FS9 V FSX

[vhbob]

G'Day All
I hesitated to start this thread as it is a bit of a hobby horse on my part, but here goes. After the untimely death of my computer, it seemed like a good time to tackle FSX. Armed with a copy of FSX "Delux Edition" (the only one I could find) I headed to the computer shop and asked about a system "to run this with room to spare" and came away with a boot load of boxes and the promise that NASA would be envious of this set up. I eagerly installed the sim and noticed the improvement in the scenery, the moving road traffic etc. So far so good. The default aircraft textures, however were terrible. A quick check on the web and numerous hours of download time produced replacements in the same schemes, and you still
cant operate the cowl flaps in the DC-3 any better than you could in FS9.
In fact a Bonanza and an Antonov download consisted of only the pilots on their seats and nothing else in spot view and just the instruments floating in space with a ghostly out line of the windscreen in VC. Shades of wonder Woman's invisible plane. This ,the experts said was because I didn't have SP 2. I downloaded SP (110 meg on dial up) and couldn't install it as I didn't have SP 1 (69 meg) installed already. Adding the two service packs fixed the "stealth" problem but now I am told I need "Accelleration", another 80 bucks, and that this includes the previously downloaded SP 2. My mate has it but I cant use his as it is registered to his conputer and it is reccomended to add all this to a green version of FSX. For the sake of more complex scenery, a fuel truck that dosen't always turn up and a glider tug , is it worth it or am I too hard to please?. Most of the FSX aircraft seem to me no improvement over those available for FS9. Are the developers taking full advantave of this new sim?. Many still proudly boast "no V.C.", come on guys this is the 21st century. Sorry if this is a bit of a whinge, but I feel better now.

Thanks again Trev. (vhbob)

[pung]

The good - FSX will give you better and more detailed scenery, and offer some extra animations. The bad--The aircraft isn't all that much better, the scenery is much harder to work with, it doesn't seem as adaptable with CalClassic add-ons, and requires a lot more computer to accomplish the same as FS9. And personally I don't think the aircraft feels as real as FS9. I've heard that FSX is more of a video game than a simulator.

[reichfur]

I have both , and much prefer fs9 . I installed FSX and fiddled with it for hours , trying to get it as close to my FS9 set up as possible . Having no luck , I have uninstalled it and haven't looked back ! I also feel like FSX was more arcade than a simulation ...

[Tom/CalClassic]

Hi,

You will get varying opinions on this question - there is no one right answer. For me, FSX is best when you are low and slow, and when you are flying on water. FS9 is best when you want complex scenery, lots of AI and very fluid frame rates.

And indeed the CalClassic scenery is not FSX compatible. For the most part all that would be required would be a new ground polygon created in ADE, but no one has done that yet.

[sunny9850]

IF I could find a way to "copy" the FSX wet or snowy runways and aprons along with their blowing snow / water effects into FS9 the old sim in my opinion would indeed be perfect.

Like Tom said everyone will have their own way to look at things along with a personal set of priorities.
For example the FSX ATC is just too dang slow for me and as far as I know can't be accelerated by EditVoicePack or similar. And that alone is enough to drive me bonkers.

I hardly ever fly default airplanes in either sim so the question then becomes whether or not my favorites from FS9 work in FSX. Most do but with slight differences.

Finally another crucial point is the addon sceneries that I have come to "need to have" and most of those just are not compatible with the newer sim.

So for me it's basically FS9 until further notice with the occasional forray into FSX to check an aircraft or like Tom mentioned a low and slow VFR trip to nowhere.

Stefan

[vhbob]

G'Day All
Thanks for your input, I might have expected too much from FSX after such a long wait and therefore been a bit too critical but it is good to know that it wasn't just me. I think Stefan hit the nail on the head saying that if he could transfer parts of it to FS9 he would be happy with that. So I will wait and see what the future brings and meanwhile I know of a shop that has a copy of 2004 in a sealed box. I think I will buy it and keep it as a back up. It is a scarey thought that we are dependant on the product of one company (X plane excluded) to persue our hobby. (Who said obsession).

Thanks again Trev. (vhbob)

[pung]

The good thing is that with all of the additions added to the original FS2004, it is a far cry from where it started. Better computers, newer scenery and aircraft, have allowed this program to expand. My FS2004 with all of it's improvements is every bit as enjoyable to fly, and to view, as FSX with it's limitations. PS: I do have FSX, but like Tom has stated, it's for slow and low flying (like Teluride, CO), as opposed the high and fast of city to city. I have 4 variables of FS2004 and 1 FSX, so I end up with a variation for whatever mood I'm in. PPS: A sightseeing flight around Oahu with FSX is worth checking out.

[coenraad]

I run FSX, and i do not remember muh of my time with FS9 as it was never much in my focus.
I like and hate FSX. I like the eyecandy, but i hate the performance. I often go below 20fps, and to around 10 in very heavy weather or when flying over huge places like Tokyo. The reason that i still fly FSX is becourse i am on a nice server with people that are quite allright. And i just don't want to leave those.

[stansdds]

I too have mixed feelings. I spent many hours in FS9 and now in FSX. I do like the enhanced scenery and animation features in FSX, but FSX requires a lot of computer power to make it run and look nice. FS9 requires far less computer power, but to get FS9 to look as nice as FSX you will likely be buying scenery and terrain packages. FS9 still wins when it comes to add on aircraft, both payware and freeware. That being said, I now spend my flight time in FSX simply because the terrain and scenery are better than in FS9.