Simviation Forum - FS9 vs FSX

Reply #15 - Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 8:41pm

Crussell Offline
Colonel
SimV<3
Milton Keynes, England

Gender:
Posts: 390

FS9 is the safer option if you don't have the greatest comp or the money to risk getting FSX.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 9:31pm

PsychoDiablo Offline
Colonel
Waddell Arizona

Gender:
Posts: 651

FS9 at the moment

&& &&"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." - General Macarthur

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 10:41pm

An-225 Ex Member

Ugh...people just face it, FSX IS better. Default FSX with no add ons looks like FS9 loaded with all the best payware products out there. Yes, the performance is crap, because it was designed to run on tomorrows hardware. If you want your frames, for now, FS9 is the way to go. But if you want more features, capabilities etc. FSX is the way to go. Just look at all the new features it has brought to the table, default.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Sep 4^th, 2007 at 5:50am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

FSX and ive only played the demo of it (versus getting FS9 in like 2004 and playing it since then)

why?

missions... it adds practise, excitement and makes the game seem less 'ooh you just fly a plane, how boring'
graphics... they look great. no addon ive seen so far for FS9 has made them look as good
runnng speed... i get some better performance on FSX (without the running speed download addon thing which makes it even quicker) than FS9 when they are at about equal settings

its just all over better and i havent played the most of it yet

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Sep 4^th, 2007 at 8:13am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

As an owner of both FSX and FS 2004, and one of the merry band of daily Multiplayer flyers, I find that in all the various Flight Sim Sites, that FS 2002 and FS 2004 are still the most popular Programs for on-line flying.. Wink

...!
...for whatever reason..

F....G-BPLF... Cool

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Sep 4^th, 2007 at 9:22am

fabian_e Ex Member

I'm undescided / can't give a vote.

I use FSX for GA and FS9 for my heavies.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Sep 22^nd, 2007 at 11:10am

Mazza Offline
Colonel
:D
Melbourne, Australia.

Gender:
Posts: 3184

I have used 2002,2004 and fsx...and my choice is fs9 because it has good graphics(i'm playing 2002) and as u guys brought up u need a supercom to play fsx( i downloaded the demo put on low graphics couldn't get 20fps out of it) anyways i have played fs9 on my friends com( he has the same sytem as me expet for ram my is 500mb his in 1g luckly i'm getting fs9 for my b-bay

)

Sunset Chasing...RULES

AMD 9550 2.43 X4 - 2Gb RAM 800Mhz DDRII - Asus 4670
Corsair TX-750W

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Sep 22^nd, 2007 at 1:20pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Brett_Henderson wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 9:13am:

A very good FSX machine can be built for under $2500US..

Brett,

With all due respect, that's a LOT of disposable income to dispose of. Shocked

And that is in US dollars. For some people in other countries, that is a significant portion of their entire annual income. (Actually for some people in the world....... it is an astronomically huge figure representing multiple year's worth of total income.)

Those of us who can afford to own computers and play with the sim and surf the web need to take a moment and realize how fortunate and blessed we actually are.

best,

......................john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Sep 22^nd, 2007 at 1:44pm

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

Brett_Henderson wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 9:13am:

......A very good FSX machine can be built for under $2500US....

Blimey!.....that's nearly four months total Old Age Pension income for me... Shocked

...!

I build mine bit by bit, over a period of years... Wink

...!

F....Food comes first...Flight Sims way down the list of priorities!...

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Sep 23^rd, 2007 at 2:19am

Ashar Offline
Colonel
Ottawa, Ontario

Gender:
Posts: 4485

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that MS has made FSX into more of a game rather than an actual sim...Do we really need missions in FSX? Fine, the cars and all are good looking, but rather pointless to me...I'd rather spend time up in the air than on the ground...I'm not saying FSX is useless...I do understand that's it's better than FS9 by leaps and bounds, but to me, the actual Simulator died out with FS9...I don't want my simulator to be a "game"... Roll Eyes

Blabbing Away at SimV Since June 8, 2004

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Oct 5^th, 2007 at 6:01am

Mazza Offline
Colonel
:D
Melbourne, Australia.

