2004 v FSX

[chiptas]

Just a few shots to compare same aircraft, same time same real world weather all settings at max
Will do some close ups tomorrow

2004


2004


2004


FSX


FSX


FSX

[F3Hadlow]

It would be nice if you labelled which ones were from each sim...

[ATI_7500]

It would be nice if you labelled which ones were from each sim...

First three are from FS9, the rest is from FSX.

The visual difference is more than apparent.

[EGNX]

It would be nice if you labelled which ones were from each sim...

And the difference in FPS

[alrot]

FSX +1

[Katahu]

It would be best to post what you system specs are and how many frames per second you're getting in each shot. That way, most of us can make a sound decision on what to upgrade on. It is recommended that you use Fraps to post the frame rate label so that people can be more convinced.

[F3Hadlow]

It would be nice if you labelled which ones were from each sim...

First three are from FS9, the rest is from FSX.

The visual difference is more than apparent.

Not to me, I really don't know enough about FS to judge from looking at a few screenies!

[ATI_7500]

The most significant and eye jumping differences between FSX and FS9 are the more colourful and better looking sourroundings and of course the increased number of autogen.

[krigl]

Sorry to be negative, but guys, the first three are miles from the plane and with a grey sky.

The second three are closer up on the plane and with a blue sky. Naturally, they look better. If you took the opposite approach with FSX and FS9 you'd probably like the FS9 pics more.

These pictures show very little by way of comparison of graphics. Good marketing idea though - do you work for MS, Chiptas?

[ATI_7500]

Many areas in FSX look terrible compared to even default FS9. Deserts in Europe, etc. Other areas which have recieved special work or add-ons show FSX's graphic potential - they look amazing.

A good FS9 landclass and Adam Mill's textures solve most of that.

[chiptas]

Thought that the difference was pretty obvious, system specs are right there if you look hard enough, having lived in manchester the real world weather depicted by FS9 is probably closer to the truth didnt see alot of days like the one in FSX maybe ill do this again with more detail ie frames etc just thought it would be an interesting experiment.Krigil if you read the post it says i will do close ups latter, how can you get any idea of the scenery if your sitting on the planes wing?

[krigl]

Thought that the difference was pretty obvious, system specs are right there if you look hard enough, having lived in manchester the real world weather depicted by FS9 is probably closer to the truth didnt see alot of days like the one in FSX maybe ill do this again with more detail ie frames etc just thought it would be an interesting experiment.Krigil if you read the post it says i will do close ups latter, how can you get any idea of the scenery if your sitting on the planes wing?

Right... if you read my post again you would see the point I'm making is....

First 3, grey, far from plane.
Second 3 - full of colour, closer to plane. Grey pics with small aircraft don't look very nice. Therefore the second 3 look better not because FSX looks better but because they are better pictures. Pic 4 looks like a normal shot that one would post for example. It's nice.

If you want to compare things the pics should be (as close as possible to being) the SAME. I.e. same airport/city/location, same position, same distance from plane and same weather - instead of using real world weather, use plain blue sky or a simple weather theme for both..

As with all 'before and after' shots that people post, the unconscious desire to show off the new thing at its best, and the lack of interest in the tired old product produces such results i.e. they don't show very much. You could show a really awful European desert airport in FSX, and then the freeware FS9 Boston Logan and say 'look at the difference FSX is rubbish' to prove the point that upgrading to FSX is a waste of time, if you wanted.

Fact is, as said a million times, FS9 default looks terrible compared to FS9 with add-ons. There are many more add-ons for FS9 right now. And much of DEFAULT FSX looks possibly worse than default FS9, so generally, I'd say FS9 is still the 'better' sim graphically on a global scale, overall, especially if your hardware isn't cutting edge. But one day FSX will be 'better' and that day is drawing nearer of course. Already you can see many posts showing off FSX at it's best (or best attainable now). Certain enhanced areas, light bloom, birds, sparkly water etc....

...so these shots are interesting, but not all that useful if you want to compare FS9 and FSX. Show FS9 at its best and FSX at its best. Or worst and worst. Show the same airport, the same city. That could be interesting...

...nice idea mate, and please don't think I'm attacking you or something!!! I've just seen one 'before and after' thread too many I guess...

Regards

Krigl

[chiptas]

Ok krig no worries mate i was just trying to show some people who havnt seen fsx yet some differences i didnt put a lot of time into it and was trying to get everything exactly the same and got a bit impatient with the zoom. (By the way does anyone know how to make the red writting showing your zoom level disapear quicker its anoying.)Also limited by the amount of shots ie 500k. Will try harder next time.

[krigl]

Ok krig no worries mate i was just trying to show some people who havnt seen fsx yet some differences i didnt put a lot of time into it and was trying to get everything exactly the same and got a bit impatient with the zoom. (By the way does anyone know how to make the red writting showing your zoom level disapear quicker its anoying.)Also limited by the amount of shots ie 500k. Will try harder next time.

I'll try and keep myself under control next time!  

[masmith]

Nice

I wish I had FSX, well I do but....at 1FPS