stevehookem wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 10:33am:


Wow Steve....... I'd need to write a book to answer all of that fully!  

There should be NO problems with either FSX or FS9 with the Ellie stuff.

As to the FSX  versus FS9 bit....... spend some time reading around the forums for a LOT of opinions on that whole can of worms.  From my point of view, Microsoft did not add things in FSX that were all that important to me from the "increase the reality" point of view when one is using a simpit.  

As to the "reason" we have FSX now.......... well.... first and foremost...... Microsoft has to make money.    heh heh heh

What they did add........ mainly graphical improvements...... requires so much computer firepower to get smooth operation (when those improvements are actually displayed) that the upgrade to a honking whopper of a machine at this time is not practical for me.

To me smooth and fast framerates and "flayability" are preferable to a bit of an increase in tha accuracy of the "out the windscreen" view.  I already have the best "virtual cockpit" there is... a real cockpit around me.  Plus since I am using projection for the windscreen view...... unless I spend a fortune on a higher resolution projector I won't really be able to SEE the graphical improvements anyway.

Are the graphics "worse" in FS9 than FSX.  YES!  But... and that is a BIG "but"...... unless you are NickN..... you likely can't afford or set up a machine that allows you to actually USE the graphics possibilities that FSX offers.  I find that most people's FSX screenshots look WORSE to me than the BEST of the fs9 screenshots.  That's because they have lots of stuff turned off so that they can actually fly........ not just see a slide show.

Most cockpit builders are using external to the sim avionics... like the Ellie stuff... so the FSX offerings make no difference there either.

The benefit of FS9 over FSX to me is the fast framerates possible with lower quality hardware.  With a machine that barely boots FSX.... you can scream withFS9.  Running similar hardware with FSX as the stuff for FS9 requires turning so much stuff "off" in the FSX settings that you might has well have FS98.  

As to getting the best that FS9 has to offer, there is a scad of payware that improves it to "near-FSX quality" in many ways.  Stuff like FSGenesis mesh, Ground Environment Pro, Flight Environment, ActiveSky 6.5, Real ATIS, Aerosoft AES services, and so on are FS( must-haves.  Even when you add the cost of a LOT of payware to FS9........ you are spending WAY less $$$$ than what you'd need to upgrade to a decent FSX machine.

I think most cockpits are still on FS9 is that fact that most who build simulated cockpits are using commercial AT aircraft.  The high and fast crowd rather than low and slow.  We are interested a lot in accurate procedures and accurate performance..... and less so on graphics.  We don't NEED the shiny new FSX virtual cockpits and reflections of rivets on the aircraft.... because we have a REAL physical cockpit... and we tend to fly only using the "out the windscreen" view.... not looking at the world and the aircraft from the outside.  We look out our "windows" to see that the real pilot would see.

There is also the COST of simpits.  We'd rather spend the $$$ on tangible parts for the pit than for a "base machine" that will run FSX well.

SO that is a start on your answers.  I have to go teach one of my college classes in a few minutes.  Maybe more later.  Hope this helps.

best,

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

Steve,

FSGenesis terrain mesh including the lo-rez buffer mesh for the whole world.

Flight Environment (mainly for the clouds and water textures)

Ground Environment Pro

ActiveSky 6.5  (keep the Flight Environment clouds)

Every airport by FlyTampa

Other payware airports that offer AES (see below)

Aerosoft AES services  (best fs9 add on there is)

RealATIS


best,

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


PS:  Hum... if he REALLY likes the virtual cockpits.... will he really like flying out of a simpit?

Great info!

He doesn't fly anything but airliners. However, long hauls at FL350 don't happen much either. He likes to explore new airports, getting pushed from the gate, taxiing out taking off, flying around some and then landing again.

I know that when I watch him fly, the scenery is always a big part.

With the new simpit he is getting for Christmas, all the instruments will be on 2-17" monitors and he will have several hard button instruments as well. The outside view is 3-22" monitors using TripleHead2Go.

Can FS9 and FSX peacefully co-exist if I want to give it a go? I cannot mess up anything he has running now! It is flying very well but I'd like to see the difference.

Steve,

I'm pretty sure that you can put any number of the different sims on your PC without any problems as they all exist in separate folders. I ran FS2002 and FS9 side-by-side for a while before I retired FS2002. Ask in the FSX forum if you want to be sure.

Your son's a lucky guy to be getting what he's getting - and lucky that his dad's got the bug too! My son's much more interested in fast car games and 'Dawn of War'-type stuff. 

For taking off and landing again, the new Posky CRJ700 is very nice-looking: it's got an animated pushback truck that swivels when the plane turns; very cool. You might need to tweak the flight dynamics though, it's a little too fierce on takeoff, for one thing.

OK, we loaded FS9 and took it for a flight. I have everything turned up as high as possible. It doesn't look nearly as detailed as FSX to me. We are getting 85-100fps so I locked it down to 75fps. At JFK, for example, FS9 doesn't draw but two or three buildings in NYC. FSX looks like the city in the distance.

Also, I set the season for winter and it just looks dry to me. No real difference from season to season. I know this is the default scenery and we do have the U.S. texture add-on in FSX but FSX is clearly more detailed.

Flying the same plane at JFK in FSX at the same time, we have snow on the ground and a light snowfall. The city is rendered in the background. On takeoff, I am getting 35fps. In FS9, I was getting about 60fps. However, they both appear to be perfectly smooth.

I'm going to play with it some tomorrow on my own. My son got frustrated because the controls are different. When not using a yoke, he flies FSX with the mouse. Can you do that in FS9? We couldn't find it in the control lists.

Also, he gets moving gates in FSX. Can that happen in FS9 too?

Thoughts?

It does look better at 35fps. However, I think we will stick with FSX for now. I was just flying from Copenhagen to CDG and at FL340 in a PMDG747 I was getting 35-55FPS in FSX. And it looks really, really good.

Another note, I just ran Ellie System's avionics on the second computer for the first time too! WOW is all I can say. It is a very nice package of glass instruments. Even for a "non-PC" guy like myself, it was easy to set-up and get running. And I am networking a Vista 64 to a XP 64! I was running it on a 22" monitor. My son's sim will have 2-17" monitors. I can put the captain side and co-pilot side glass up with the standby instruments in the middle.

Question: I want one large overlay with cutouts for the instruments behind. Is there an easy way to do this? How do you get the positions right? I'm not an engineer--however I can measure. Maybe a tracing paper template is the way to go? Once I get that, is there a more affordable route than Front Panel Express (http://www.frontpanelexpress.com/) that would look as nice?

Good that you're limiting the fps in FS9 - mine's set at 20, and here's what mine looks like. This is the CRJ out of La Guardia.