Gender:
Posts: 3184

FlightSimKid wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 11:13am:

Well, im going to go with FS9, it was a hard choice because ive played both but the reason why im picking FS9 is because, you don't need a super computer to run it on. Second, because its possible to get all the Ground Crew, Fuel tanks, Jetways ect ect, by addons, i have thousands of addons, to make FS9 "better" and it can still be improved, im hopfully getting a new computer soon, so when i do, my graphics will be much better and textures improved, the only thing that let it down for me was, Space Flight which in FSX is possible, but other than that i think FS2004 is better.

And in fs2002 from camsim(go camsim Wink

)

Sunset Chasing...RULES

AMD 9550 2.43 X4 - 2Gb RAM 800Mhz DDRII - Asus 4670
Corsair TX-750W

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Oct 5^th, 2007 at 6:22am

An-225 Ex Member

Ashar wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2007 at 2:19am:

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that MS has made FSX into more of a game rather than an actual sim...Do we really need missions in FSX? Fine, the cars and all are good looking, but rather pointless to me...I'd rather spend time up in the air than on the ground...I'm not saying FSX is useless...I do understand that's it's better than FS9 by leaps and bounds, but to me, the actual Simulator died out with FS9...I don't want my simulator to be a "game"... Roll Eyes

I see what you are saying here Ashar, however, it is not exactly a game. Wink

MS has FAR from made FSX into a game. It is not like FSX has become *Fox two, Fox two! Mig-28s are down!* and when you complete the mission, you get a *Well done, high score, enter your initials*. No, rather, the missions are there to show you new features in FSX. The scripting possibilities (flour bombs, human voice, waypoints that are triggered on certain conditions, so that you know if you are flying the mission properly etc), the graphics (in several scenic flights, you tour parts of the world so that you can see the graphical improvement), the aircraft and several other similar things. It also offers more chances for complex add-ons (PMDG MD-11, CS C-130 and 727 etc) with more chances to code aircraft specific items (FBW etc) and checklists into the plane. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Oct 5^th, 2007 at 7:27am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

JBaymore wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2007 at 1:20pm:

Brett_Henderson wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 9:13am:

A very good FSX machine can be built for under $2500US..

Brett,

With all due respect, that's a LOT of disposable income to dispose of. Shocked

And that is in US dollars. For some people in other countries, that is a significant portion of their entire annual income. (Actually for some people in the world....... it is an astronomically huge figure representing multiple year's worth of total income.)

Those of us who can afford to own computers and play with the sim and surf the web need to take a moment and realize how fortunate and blessed we actually are.

best,

......................john

Sorry.. I don't check this section of the forums often... Someone bumped it up so I'm late responding.

Yes, $2,500 is alot of money, but it's about average for a new gaming computer.

Heck.. I paid $4,000 for an IBM PC back in 1981. It was 0.004GHZ / 0.0005GB of RAM / 0.01GB HDD..

Circa 1996, a Monster Gaming computer ( 233MHZ / 64MB of RAM / 16MB Voodoo V-card ) was a good $4,000, too..

Now we get 100 times the computer for half the money (way less than 1/2 when you adjust for inflation)..

Gaming has never been less expensive, and when you relate the amount of entertainment you get over a period of even just a couple years, $2500 is not much at all.... ESPECIALLY when you consider that gaming isn't the only use for the computer.

Staying on the cutting edge is silly expensive... but planning on spending $2,500 every three years or so on hardware to keep you where software like FSX can be enjoyed is a relatively inexpensive hobby... It works out to about $2.30 / day. Even if you double that to allow for add-ons, yokes/pedals/joysticks and unexpected repairs/breakage, it's still a VERY inexpensive hobby. I can't think of anything that would give me the same level of enjoyment; day in, day out; month after month for $4.60 per day.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Oct 5^th, 2007 at 7:38am

An-225 Ex Member

Brett_Henderson wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 7:27am:

Sorry.. I don't check this section of the forums often... Someone bumped it up so I'm late responding.

Yes, $2,500 is alot of money, but it's about average for a new gaming computer.

Heck.. I paid $4,000 for an IBM PC back in 1981. It was 0.004GHZ / 0.0005GB of RAM / 0.01GB HDD..

Circa 1996, a Monster Gaming computer ( 233MHZ / 64MB of RAM / 16MB Voodoo V-card ) was a good $4,000, too..

Sell it in the year 2020, its an antique by then, est. 500 000 back into your bank account, leave it there for another five years, collect interest, instant million, enjoy. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: