FS9 an used them both, in wait of better times for the newest sim, under which then uninstall fs9, like I did with FS2002 at the times.

FSX is not bad looking. Problem here is not the look and feel of the gizmo. Is the impossibility of its hardware requests.

In fact, to have the same approximate FPS and fluidity I have under FS9, I had to tweak down the "X" to look incredibly like FS98 (thing this that no FSX hardcore ever believes, when I tell them). And I have already FS98 installed for retrogaming, that is less demanding under the HD hogging point of view. And bringing FSX to look more or less like my actual FS9 brought FPS down to single digit values.

So, unless those wild rumors of a performance patch are proven true (and perhaps will rain beer too), and said patch actually works (in spite of what happened under FS2000, with its patch that actually worsened the performances instead of making them better), it's FS9 for me too, and for long time still.

We'll see with FS11. Maybe.

[Double_Farvel]

Yes, I think it's just that FSX requires so much hardware, that unless you have a great computer, runs worse than FS9. That's just from my point of view. Don't get me wrong, FSX is a great game, but I just like the graphics and frame rates I get in FS9.  ;)

[NDSP]

Im with you, I tried FSX and it was sooooo slooooowww...

FS9 with good add-ons = way more fun  :D

Nick 8-)

[krigl]

It's FS9 all the way with me too  :) Never say never, but at least another year with FS9, if not more... when VOZ and Flight/ground environment come out for FSX, then I'll be tempted. Then all I'll need is lots and lots of money. Simple.

[jankees]

and here's another one that is not converted. I installed FSX, and it is running fine, but I am missing all my sceneries (although I got the photoreal French Alps working), and it does feel like my PC is straining. I do not like the standard sceneries, so for me it feels like a step back when I am flying FSX, so it is all FS9 for me now.  

[Boca]

Give it a year, and you'll ( and me ) all be throwing you're 'fun' Fs9's into the cupboard because only then will you have a PC worthy of playing FSX. And when that day comes, these comparisons will be laughable.

[Double_Farvel]

Give it a year, and you'll ( and me ) all be throwing you're 'fun' Fs9's into the cupboard because only then will you have a PC worthy of playing FSX. And when that day comes, these comparisons will be laughable.

[francsal]

Awesome shots!!! It

[Black ZR-1]

With the right system, FSX blows away any other version hands down. The flight dynamics, the advanced animations, the scenery, autogen, the list goes on...

I know a lot of people who can't afford a big system upgrade will say FS9 is better, but the people who do have acceptional hardware to run FSX say FSX is the best thing that ever happened to them. At least for me it is.

I have not looked back at FS9 ever since I installed FSX.

[Double_Farvel]

With the right system, FSX blows away any other version hands down. The flight dynamics, the advanced animations, the scenery, autogen, the list goes on...

I know a lot of people who can't afford a big system upgrade will say FS9 is better, but the people who do have acceptional hardware to run FSX say FSX is the best thing that ever happened to them. At least for me it is.

I have not looked back at FS9 ever since I installed FSX.

I wish I was the same, but when I fly in FSX, the plane moves in increments, literally. I have no autogen, and I get all this with FS9. But I understand what you are saying.

[ashaman]

With the right system, FSX blows away any other version hands down. The flight dynamics, the advanced animations, the scenery, autogen, the list goes on...

I know a lot of people who can't afford a big system upgrade will say FS9 is better, but the people who do have acceptional hardware to run FSX say FSX is the best thing that ever happened to them. At least for me it is.

I have not looked back at FS9 ever since I installed FSX.

That's the problem exactly. The same problem some years back we all had with FS2000 (that I refused to use, going from FS98 to FS2002, [BTW, let me remember you that 2002 worked and looked both WAY better than the 2000 if tested on the VERY SAME PC]). You NEED exceptional hardware to make "the cross" work decently.... and barely at that.

Where's the fun in this?

That maybe the 5~8 grands you spend (because EXCEPTIONAL hardware costs an EXCEPTIONAL price) are fun for you to spend only to make a flight simulator work in a barely decent fashion?

