FSX vs. FS9
- Kyle Joseph
- Posts: 80
FSX vs. FS9
Personal reviews, thoughts, welcome
- Kyle Joseph
- Posts: 80
An FSX overview
This is what FSX default 737 should look like;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW707ItkG74&mod ... laying_end smooth frames, nice aircraft; instead you get 4 FPS; a 737 with the ugliest flaps I've ever seen; and Microsoft has the nerve to call it a new release. Don't get me wrong though, the round globe thing is pretty cool, and along with the active camera type setup built right in, its a step up, but somehow i feel it is a step back at the same time? (So much for active camera team, they won't be needed anymore, shame). in my opinion, the Microsoft flight simulator development team did there best to get rid of the scenery developers by using a combination of new technology, and by utilizing the new "preferred" Vista operating system. I think "X" is ridiculous, and shows Microsoft's total disregard for detail.
Detail, thats what all simmers want; when will the Fs developer team figure this out? They won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't stop the scenery developers from creating better sceneries. Aside from that the planes suck.. Just look what they did to the 747-400, wings that don’t flex and stay in the droopy position all the time, the spoilers on the 737-800 extend and retract as one unit, which is clearly untrue. The outermost spoiler is supposed to deploy at a higher angle than the inner ones. When hitting bumps, it is supposed to shake, the PMDG team pulled this effect off with its 747, why can’t the FS developer team, because as I stated, they Clearly disregard detail I am waiting still; if Microsoft has it’s schedule they Should release something for 2008. I am still hoping they will, just the other day I saw a Microsoft prototype joystick and throttle setup for the Xbox 360. A clearing in the fog perhaps? Until then I will continue to invest in new sceneries for Microsoft flight simulator 2004
Detail, thats what all simmers want; when will the Fs developer team figure this out? They won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't stop the scenery developers from creating better sceneries. Aside from that the planes suck.. Just look what they did to the 747-400, wings that don’t flex and stay in the droopy position all the time, the spoilers on the 737-800 extend and retract as one unit, which is clearly untrue. The outermost spoiler is supposed to deploy at a higher angle than the inner ones. When hitting bumps, it is supposed to shake, the PMDG team pulled this effect off with its 747, why can’t the FS developer team, because as I stated, they Clearly disregard detail I am waiting still; if Microsoft has it’s schedule they Should release something for 2008. I am still hoping they will, just the other day I saw a Microsoft prototype joystick and throttle setup for the Xbox 360. A clearing in the fog perhaps? Until then I will continue to invest in new sceneries for Microsoft flight simulator 2004
Re: An FSX overview
How often do you use FSX?Kyle Joseph wrote:This is what FSX default 737 should look like;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW707ItkG74&mod ... laying_end smooth frames, nice aircraft; instead you get 4 FPS; a 737 with the ugliest flaps I've ever seen; and Microsoft has the nerve to call it a new release. Don't get me wrong though, the round globe thing is pretty cool, and along with the active camera type setup built right in, its a step up, but somehow i feel it is a step back at the same time? (So much for active camera team, they won't be needed anymore, shame). in my opinion, the Microsoft flight simulator development team did there best to get rid of the scenery developers by using a combination of new technology, and by utilizing the new "preferred" Vista operating system. I think "X" is ridiculous, and shows Microsoft's total disregard for detail.
Detail, thats what all simmers want; when will the Fs developer team figure this out? They won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't stop the scenery developers from creating better sceneries. Aside from that the planes suck.. Just look what they did to the 747-400, wings that don’t flex and stay in the droopy position all the time, the spoilers on the 737-800 extend and retract as one unit, which is clearly untrue. The outermost spoiler is supposed to deploy at a higher angle than the inner ones. When hitting bumps, it is supposed to shake, the PMDG team pulled this effect off with its 747, why can’t the FS developer team, because as I stated, they Clearly disregard detail I am waiting still; if Microsoft has it’s schedule they Should release something for 2008. I am still hoping they will, just the other day I saw a Microsoft prototype joystick and throttle setup for the Xbox 360. A clearing in the fog perhaps? Until then I will continue to invest in new sceneries for Microsoft flight simulator 2004
I am a die hard FS2004 user and will continue to be. However, after getting my new system, which is farely modest, and installing SP1, FEX, and Megascenery: SoCal, I am very pleased with the way FSX looks and runs. I have a hard time deciding which FS version to run anytime I get a chance to fly. The photoscenery resolutions in FSX are way superior to FS2004's capabilities.
