FS 9 or FSX

[Bob Reed]

Here is the question I am asking myself. SHould I switch to FSX now? Is it worth the switch? Keep in mind I have a lot of scenery for FS 9 that I would have to re buy or is not available for FSX. So if you went from FS 9 with a lot of add on scenery to FSX I want to hear what your thoughts are. I have the hardware to run FSX but it is all about the eye candy. Keep in mind the AC I am building will allow me to fly low and slow or high and fast so I will be doing both but probably won't spend a lot of time at 23k......

[727737Nut]

I would wait for MS Flight before buying FSX.  Just my .02 worth.  It looks to be more appealing and realistic scenery wise.

[XOrionFE]

FSX for sure

i have both fs9 and fsx loaded on my desktop sim.  the computer is an i7 920 with 6gig ram and a velociraptor drive.  9800 gt video card. 

for fs9 i have REX 2.0 and Ulimate Terrain.  some scenery like Hong Kong.   I primarily use it for the PMDG 737 but also have tried some ga planes.   It is decent and with Rex and utx not too bad.

That said, I have Fsx with REX, UTX, GEX, some of the Megascenery and Orbx PNW.  FS9?  no contest.  FSX blows it out of the water, especially with the addons.  Orbx is the cadillac.  I use various aircraft including Carenados Beech Baron and Cessna caravan as well as the Twin Otter (which is phenominal in the PNW Orbx scenery for bush flying).   I also use the PMDG JS 4100.   Recently added Active Sky which took it all to a whole new world of realism.

FSX all the way if you have a good computer.

my .o2

btw-  one of the more recent issues of Computer Pilot magazine covered the same question...maybe 3 issues ago.

Scott

[Bob Reed]

I would wait for MS Flight before buying FSX.  Just my .02 worth.  It looks to be more appealing and realistic scenery wise.

I don't have to buy them I own them. And I have heard that the new one will not cater to builders anyway it is going to be some sort of online thing. Only time will tell.

[matta757]

My beef with FSX is that they changed the AI Traffic interface and it is MUCH more difficult to deal with than FS9. I just got my comp upgraded "to the stars" and I'm sure I could run FSX nicely (not as nicely as FS9 I bet though) but without my AI traffic, flying wouldn't be nearly as fun or as realistic.

[XOrionFE]

Hey Matta,

I forgot to add that I also use Ultimate Traffic 2.    That gives tons of traffic control and very realistic AI traffic with tons of liveries depending on where you are based on real world flights and traffic patterns.   So yes, FSX traffic is crap but add Ultimate Traffic 2 and you'll be in heaven.    Also, again IMHO, sound quality in FSX is superior to FS9.   

Bob, load FSX on and try them both to decide.    There is no problem installing FSX on the same computer as FS9.   They dont intermingle.

Scott. 

[Bob Reed]

I think I have them both installed. There was another problem with FSX. I was a beta testor and for that I got a key for the release candidate. Last time I wanted to install iI could not find my key. So I contacted M$ and guess what, they told me they could not help me even thought they assigned the key through their website. So anyway the other day I was digging through some stuff and found my key. So all is well on that front.

[Kennair]

I'm with Scott all the way including all the suggested addons.  Once you're up and running you will be in immersion heaven compared to FS9.  Just be sure to follow Nick_N's tweaks and install guide no matter what sort of belly buster system you may have.  FSX is a pig to wrestle into submission but once done it well take your simming to whole new level.

However MS Flight does look promising both from an eye candy and hardware compatibility view.  The rumours of online only play may well be just that, rumours.  The end result could be a surprise to all, never the less install FS9, FSX and then later MSFlight and compare.

The only thing Bob that will be affected is the Aeroworx B200.  You may have to look for another aircraft model as its not FSX compatible.  The ISDT model I pointed to in another thread is an option however, and the B200 gauges do work in it.

Ken.

[Bob Reed]

Ken, I have run the Aeroworx B200 in FSX. Some of the gauges don't work is the only problem I found. But I will look at the other model you pointed to. Maybe what I will do is slowly migrate over to it as I get the add ons for it. It took me a long time to get all the add ons I have for FS 9 so it will take a while. The sound was something I had not thought of and you are right I know there is a lot better sound in FSX. Like I said I have run it I just didn't see a lot of reason to change. Thanks for your input folks.