Sure it's fun for the hardware sellers.

But for ME...

...

Not!

I call it an IDIOCY.

Forget it.


PS
BTW. The jump from FS98 to FS2002 WAS A REAL step forward, under both look and performances, than FS2000 wasn't.

(I'm far from joking, try you to install on the same PC FS2000 and FS2002 and use both, then come here and tell us which was the more performant)

Same with "the cross". You'll see.

[swordfish1227]

Ashaman, you are right. fsx looks horrible on an above average machine if you get good framerates. The rumors of a patch for fsx are true. look very closely at the bottom of the fsx: adrenaline page and you will see "patch to be released april/may. it is covered up by other text though. how nice of uncle bill. Whether the patch will do anything or not is still another question.

[Boca]

With the right system, FSX blows away any other version hands down. The flight dynamics, the advanced animations, the scenery, autogen, the list goes on...
I know a lot of people who can't afford a big system upgrade will say FS9 is better, but the people who do have acceptional hardware to run FSX say FSX is the best thing that ever happened to them. At least for me it is.I have not looked back at FS9 ever since I installed FSX.

That's the problem exactly. The same problem some years back we all had with FS2000 (that I refused to use, going from FS98 to FS2002, [BTW, let me remember you that 2002 worked and looked both WAYbetter than the 2000 if tested on the VERY SAME PC]). You NEED exceptional hardware to make "the cross" work decently.... and barely at that.Where's the fun in this?That maybe the 5~8 grands you spend (because EXCEPTIONAL hardware costs an EXCEPTIONAL price) are fun for you to spend only to make a flight simulator work in a barely decent fashion?
Sure it's fun for the hardware sellers.
But for ME...
I call it an IDIOCY.
PS
BTW. The jump from FS98 to FS2002 WAS A REAL step forward, under both look and performances, than FS2000 wasn't.
(I'm far from joking, try you to install on the same PC FS2000 and FS2002 and use both, then come here and tell us which was the more performant)
Same with "the cross". You'll see.

No offence, my friend, but this is utter rubbish. YES, the system required to play FSX with all it's features displayed 100 % probably doesn't exist yet and YES even if it did, it would be unfeasably expensive, but Fs9 was ( we all agree ) a fabulous game, and to improve on something like that means looking towards the future, not the present.
We all asked for things that Fs9 simply can't do. We all asked for levels of detail that would make your toes curl. We all asked for better ATC,better planes, better cockpits, better worldwide scenery, better weather, better flight dynamics, the ability to go into orbit..etc...and we GOT them.  Just because you currently don't own a machine worthy of playing them doesn't mean they shouldn't release the game to other simmers who do.
    That's like you demanding others shouldn't buy Ferrari's because you own a Fiat.  :P

 I remember Fs9 running like a slideshow on my system when I first got it, and despite it being four years old, I'm still improving it's performance to this very day via hardware and software fixes and downloading scenery..etc...  This is an amazing testiment to an 'old' game. All my other 4 year old games are gathering dust.
   FSX will be the same. Right now, FSX is like a caged animal , with so much to unleash. It is a future-proofed game because WE, the flightsimming community, demanded it. They've installed things into it that even the best PC's out there can't enable yet. But , in about a year's time, you'll be able to buy a 'mid-ranged' GTX8800 for about one third of what they're paying now. You'll probably by that time find a quad-core CPU in your system too sitting on a motherboard twice as good as the one you're currently using that you bought for a few Pounds/Euros/dollars...
   In other words, that dream rig you seek that you believe will cost you

[Bird-Nerd]

Right now I'm sticking woth FS9 until I can afford that Alienware Area 51 i have my eye on (that way I can play it at half detail)! since i'm petient [with fsx] I don't mind Five minutes of loading (compared with 5 seconds on fs9). but since I have to run it on an external hard drive it's all mushy looking! and plus theres not an incredible variety of FSX add ons at the moment (but there will be).