Yes, FSX uses much more than FS9. I run both (and CFS2) on my specs, listed below, and can max out FS9. Like you, I have to make tradeoffs in X.

They will happily co-exist on the same computer, each oblivious to the other..   
And with all the add-ons available for 9 you can bring it to near X esthetics.

Dave

ozzy72 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:


Sweet! Thanks to both of you for your replies!

Massive performance difference

Capt.Propwash wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 12:04am:


That's great to hear, I'm really pretty excited about trying this. I got UTX and REX and hopefully I'll have it all up and running today.

Glad to see you're enjoying it. FS9 has an impressive amount of freeware stuff available, may it be sceneries or airplanes, so you'll need quite a while before you can explore everything

Now, about the recommendation to "upgrade" to FS9 instead of buying a powerfull computer, that will depend on what kind of addons you're looking for. Switching to FS9 will prevent you to enjoy some experiences like precise photoreal sceneries, crisp ground sceneries,moving aircraft carriers or ultra immersive aircrafts like Accusim stuff.

If you focus mainly on IFR flight from major airports, then yes FS9 is definitely an upgrade compared to FSX which can never be happy over anything bigger than a medium airport But for those who focus on VFR flights, the needs are totally different, and switching to FS9 is definitely NOT an upgrade, in that case.

Happy New Year

If you like the 737, try "Moach's" 737 Experience available at SV along with a group of repaints. It's one of my favorites. Also I'm a fan of "Howard's Mix" scenery package also available at SV.

Dave

+1 for BlueSky! L.A. looks amazing!

Here's the thing I'm finding as I'm comparing FSX to FS9: I saw a lot of youtube videos of people that have gotten FS9 to almost look like FSX in terms of graphics; I have Ground Environment, Real Environment, FS Global 2010, Ultimate Terrain and on and on and on installed, all of the sliders maxed, and I can't get it to look even close. My suspicion is that the videos on youtube are of small areas where the user has super-detailed scenery, and that for the rest of his FS9 "world" it looks a lot like mine. Am I wrong? What gives? I thought with all the addons I would at least get it to look close.

Capt.Propwash wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:


That video is the one that made me think I could get FS9 to look like FSX; it's not mine. And you and I are on the exact same page - I installed all that crap and there is minimal difference between FS9 with all the addons (several hundred dollars' worth, I might add) and stock FS9. In FSX you see the difference immediately - in FS9 I see barely any difference at all.

So you and I are looking for an answer to the same question - hopefully someone has it.

I'm guessing I'm the odd one out!

Out of the box I prefer fsx: Why? because I'm only getting 1 to 2 fps difference between the two and for the better graphics in fsx I now prefer it, plus, I've been passing my older flight sims onto colleagues at work to get them interested in flights sims so no longer have fs2002 or fs9/fs2004 disks at home.

Overall my fps is poor anyway compared to what others mention here but I've not gone through any of Nicks sim tweaking methods.

regards

Steve

RIP flight sim 1 by Sublogic

EVVFCX wrote on Jan 6^th, 2011 at 8:05am:



My FS9 is sitting on a shelf. I too have FSX and it looks and runs just fine. In FS9 I got amazing framerates, but even locking the frames at 20 I had serious jaggies and blurry scenery even at a standstill on the tarmac. My wings looked like Wilma Flintstones hemline. After 3 days of reading, adjusting and tweaking and posting, No luck. For me, at least, I'll be sticking with FSX, IL2,MS CFS2 and a few others, all of which run fine on my system. 

Of course it's a matter of personnal standards. There are still some simmers who prefer 2D panels, even for VFR flights. In any case, even in FS9 you already get a good load of very good looking virtual cockpits, so even the VC-only pilots could get satisfied in FS9, provided they ignore the lack of smoothness of the gauges. I flew FS9 for 3 full years, and I enjoyed it as much as I could. I never had payware in it, because at that time there were very few planes that could motivate me to spend money. The realistic planes were mostly liners, and I was not flying them seriously enough in FS9 to feel the need for paywares. I was more interested in VFR exploration flights. I was about to spend some money on Holger Sandmann's sceneries, but then FSX appeared.

Concerning the functionnalities that you mentionned, the autogen fade in/out is indeed missed in FSX, but the autogen density compensates a lot. The 3rd party weather engines now exist both freeware and payware. And whatever you do, once you've made a flight with a you even just started an Accusim aircraft on the tarmac, there's not way back to FS9.

And your remark about the limitation of FSX graphic settings to match FS9 quality is very valid. With my previous computer (Q6600@2,75GHz, 3 Gb RAM, 8800GTX), when I was limiting the settings to FS9 quality, I could maintain a solid 40 FPS flying over Seattle Tacoma. It was a valid solution for IFR flights to major airport, but unfortunately it was not valid at all for VFR flights, because those limitations were just deleting the advantages of FSX over FS9 scenery. Fortunately, the performance impact if the "VFR" areas (out of major airports/cities) was not that big and even an old computer like mine could provide a very smooth experience.

FS9 I fly it becauseI run everything at max and get these results :- !,500ft







Over Seattle at2,500ft



Fred39

No Jaggies my end I do not suffer from them no stutter or hang ups just good flying ??
It must be your end ?????
I have FSX installed as well why pay more money for addons when I'm OK with FS9?????

Fred39

fred39 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

I see jaggies on the horizon as well, but they are visible on the first shot only. The horizon looks like a stairway. Perhaps it's the fault of the program you use for resizing your screenshots, or perhaps your antialiasing is not set high enough.

Quote:

As said before, it all depends on the addons you're looking for.
If you like the addons that you can get in FS9, then that's perfectly fine. A lot of simmers are in the same exact situation, they are satisfied with what they get with FS9 so they have no reason to switch to FSX.
But some people need something more than what FS9 can bring.

I am another one of those people who "upgraded" to FS9.
I was not able to run FSX at all for a long time, and when I finally got a new laptop it ran fine, the same as FS9 did on the old laptop.
The problem is, I love HD airports and AI traffic. In FSX if I tried to fly into any medium or larger airport with add-on scenery and AI traffic then there was really no point in flying.
With FS9 I can turn all the graphics settings up, install every WOAI package, and fly into areas like NYC with Aerosoft Manhattan and the AI traffic realistically busy at JFK and LGA and have no problems at all with frames.
With some environmental textures (HD Clouds!!!  ) FS9 can clean up pretty well. The only places where I REALLY miss FSX is water, gliders, and aircraft carriers. Everything else is great.