+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Flight Simulators (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: FSX General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison (/showthread.php?tid=10995)
FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - Airliner - 29-10-2006
Just for fun, I setup a flight, slewed to roughly the same location, altitude, heading, pitch, etc. on the same day, same time and same
weather in both FS9 and FSX.
I juiced up FS9 to maximum settings (still kept shadows off and traffic to 75%), then pushed FSX to the max with the same traffic.
I don't think there is any comparison - FSX default blows away FS9 with addon water textures, Ground Environment Pro,
BostonV2 scenery.
Performance wise, you can see the FPS - so the final shot is after lowering water textures a couple notches, traffic to 50% and autogen is
shutoff. Still, not too bad lookin', I must say. But, you be your own judges.
![[Image: kbos-fs9.jpg]](http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepecu6/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kbos-fs9.jpg)
![[Image: kbos-fsx.jpg]](http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepecu6/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kbos-fsx.jpg)
![[Image: kbos-fsx2.jpg]](http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepecu6/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kbos-fsx2.jpg)
Post Edited ( 10-29-06 01:46 )
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - Mac - 29-10-2006
When you put them side by side, you do notice a hell of a lot
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - HB-100 - 29-10-2006
Quote:Airliner wrote:
I don't think there is any comparison - FSX default blows away FS9 with addon water textures, Ground Environment Pro,
BostonV2 scenery.
You are jokeing right?
The first pic looks way more realistic than the others. And that although FS9 has it's limits.
The only thing where FSX does really look good is when you fly the drillplatform mission and you see the reflection of that platform on the water.
Post Edited ( 10-29-06 03:00 )
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - olseric - 29-10-2006
I agree. The FSX water looks like plastic.
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - DBE - 29-10-2006
Same here.
I know that the FSX vs FS9 debate will go on and on for at least another year, but for the moment, I simply cannot think of a reason to switch.
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - Ceemosp - 29-10-2006
Quote:DBE wrote:
Same here.
I know that the FSX vs FS9 debate will go on and on for at least another year, but for the moment, I simply cannot think of a reason to
switch.
I do.....If I win next weekend's euro lottery (131.000.000€ jackpot)........
Greetz Carsten
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - Airliner - 29-10-2006
In the top screenshot, when in motion, the water looks much more fake, as it all "shimmers" at the same time, as if it is one giant wave
passing by. The FSX water actually does look better when in motion, though it may be a bit bright. DX10 will likely fix that.
I agree that the addon airport ground textures (grass) look better but, look at the terreain and the terrain textures and autogen - not even
close, in my view. FSX has the land mapped out right and the terrain textures look MUCH more realistic than the previous. Also, the top
two screens are showing each version with Autogen at max. No much in the way of trees/buildings for FS9 - IN COMPARISON to FSX.
Hey, has anyone tried adding the two autogen lines used for tweaking FSX autogen to FS9's config file? The ones that tell how many
buildings/trees there are per grid?
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - DBE - 29-10-2006
Quote:Ceemosp wrote:
I do.....If I win next weekend's euro lottery (131.000.000€ jackpot)........
But only because you could then, bearly, afford the hardware necessary to run FSX, right?
But what about the addons you've purchased so far?
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - HB-100 - 29-10-2006
well check my new thread: Improved FSX.
http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10997
That's how I like to have it looked.
I still did not apply any water improvement hoever. *)
But someone could give it a try. This are all textures at the end that you can overtake from FS2004.
Also has the benefit that it will improve the FSX performance a little because the textures are smaler.
edit1:
*) well but it somehow looks good in my FSX now, much better than what you have on your screenshots
(I have the slider on maximum or almost max water quality)
I have the environement patch on FS2004 installed is it possible that some water texture are in the world folder instead the environement?? Or is it because the darker daylight? Dunno. But I enjoy the better quality.
edit2:
Ah bingo! Some water textures are in the scenery\world\texture folder. Great..
.(but the downside, i belive i killed the water waves, haven't sine any since
guess that effects are in the environement folder.)Post Edited ( 10-29-06 19:59 )
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - crowebird - 29-10-2006
I still think FS9 looks better,
and look at your frame rates
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - HB-100 - 29-10-2006
Partly agree, but I am catching up with FSX.
It's really close with my modification (dont forget, no add on sceneries, and quality lose to image compression and resizeing) and soon it
will looks as well as FS2004! (Although with a quarter of FS2004's framerate)
(Very wirred isn't it?
)The water reflection is nice, and I like the helicopter on FSX that much, flys really well better than FS2004 and the sailplane flys also cool,
so I am about to switch to FSX.
I still need to transfear my A320 and an A380 to FSX and FSP, that I can start flying with FSX.
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - HB-100 - 29-10-2006
Looks like my FSX changes doesn't help for Boston. In the oposite, now you have that FS2004 messy city default texture here.
But I know the enhancment package (FS2004) was developed for europe at first hand and there it looks good.
I am very glad I fly in Europe first hand!
The water is very sensitive on the light. At Height Noon it becomes to bright blue also with my changes. And yes here it has it's FSX
unrealistic characteristica again.
![[Image: fsxbosotonhb100pb8.jpg]](http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3380/fsxbosotonhb100pb8.jpg)
![[Image: fsxbosoton2hb100jp8.jpg]](http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3896/fsxbosoton2hb100jp8.jpg)
Boston Airport has taken some watee..hu?
But one thig changed: I could fly with Maximum AutoGen also on full size resolution.. Ok, with about 5fps, but this I have with minimum
autogen too and the maximum I couldn't do before without causing FSX to get instable. So my changes helped at least somehow also
for boston.
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - Airliner - 30-10-2006
And of course, all my images were taken at exactly noon!
In terms of frame rates, that 15.5 is misleading. I find it VERY flyable in this version. Even as low as 10 is okay, as there are no stutters - those are the real killers, especially on approach.
Post Edited ( 10-30-06 01:42 )
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - HB-100 - 30-10-2006
with 20 fps it's perfect flyable.
with 10 fps it is still well flyable
5fps is something for the hardcore sim pilots like me
Remembers me me at the good old times. 
But you are right the frame rates looks to be less 'jumpy' somehow..makes it endurable.
But 5fps is still a little hurting. I have to check if I can do something with the autogen textures and plane textures. I don't need a hight
detailed buildin, tree and plane but rather one with a well done texture (what microsoft unfurtunatly is totaly bad at)
..wasting large 1024x1024 texture pixel for showing nothing at all
And well I need to improve that fs2004 city texture.
If I only had time for all this.
Maybe I should wait for an entusiast doing all that and download a proper package then, that is factor 4 faster and looks factor 20
better ..means equal FS2004
Re: FS9 - FSX graphics comparison - m1r3o - 31-10-2006
i didn't understand at all:where are the 3 pictures taken from?