[Bob Reed]

After some thought and re reading this thread I have made my decision at least for now. Every single one of the responses in this thread said to change but get this this and this add on. Well that was the actual question, I HAVE all those and then some add ons for FS9 and it looks real good to me. FS 9 is FLUID smooth on the ground or in the air no matter where I go or even if I have a couple of view windows open and I can not right now afford to buy add ons so I have decided to stay with FS 9 for now.

[jackpilot]

Hé Hé!

[Maurice]

Good for you Bob!!!  Although I like FSX better than FS9, my philosophy is changing more & more towards if you have something that works and you still like it, don't mess with it. It seems we are always looking for something better and I envy those who can be happy with what they have instead of continually chasing an elusive rainbow.

Enough philosophy for now 

Maurice

[Kennair]

Good choice Bob, at least until MSFlight is unveiled.  The BIG advantage in your case of course is that you will be able to use the Aeroworx B200 as your simulator!  You won't get much more real than that, and you're right, with all the available addons you can make FS9 look very sweet indeed.

Look forward to seeing the progress.

Ken.

[matta757]

Scott,

I see your point and it would seem your solution should satisfy, but my AI Traffic is based on current schedules for ALL of the US Carriers and most of the larger European carriers. So even though Ultimate Traffic is awesome, I still can't give up having all of the airlines and their real schedules on FS.

Matt

[Bob Reed]

If I am not mistaken, with ultimate traffic you can load schedules and aircraft and airports of your choosing. I am using the FS9 version. But I think you can modify the traffic until your heart is content in any way you would like.

[Maurice]

Scott,

I see your point and it would seem your solution should satisfy, but my AI Traffic is based on current schedules for ALL of the US Carriers and most of the larger European carriers. So even though Ultimate Traffic is awesome, I still can't give up having all of the airlines and their real schedules on FS.

Matt

I have to admit Matt that I cannot understand why this would ever matter. Unless you are able to fly with 100% traffic, you would never see all the flights anyway and if you did, you would be spending all your time waiting to take-off.
I use Traffic-X with FSX and with 100% traffic, I would be spending my life on the ground.

Besides, this is not real life so I also do not understand why real schedules matter at all instead of random traffic. BUT, everybody has their own way to enjoy flight simming and I certainly do not question your need to follow real schedules. I just do not understand that need much like I will never understand why some people need to climb mountains or why some people need to fly homemade simulators for that matter 

Maurice

[matta757]

Maurice,

I do run my traffic at 100% and yes, sometimes spend a fair bit of time awaiting takeoff. One of the reasons I enjoy having realistic traffic is because I also like spotting. I have been an airplane spotter longer than I have been an FS Pilot, and so to be able to fly out of my home airport and see realistic Delta traffic all around me is amazing. My best friend is one of the premier AI traffic flight plan writers, and his traffic is broken down so far as that he has different dynamics for different variants of aircraft depending on their destinations.

I will admit I am not familiar with Traffic-X or any of those addons or their capabilities, but I'd be surprised if they have the time and/or attention to detail of the flight plans that I have in place. And let me just state that I do not care so much about REAL SCHEDULES but about realistic flights. I don't want to go to Minneapolis and see an American 757 because they do not schedule flights with it to MSP in reality.

I always thought the point of FS was to create as realistic and environment as possible. Albeit, you might have your own limits to what reality you choose, but I feel like seeing realistic flights by the actual airlines using the proper equipment is a pretty neat view of realism. To that same effect, my friend and I over the years have created several fictional airlines that we both have incorporated into our traffic; so yes, not completely REAL but the planes that these airlines operate to specific airports follows how we had constructed these airlines many years ago.

I feel like I am going on and on, but I sort of felt the need to defend myself from being some crazy maniacal schedule freak, like that is the only piece I care about in FS. I may or may not have accomplished this, and in fact have probably made it worse!

Matt

[Bob Reed]

With ultimate traffic you can import your own stuff. Wen I say it is very configurable I mean it. Now, agin I am speaking of FS9's version only I have never even seen FSX's version.

[Maurice]

I feel like I am going on and on, but I sort of felt the need to defend myself from being some crazy maniacal schedule freak, like that is the only piece I care about in FS. I may or may not have accomplished this, and in fact have probably made it worse!

Matt

Matt, there was certainly no need to defend yourself & I certainly did not mean to attack you because your passion is different than mine. The world would be a very boring place if everyone had the same interests.

