WHATS BETTER FS9 OR FSX?

Comments, Bugs, doubts, help or anything related.

Moderators: rd, mel wilson, gbesoain, Cat1, ricktobin, groundsquirrel, Insured Disaster, skipperdan

Post Reply
nisar
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:20 pm

WHATS BETTER FS9 OR FSX?

Post by nisar » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:14 pm

i know fsx is better but the thing is you cant get relistic planes on it
and some other stuff like fspassengers, so i want to know to whats ur opinion

User avatar
groundsquirrel
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:31 am
Location: Navarre,Florida-USA (KVPS,KHRT,KPNS)
Contact:

hmmph...

Post by groundsquirrel » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:04 am

My opinion doesnt matter because I doubt we have the same machines. Just to confuse you further, I like 'em both, I even like my 2k2 as it really blazes on the current machine and some of the more recent 2k2 addons are much better from the Fs9 experience with addon development. Once Richie Rich and his crewe get done with thrashing FSX and the recently arrived Dx10, thereby generating all the fixes, I might consider putting out some hardware dollars. Until then, I gots what I gots, and thats alright wit' me :D
Gravity ... it's an Earth thing.

User avatar
capt.PropwashKCHS
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: KCHS, Charletson, South Carolina
Contact:

Post by capt.PropwashKCHS » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:12 am

at the moment, for aircraft that is offered as addons, scenery packages, and other helpful programs:: FSPassengers, FSNet, FSNavigator, ATC RadarScreen5, ActiveSky6 ?, the list goes on, and on, and on, and on. So at the moment, FS2004: A century of flight, is better than FSX Deluxe.

However.... once ALL of the addons start catching up to FSX, and people can go out and get that VISTA already installed with DXX (DX10), then I will have to speculate that FSX will greatly surpass FS9 not only in scenery design, but aircraft and available addons.

just my 1/2 cent, so take it with a grain of salt.
Dell Inspiron 2200 Laptop
WINXP Home (sp3)
Intel Celeron M -- Processor x86 Family 6 Model 13 Stepping 8 GenuineIntel ~1396 Mhz
Total Physical Memory 1,280.00 MB
Video: Name Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Sound: SigmaTel C-Major Audio

User avatar
King OF air350
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:31 am
Location: Butler Co/Scholter (KBTP)
Contact:

Post by King OF air350 » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:36 am

capt.PropwashKCHS wrote:at the moment, for aircraft that is offered as addons, scenery packages, and other helpful programs:: FSPassengers, FSNet, FSNavigator, ATC RadarScreen5, ActiveSky6 ?, the list goes on, and on, and on, and on. So at the moment, FS2004: A century of flight, is better than FSX Deluxe.

However.... once ALL of the addons start catching up to FSX, and people can go out and get that VISTA already installed with DXX (DX10), then I will have to speculate that FSX will greatly surpass FS9 not only in scenery design, but aircraft and available addons.

just my 1/2 cent, so take it with a grain of salt.
good call.


Also, as GS pointed out, FS9 doesnt necessarily take a supercomputer to run. I have a 100% stock dell from a year ago, and FS9 runs alright with most addons that i use.

Sure, FSX has some bells and whistles, but with some addons, i can get the same things on fs9 (overhead panel, GPWS, etc.)

User avatar
bromster
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:04 am
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Sightseeing

Post by bromster » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:14 am

It all depends on whether you want to fly, or do some sightseeing.
Attachments
sightseeing.JPG
I can sqeeze up to 11 FPS on MAX MAX MAX detail in the alps (on an average PC, 6600GT 128MB), because there are no buildings.

TJ33
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Phoenix

Post by TJ33 » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:20 pm

Yeah. FS9 is far better for serious flying. The biggest FSX bug is the lack of saving a flight. Without that FSX is just a silly game...


Forget upgrading an older XP machine to Vista. Some XP versions cannot be upgraded to some Vista levels. You have got to be very careful on what fits what.. Otherwise you can be stuck with an unusable Vista upgrade that cannot be returned when the package seal is broken...

The gamers are reporting that Vista is slower than XP Pro. Vista has a very high overhead...

Although, I have noticed several third part vendors are starting to crank out FSX aircraft and making the add on programs FSX compatible.

Things are moving forward... High end computers are starting to come down in price... More DX10 video cards are coming out at cheaper prices.

When Vista SP2 comes out and FSX SP4 comes out, then I will take a hard look at it....

