Nope. I wouldn't think that all the FS9 sceneries that I have would work in FSX. If they did anyways, I probably wouldn't switch. FS9 has a lot of life left in it.Bruce Hamilton wrote:Nothing requires you to switch, FSX doesn't care if you have older versions. Will your system handle it?deltaboeing84 wrote:FS9. Too heavily invested in FS9 just to up out and switch.
Poll - FSX or FS9?
- deltaboeing84
- Posts: 368
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
I agree, plenty of life left in FS9. Even though a lot of developers stoped developments for FS9, FS9 is making a comeback. Some developers who stoped working on FS9 projects, are heading back our way. FSAddon stoped FS9 products, now they are producing their FSX Ben Gurion for FS9. And the developer for Nice said he would never support FS9, now look, he did FS9 Nice.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
The only reason I have FSX Gold installed is, so I can use the Aerosoft Huey X.
So actually FS9 all the way!
So actually FS9 all the way!
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
FSX all the way.. 
Stein-Ove
Stein-Ove
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
FS9 - much investment in FS9 (I have a few FSX sceneries when a supplier offers both for one purchase - but they're just occupying disk space - just in case!).
Investment in FS9 is not just money, but hours labouring over things that would be obsolete just as soon as I made the switch. I developed many bits & pieces and would hate to see all that life spent getting something right in FS9, used up for nothing. If I used FSX I think it'd be on a different system entirely, and with the bare minimum of addons and no developing, just to do low & slow flying in scenic parts of the world. Being a private pilot in real life, in the end I'm just after the smoothest experience for a modest outlay, something that comes closest to "proper" flying, so I can practice instrument procedures etc.
Even my stable setup of FS9 isn't without hassles, such as moving to a W7 64-bit system and discovering my old Dreamfleet Archer's GPS systems no longer operate (because they use Garmin's own GPS software that doesn't run on 64-bit systems). I don't really want the technical things to get in the way of flying, and FSX would being a slew of those technical things.
So, no problems with FSX as such, I just don't have the stomach for the switching process.
Investment in FS9 is not just money, but hours labouring over things that would be obsolete just as soon as I made the switch. I developed many bits & pieces and would hate to see all that life spent getting something right in FS9, used up for nothing. If I used FSX I think it'd be on a different system entirely, and with the bare minimum of addons and no developing, just to do low & slow flying in scenic parts of the world. Being a private pilot in real life, in the end I'm just after the smoothest experience for a modest outlay, something that comes closest to "proper" flying, so I can practice instrument procedures etc.
Even my stable setup of FS9 isn't without hassles, such as moving to a W7 64-bit system and discovering my old Dreamfleet Archer's GPS systems no longer operate (because they use Garmin's own GPS software that doesn't run on 64-bit systems). I don't really want the technical things to get in the way of flying, and FSX would being a slew of those technical things.
So, no problems with FSX as such, I just don't have the stomach for the switching process.
- MidgeyMidget2
- Posts: 1235
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
To be honest, I never really understood that attitude. It wouldn't be used up for nothing...didn't you get enjoyment out of it while it lasted? Doesn't that count for something?Mage wrote:I developed many bits & pieces and would hate to see all that life spent getting something right in FS9, used up for nothing.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
I get your point Midget but I get his point too and understands where he is coming from. No it wouldn't be for nothing, but to stop using it after all those efforts is really something.
I actually used to use my FSX for VFR flying but I honestly felt like I was playing a video game. There is just something about FS9 that feels more like a honest sim. In fact in recent days, I have been doing nore VFR flying than ever, in the caribean and I have just bought all those LLH sceneries. They look so good in FS9 and the performance is through 80FPS with maximum settings. Just can't give that up.
I am actually hoping Martin reconsiders the Grenidnes for FS9. Because they are so small, it should take not much time at all to backport them..
There is 103 votes so far and the margin shows the gap between FS9 and FSX isn't that big...
I actually used to use my FSX for VFR flying but I honestly felt like I was playing a video game. There is just something about FS9 that feels more like a honest sim. In fact in recent days, I have been doing nore VFR flying than ever, in the caribean and I have just bought all those LLH sceneries. They look so good in FS9 and the performance is through 80FPS with maximum settings. Just can't give that up.
