Benncpp15 wrote:How come you guys are still using FS9? WTF, its 2013.
Very simple in 2013:
1. FSX 'STILL' doesn't have the volume of aircraft and scenery FS9 has (even if FlyTampa doesn't do this airport for FS9 we have 4 other versions to choose from).
2. There's no real incentive to move from FS9, here's the reasons:
A. AI Traffic offered is unchanged from FS9, some FSX only AI models in packages actually look worse than FSX/FS9 freeware offerings, and no one is updating packages for the current situation in the real world. For example, the new merged United Airlines is no where to be found in a full fledged payware package for FSX like 'Ultimate Traffic 2' and nothing is on the horizon (no updates or anything). You have to build everything yourself in Traffic Tools in each sim if you want something close to reality. The best AI models are freeware for both sims. In FSX or FS9 unless your an AI guru or into that sort of thing FSX/FS9 is in circa 2008 or a little bit past that time frame. FS9 can display more AI without issue than FSX...
B. FSX's ATC engine hasn't changed from FS9's.
C. Today FS9 (with Freeware and Payware) covers 90% of all the international airports in the world with detailed quality scenery the only exceptions being Africa in many areas and Auckland Intl.
D. FS9 can be made to look like FSX with 10 times better performance. The only exceptions for FSX being round Earth, the ability to fly into space, and HD city textures (we're working on the ground texture issue).
C. FSX's weather engine is actually worse than FS9's in it's depiction of snow and rain (thanks to REX and other options
clouds and sky look no different in FS9 than they do in FSX)
D. FSX has far less quality detailed aircraft to fly than FS9. I've read so many stories of payware aircraft that are great in FS9
and horrible in FSX because of port over issues (native FSX models work best). This makes the pool of quality aircraft in FSX that much smaller.
E. Thanks to Flight1 (Ground Environment Pro with the latest updates) every region of the world has it's own look in FS9. FSX only has North America, Europe and possibly parts of Asia (Australia). Forget the Middle East, Africa, Polynesia, and South America to name a few.
F. Obix is all the rage but we have that in FS9 to an acceptable extent with Georender, Misty/Tongass/Glacier Bay and Misty Mooring scenery. Bundled with FSCargo it's complete.
G. Carenado and FlyTampa have proven that HD aircraft/airports only thought possible in FSX is possible in FS9.
WHY WOULD ANYONE SPEND $800 LET ALONE $1000 ON HARDWARE FOR A SIM THAT HAS 75% LESS CONTENT THAN THE ONE THEY ALREADY HAVE? Some of us have been in this game for a long time (well over 10 years) with a well built up simulator that rivals the new and exceeds in many areas. New versions of FS were always an advancement all around over the last version. FSX is the true exception even today... FSX would mean we'd first have to buy a new computer (no problem), tweak/overclock the CPU (insanity concerning the CPU, only anal retentive people did this in years past), deal with the fact 75% of our scenery/planes no longer work (or they run like crap in their ported over to FSX versions), and deal with the fact outside of graphics it's basically the same sim but more headaches.
I don't mean to hijack this thread but people really irk me when they don't know what the heck their talking about or put others down for their sim choice. I can actually list more reasons slightly newer is not always better. By default in the next few years if MS still has their heads up their ^%$, FSX will be on all our HD's but so far we're not there (we may very well always have a split because of simple economics and lack of time people have bundled with the points I've made above). Choosing FS9 for those that don't have a tricked out FS9 setup to compare to FSX is mind boggling I know to newer FSX users at this stage of the game. For example I have every airport in Montana with detailed scenery (same for Minnesota), you can't find this for FSX because even today freeware support is geared more towards FS9 furthermore with our dwindled down community thanks to the FS9/FSX split we may never see this in FSX. Add to that new users won't touch FSX for the price of admission on both fronts, financial and techie level knowledge (a PS4 is easier these days). It's not an easy platform to get into and use like every other version in the series before it (and Flight after it).
FlyTampa in light of the comments raised here if you decide to make this airport FSX only I'm happy this is one of those times we in the FS9 world have options. Too many times this is not the case. If this was 'Auckland Intl' I'd be screaming as well for an FS9 version.