Tj

User avatar
bromster
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:04 am
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Surprise Surprise

Post by bromster » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:52 pm

I can't believe people ACTUALLY thought that Vista would run better than XP. Remember the jump from Windows 98/2000/ME to Windows XP? What a HUGE difference in gaming performance... now Vista is even "BIGGER and BETTER" and as a result ...even MORE of a memory hog! Sure it looks pretty and the UI is great, but Microsoft know that Vista has to last many many years. That's why (like FSX), it's built to "run" on present day PC's but it's been optimised for systems of the future.

As for saving flights, I can save and load flights without any trouble at all. It even loads the AI aircraft that were there when you saved it. I saved my flight on finals because there was traffic ahead of me and I would've had to do a Go-Around. Then I loaded again, hoping that he would be gone but to my utter dismay, he was still there! :cry:

tomcatdriver2006
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:50 am
Location: KMCK

FSX / FS9

Post by tomcatdriver2006 » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:14 pm

I downloaded the demo, added the carrier-demo, maxed out my oc nVidia FX5200/128MbDDR, get 6-7 fps with max sets, flies, ok, Fraps ok, Music OK, then med sets, got 10-12, low sets to fly: 15-18. I beat them at their own game HA! I love XML!

I now have the scenery sets (FSX) for Puerto Rico. WHY pay for something you can addon for free! What about the timed program runs like in the demo? I never fly more than the demo limit anyway. The demo allws saved flights, nand all th eothe rstuff except multi online , I THINK??

Well with my normal routine, I spend more time researching ways to find a life raft for me than fly. If I can get 10 minutes a day on my DEMO, & 1 hour on FS9, I am happy. I am happy just shootin' traps.

My G-card is old but works ok for me now. I refuse to drop 630 bucks, 1.5x higher than my house RIGHT NOW to SEE A GAME show me NOAH's ARK & passengers!

BUT I KNOW I WILL GET FSX DELUXE AS THE PRICE DROPS. I like new stuff too.

Now I am a Carribean Land Developer! HA! FOR FREE!

Why are those VORS showing on land in the wire frame lines of the map in the demo FSX? To put a scenery on it I thought, a little tweaking goes a long way. FOR FREE!

Not for all of us this plan be, it will satisfy probably only me.
LOL.

Good Day,
Steve
Tomcat Driver 8) :lol:
Attachments
BklynBrdgPwrFlt.jpg
Heroes in the sky! Brooklyn Bridge NYC, NEW YORK, USA
PwrFlt_Liberty.jpg
Power Formation over Statue Of Liberty...

TJ33
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Phoenix

Post by TJ33 » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:00 pm

Thanks tomcat for the feedback. I read the not saving flights in FSX in Computer Pilot magazine review of FSX.. Hummm I wonder what the guy was talking about????

How about a comparison review between FS9 and FSX from the prospective of an experienced Simmer???? Be sure to mention the OP system and graphics card...


In the meantime, I am testing the new Abacus EZ GPS4 gauge(fsx and FS9). So far pretty good. Lots of Nav information and you can easily select nav points as destinations, and a good TCAS. Seems to have some minor compatibility problems with other addon gauges.

Tj

User avatar
pingponggame
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:09 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Where to begin....hmmm

Post by pingponggame » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:46 am

Well lets see... My opinion will probably make people from MS cry...or throw their game disks at my head. Anyways...

Considering the Landclass scenery for most major airports is missing...the airports in fsx look like crud, mainly because they do not blend into the surrounding autogen. So thats a no-go. Not to mention that 3rd party scenery developers like flytampa, Imaginesim, blah blah blah are having a hell of a time developing for fsx. Which kind of brings the fun to the game. Having detailed airports to fly into.

Umm, the framerate issue really puts peoples computers to shame. Yea I understand it takes a top-notch system, but I have a top-notch system and still dont get results that are favorable. So...I guess in the long-run I'm sticking with fs9. Too many addons I want to stick with, plus the frames in fs9 are great. Besides, who really cares about flying birds and giraffes loafing around in africa? Is it an important asset to the game, or is it just taking up valuable framerates and HD space? The game could really use a new engine. The current engine is many years old and could be well improved with a little more focus. Well anyway, I personally dont think fsx lived up to what I thought would be a next-gen flight sim. To many flaws, to little fps, to much extra detail on un-needed items. But its cool, I dont need all that junk to still be a happy simmer. Fs9 suits me just fine. I really think MS can offer much more, but its all about business. If they make it the best they can, what will they provide in 2 years? They will have done it all, already. But hey, what do I know?

