I want to know if FSX is worth beacuse i'm thinking of getting it.
What are the good and bad bits about it.

Whats a "urber" computer? 

First off, you have to qualify what you mean by "worth getting"

If you mean you mean will you be able to experiment with it and watch it mature over the years with patches etec, than yes it is worth it, assuming you enjoy such things
You will then have to consider it a "work in progress."


On the other hand, if you expect it to run as well as FS9 in is's present state with todays  hardware, be prepared as you might be in for a disapointment.


My advise to you would be if you have the HDD space, get FSX to satistfy your curiosity and watch it mature, etc but, keep your install of FS9.... for the time being at least.


As far as what hardware is needed to run FSX approaching its full poptential (at least up to FS9 levels), no one fully knows yet.
I would suggest that you wait until VISTA is released (FSX wil take some advantage of it)  and see what kinds of hardware people are getting that will benifit FSX the most and upgrade acordingly.

If you just want better graphics, then NO, you don't need FSX, just be happy with FS9, because FSX requires too much power to be beautifull.

If you don't care about graphics and just need a simulator better than FS9, then YES, FSX is for you. Later, if you get some money to spend on your computer, you will even be able to upgrade to get better graphics as well

I just tried the FSX demo and now I can't play FS9 anymore   

Yes and no.  Regardless of all the performance problems, its FUN.  The missions are fun, the helicopters are great, and gliding is a blast.  But its a performance hog and doing anything besides the missions gets to be a PITA.  I like FSX, but I prefer FS9 for my commercial flying because then I can have a lot of good traffic and such, but if Im in the mood for some fun I go to FSX.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Dec 17^th, 2006 at 7:58pm:


I believe the above opinion is from a real pilot which also lends to the value in the software.


It comes down to if one must have massive visual scenery over functions. There are those who expect FSX to display visuals like FS9 on the same hardware and that is not going to happen, not by a long shot.

The term 'worth' is based on the person who may wish to try the software. If what you are after (right now) is frames and endless perfect scenery, stay with FS9 however if you are will to accept the limits of your hardware, run the sliders at what the hardware will run, plan to upgrade hardware and grow with FSX, then learning the new sim and how to work with it as time goes on, along with the perks and upgrades the software has to offer over FS9, may be 'worth' the investment.

You can also run both too.

If you have lots of Payware addons for Flight Simulator 9, don't get fsX. If you have a slow computer, don't get fsX. If you have a fast computer, no payware addons, jump right in. fsX is far superior than fs9 provided you can run it.

I wouldn't bother if you have a computer bellow the following:
AMD 3500+, Pentium 4 650
1-2gb RAM (Not sure)
X850XT

And with fsX, you MUST KNOW HOW TO OPTIMIZE IT AND YOUR SYSTEM!

Quote:

Ugh. No it isn't.

Multiplayer
Tower mode
Default planes are easily payware quality
Improved Flight Dynamics
Missions
100 000feet limit dropped (They changed the way the Earth is drawn enabling this)
Head latency effect
Improved view system (If you don't understand this don't comment)
Simconnect

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.