I am actually hoping Martin reconsiders the Grenidnes for FS9. Because they are so small, it should take not much time at all to backport them..
There is 103 votes so far and the margin shows the gap between FS9 and FSX isn't that big...
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
FS9! Very close though but I just prefer the smoothness and better frames in the earlier version. I find FS9 runs better right out the box. Yes you'll have to tweak the .ini file somwhat but FSX just can't deliver the smothness I get even with massive addons running in the background. I do find the aircraft models better in FSX however since buying the ifly737ng jet, on ecould argue with that notion. Scenery presentation goes to FSX but i can get my FS9 looking almost as good as my FSX. I have both and use both accordingly!
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
..an' I gave up FS9 one year after FSX came in, and have never regretted it - except that there are no developers with the equivalent talent to the FT guys in FSX. I fly pretty much only the OrbX PNW and NR and related sceneries now, and sorely miss FlyTampa's San Diego and Seattle. I fly the with XPax, ASE, RC4 using the Leonardo Maddog, ASE and Cargo Pilot with the Milviz Cessna 310, VFR - the SibWings BirdDog, plus I occasionally play with the A2A Cub and Spitfire 1B - mostly in the Renton/KORS/Darrington/Concrete areas, with a few flights a week around Portland.
To get the best out of FSX requires are brute of a machine, and we now have that in the i7 series. It still needs tweaking here and there, but that 2600K i7 will yield a sim that has heavy weather, automobiles, lots of air traffic, strong ground detail, with sufficient leeway to still run the Maddog at 30 frames without struggling.
To get the best out of FSX requires are brute of a machine, and we now have that in the i7 series. It still needs tweaking here and there, but that 2600K i7 will yield a sim that has heavy weather, automobiles, lots of air traffic, strong ground detail, with sufficient leeway to still run the Maddog at 30 frames without struggling.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
New here, hello all.
I own both, but only fly FS9. It does everything I need a flightsim to do, and there is more stuff available for it than I will ever use. So for me, it's all FS9 all the time.
I own both, but only fly FS9. It does everything I need a flightsim to do, and there is more stuff available for it than I will ever use. So for me, it's all FS9 all the time.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
FSX only for the last three years. The hardware is plenty powerful nowadays to run FSX with airliner addons at payware airports with all the goodies.
I fly both GA and airliners... have BOS and TPA - run Flight1 Mustang and ES Citation X into both... TPA's a little rougher on fps but I can manage around 25-27 with 6.5 LOD and extremely dense autogen, scenery maxed, water 2x low.
I understand FS9ers who've invested lots of dollars but I did the same! Then I moved to X and invested more bucko bucks - it's a hobby and ever changing.
I fly both GA and airliners... have BOS and TPA - run Flight1 Mustang and ES Citation X into both... TPA's a little rougher on fps but I can manage around 25-27 with 6.5 LOD and extremely dense autogen, scenery maxed, water 2x low.
I understand FS9ers who've invested lots of dollars but I did the same! Then I moved to X and invested more bucko bucks - it's a hobby and ever changing.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
I use FS9.
Have too much invested in this sim and, now, predominately fly tubeliners. Just a slideshow on FSX with my rig.
FlyTampa, like most skilled developers, enjoy utilising the high tech facilities afforded by FSX and offering fare for FS9 is becoming a nuisance, a burden. I for one selfishly hope they continue to do so ... at least until Flight changes the scene yet again.
Whatever, I thank FlyTampa for enriching my simming experience.
Have too much invested in this sim and, now, predominately fly tubeliners. Just a slideshow on FSX with my rig.
FlyTampa, like most skilled developers, enjoy utilising the high tech facilities afforded by FSX and offering fare for FS9 is becoming a nuisance, a burden. I for one selfishly hope they continue to do so ... at least until Flight changes the scene yet again.
Whatever, I thank FlyTampa for enriching my simming experience.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
FSX is an amazing sim, but you will need the add-on scenery, payware aircraft, REX, and a well toned computer to run it.
I have no reason to install FS 2004, but I understand that many prefer FS9 for big iron.
I have no reason to install FS 2004, but I understand that many prefer FS9 for big iron.
Re: Poll - FSX or FS9?
Wow 50 - 50 hmmm....,