Well you asked, so I told. Have a good day.







p.s. Whew, its been awhile since I've been here. Hope all is well with everyone? :)

EDIT By Ardie/RD: Good seeing you again....Hope all is well at your end also.
Image
ImagePingImage

tomcatdriver2006
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:50 am
Location: KMCK

rt on well said, same here basically

Post by tomcatdriver2006 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:57 pm

nice post! really like your similar logic. I think along the same linest

I hope msft can get it together and make it work . T

hey have plenty of my bucks to help them . HA!

Love those POM POMS!
8)

User avatar
Ron_Palmer
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA 94110

Re: WHATS BETTER FS9 OR FSX?

Post by Ron_Palmer » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:47 pm

nisar wrote:i know fsx is better but the thing is you cant get relistic planes on it
and some other stuff like fspassengers, so i want to know to whats ur opinion
I have FS2004 (FS9) and tested the FSX demo. Since I run FS9 with all visual options on max I didn't saw too much improvements (despite the fact that FSX uses ten times more disk space and the running elephants in Africa ;-)) )

nisar
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:20 pm

Re: WHATS BETTER FS9 OR FSX?

Post by nisar » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:22 pm

Ron_Palmer wrote:
nisar wrote:i know fsx is better but the thing is you cant get relistic planes on it
and some other stuff like fspassengers, so i want to know to whats ur opinion
I have FS2004 (FS9) and tested the FSX demo. Since I run FS9 with all visual options on max I didn't saw too much improvements (despite the fact that FSX uses ten times more disk space and the running elephants in Africa ;-)) )
i know thats why i would preffere flight sim 9

pirabee
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: Calabar, DNCA

Post by pirabee » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:31 pm

Hi gang,

Im here!!!! Nice to be unleashed into a crowd of MSFS9 enthusiasts.Makes me feel like a cat let loose amongst pigeons.But I promise not to make a nuisance of myself.I mean from my poor grasp so far of computer lingo and such stuff. I just love to step into my desktop cockpit,push forward my thrust levers and pull up into the clouds.

Yup, the talk here was on comparing the new boy on the block (FSX) with old faithful (FS9). Waal, Ive got the X in my drawer right now and still unloaded into my system after 3 months of purchase. Reason? My system says it cant run it.I've got a P4 with 2.8ghz and 80 gigs of space but with a graphics card straight out of the Ark.I'll get the name and post it soon as I can.

So, though I cant really say much on the X, I think MS should reconsider the one pc-only idea.With FS9 I had all my systems (home and at work) vibrating with the sound of revving aero engines.The confinement to just one pc will be quite a bind.

User avatar
mel wilson
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Stowmarket, Suffolk.
Contact:

Post by mel wilson » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:21 pm

TJ33 wrote:Yeah. FS9 is far better for serious flying. The biggest FSX bug is the lack of saving a flight. Without that FSX is just a silly game...

Tj
I dont quite get this, what do you mean about the Lack of saving a flight. it's all there, and more..... And remember, MS developed FSX to run far into the future, PC's will catch up sooner or later, what would you have them do, bring out a new flight sim every other year, so you can spend more money ! I know where my eggs are.. :lol:

Mel.

User avatar
capt.PropwashKCHS
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: KCHS, Charletson, South Carolina
Contact:

Post by capt.PropwashKCHS » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:42 pm

Pirabee Wrote::
So, though I cant really say much on the X, I think MS should reconsider the one pc-only idea.With FS9 I had all my systems (home and at work) vibrating with the sound of revving aero engines.The confinement to just one pc will be quite a bind.
actually, it can be registered to 2 computers at the same time (shared) between you and 1 of your other computers, or you and a friend? or however you want to come up with 2 computers. give me just a few days to come up with the link to where I found it.
Dell Inspiron 2200 Laptop
WINXP Home (sp3)
Intel Celeron M -- Processor x86 Family 6 Model 13 Stepping 8 GenuineIntel ~1396 Mhz
Total Physical Memory 1,280.00 MB
Video: Name Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Sound: SigmaTel C-Major Audio

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:58 am

You can only install FSX twice, and have it registered. That means that you can have it on two computers. Anything more than that, then you will need to contact MS as to how to get new registration keys, to unlock it for more than 30 minutes (???).

So, becareful of where you want to install it. Even if you build a new system, and use the same ISP, not IP, you can still install it without losing the second possible install.

RD


2001...............LATER
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

Post Reply