Just because I do not understand it does not make me right and you wrong. So, don't lose sleep over an innocent statement. In fact, I admire anyone who has a strong passion for anything even if I hate what they do, like mountain climbers for instance 

I am amazed though that you can run at 100% traffic. My system comes to a crawl if I try that with 3 undocked windows. I don't remember what your visuals are so are you running 3 windows as well or just one windows

Maurice

[XOrionFE]

Come on now.....everyone here knows we are all certifiable 

[matta757]

Hey Maurice,

You are right and I certainly didn't mean to come back defensive; I guess I just wanted to help everyone understand my passion!

I am running 3 monitors; 1 for visuals and then 2 undocked gauge sets on the other 2 monitors. In addition, I also have an MCP window open on the visuals monitor, plus the CDU FMS window which is not always open but when open is also on the visuals monitor.

Running all of this plus 100% traffic, I am still getting upwards of 30 FPS on the ground at almost all airports (except maybe JFK depending on what I am looking at) and 44-45 FPS in the air with full clouds (FPS locked at 45).

My new system is a BEAST and that's the only reason I am able to run so smoothly. Before I would get between 7-14 FPS at airports like JFK and ATL. The fluid motion now is soooo worth the money I put into upgrading my system. The people at Jetline Systems are awesome btw.

I will snap some screenshots and post so you can see my traffic situation. I might also add that on occasion, I will open another view window (small) in the upper corner of my visuals monitor and have a wing view to get the PAX perspective; doing so doesn't even put a dent in my FPS.

Matt

[Joe Lavery]

Maurice,
If you decide to venture into FSX territory it's worth dumping the beta you have and getting the accelerator pack. I was also on the beta and did the original review for PCP but that original version was loaded with all sorts of redundant code which was cleared out in the accelerator pack.
They also optimised the code at the same time so you should get much better results with it. 

Cheers
Joe.

[Maurice]

Maurice,
If you decide to venture into FSX territory it's worth dumping the beta you have and getting the accelerator pack. I was also on the beta and did the original review for PCP but that original version was loaded with all sorts of redundant code which was cleared out in the accelerator pack.
They also optimised the code at the same time so you should get much better results with it. 

Cheers
Joe.

Huh??? I have ventured into FSX since it first came out years agao  . I also use SP2 which I believe has the same benefits as the acceleration pack minus things like new planes/adventures etc.. which I don't need anyway.

Are you saying that the acceleration pack improves performance over SP2? I never hear that before but if it's true, I would certainly get it.

Thanks,
Maurice

[XOrionFE]

Just for the heck of it I tried FS9 today on my full sim.    Reason was I just loaded Fly Tampa Midway on my FSX install and man did it suck the life out of my setup.   Suddenly stuttering like crazy and totally unmanagable framerates.  Frames is more like it.   So out of frustration I decided to see how FS9 would be since I have it along with a lot of addon stuff.    I loaded FS9, REX2004, UTX, GEX, Active Sky, and the FS9 versiion of Fly Tampa Midway and went about reconfiguring visuals etc.    Although I havent quite got my 3 screen visual tweaked quite right yet I must say it is is very nice being able to load in under 30 seconds (most of the time under 15 sec!).    The scenery at Midway looks fantastic.    Sky looks perfect.     Frames at unlimited I am seeing over 100 fps on the ground at Midway with Fly Tampa Scenery!   I must say running FS9 on an i7965 like mine is pretty damn impressive.   I may just stay on it a while and see how it goes.    The only problem I am having right now is the sound.   It is ok one minute then terribly garbled with a lot of feedback the next.  Not sure what to do about that.     Sim-A seems to work ok so far with it.  I am using the Posky 738.  Again, more tweaking need there also.    Took a break after the sound started going south on me but may fire it back up tonight.   Suggestions appreciated....

Scott

[Maurice]

Very strange that Fly Tampa scenery would cause you so much grief. Don't you use Fly Tampa in Kaitak and isn't that one working OK? I have it for Kaitak & St-Maarten and they are both OK frame rate wise. Also, the install gives you 2 choices and one of them is more frame friendly than the other. Have you tried the frame friendly choice?

It seems to me that if the only FSX problem you have is Midway, I would forget about it instead of going back to FS9.  I don' t think you would be happier with FS9 in the long run and besides, MS Flight may change all this 'soon' anyway. Yeah right 

Maurice