Modest System: e6750, 8800GTS 640 OC, 2 GB DDR2-800, and Vista Premium 32-Bit.
Narco
Modest System: e6750, 8800GTS 640 OC, 2 GB DDR2-800, and Vista Premium 32-Bit.
Narco
I would consider a highend PC as: one that has a Quad core cpu (6700 or higher), 8800 GTX, Ultra or SLI graphics, and greater than DDR2-800 or any DDR3 memory.
It only cost me about $1200 to build and I only reused the Monitor, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse. $150 of that was just for the case.
Complete system:
Intel e6750, somtimes I overclock it to 3.2 GHz
Tuniq Tower 120
Gigabyte P35-DS3P
2 GB G.Skill DDR2-800 4-4-3-5
eVGA 8800GTS 640 OC
500GB WD HD
Lite-On DVD and DVD 20X Lightscribe Burner
Gigabyte Aurora 570 case
Thermaltake Modular 750W PS
Visat Premium 32-Bit
Reused:
Viewsonic 22" monitor
Generic Keyboard
Logitech G5 Mouse
Logitech Z-540 speakers
Plus, I didn't just build the PC for FSX, I needed a replacement for my aging P4 3.0 and 6800GT vid card.
I even like Vista. There has been some learning involved, but nothing I could not figure out yet.
Narco
It only cost me about $1200 to build and I only reused the Monitor, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse. $150 of that was just for the case.
Complete system:
Intel e6750, somtimes I overclock it to 3.2 GHz
Tuniq Tower 120
Gigabyte P35-DS3P
2 GB G.Skill DDR2-800 4-4-3-5
eVGA 8800GTS 640 OC
500GB WD HD
Lite-On DVD and DVD 20X Lightscribe Burner
Gigabyte Aurora 570 case
Thermaltake Modular 750W PS
Visat Premium 32-Bit
Reused:
Viewsonic 22" monitor
Generic Keyboard
Logitech G5 Mouse
Logitech Z-540 speakers
Plus, I didn't just build the PC for FSX, I needed a replacement for my aging P4 3.0 and 6800GT vid card.
I even like Vista. There has been some learning involved, but nothing I could not figure out yet.
Narco
Everything that was asked for FSX wasn't even considered. Simmers wanted all the underlying elements enhanced with visuals being the last on the list. For this reason I've stayed with FS9. ATC hasn't been improved, Flight modeling hasn't been improved, and weather hasn't much been improved to name but a few. All that's been accomplished is creating a bigger headache for developers. Look at what PMDG had to do (which is great because they had to eat their words). There's many FSX die hards like the crew that hang out at Simflight, Aerosoft, and Cloud9.
Bottom line guys visually FSX doesn't have the stuff that sets it that far apart from FS9. They all but look like the same sim. Put that with the hassle of first needing a patch for FS9/DX9, then a mediocre performance patch, then an Acceleration add-on that causes developers to release yet another update for much of their work, then we find out that Vista doesn't have the snuff to run FSX without memory issues. Who want's that headache. When will the hassle stop? When is there light at the end of the tunnel??? That's why FS9 is the best choice out the two for me...
Bottom line guys visually FSX doesn't have the stuff that sets it that far apart from FS9. They all but look like the same sim. Put that with the hassle of first needing a patch for FS9/DX9, then a mediocre performance patch, then an Acceleration add-on that causes developers to release yet another update for much of their work, then we find out that Vista doesn't have the snuff to run FSX without memory issues. Who want's that headache. When will the hassle stop? When is there light at the end of the tunnel??? That's why FS9 is the best choice out the two for me...
