FS9 - FSX graphics comparison

[dave92270]

I'm glad to hear that you guys liked the screenshots; FS9 seems to have good capabilities when combined with the best add-ons, while it
doesn't require the top performance hardware to run it at maximum detail. I think that FS9 with payware add-ons is a good compromise
until the new hardware, DX10 and Vista are out.

Dave

[Airliner]

Here's my recommendation. If you really enjoy FS9 the way it is - DO NOT get FSX. Just from my experience, I always tend to get hooked
on the new features and just can't bring myself to go back a version. If you're like that and you do FSX and get "hooked" on the jetways,
ground service vehicles, missions, etc., you'll just be miserable if you don't have a mach 3 computer. Better to wait.

[dave92270]

Airliner wrote:
Here's my recommendation. If you really enjoy FS9 the way it is - DO NOT get FSX. Just from my experience, I always tend to get hooked
on the new features and just can't bring myself to go back a version. If you're like that and you do FSX and get "hooked" on
the jetways,
ground service vehicles, missions, etc., you'll just be miserable if you don't have a mach 3 computer. Better to wait.

Yes, sounds quite right.... the problem is that FS X dlx copy is unfortunately on the way already, PC Aviator shipped my delayed preorder
on Friday, so I can expect it this week. However, with my PC specs I won't be able to crank up the graphical detail and other features
nearly anywhere high enough to match the visuals of FS9, so it won't look that sweet to begin with. I tried the updated demo yesterday
and I was getting some 6-8fps above terrain and 15-18 above water (with plane detail at maximum). But that stock Baron 58 (even at full
detail enable) still was no match for the payware Baron58XP... BTW, how do the other stock FS X planes compare to FS9 payware
planes?

Here are the comparison shots from the FS X demo (with stock plane in demo scenery) and then from FS9 (with B58XP, above Los
Angeles). I feel that the FS X plane looks somewhat dull, while the B58XP in FS9 is absolutely spectacular inside out. I got some 10fps
on that FS X shot, while with FS9 easily around 30fps. Just wonder what fps we'd see with comparably detailed plane in FS X, like 4-5fps?

Dave

[Airliner]

The default FS aircraft are as usual - um, crappy. They are better, don't get me wrong but, as compared to say, PMDG, not even close.
In fact, half the stuff doesn't even work right. I've been using the B738 exclusively in my FSCC missions programming and I'm ready to
bang my head against the wall! First, even when I alter the landing lights switch to false in the save file, it always starts up as on! Next,
the autobrake in VC doesn't work, although you can click it and it does change in 2D but, you don't see the reult in VC - it just stays off.
Next, the VC overhead looks pretty but most of the controls don't work and the 2D leaves out a lot - they're like two different panels
altogether. The fuel control switches are another issue - on startup, VC switches are on, 2D switches are off and the engines are
running. Hmm.. Which is it?

I smell a SERIOUS patch coming, just for the aircraft alone. But, like I said, the mission are is where all the real potential is and I plan to
exploit it royally!

[dave92270]

Sounds like the planes in FS X are messed up and will need to be patched. But , many payware planes needed patches too so maybe it
is common after the release. For instance, the Digital Aviaton Cheyenne which I got some 6 weeks ago and which is otherwise really
nice still seems to have messed up rocker switches for light controls, even after the patching with v3.3. The Baron58XP sometimes won't
show fuel correctly on the gauges...so it is not that rare that the stuff won't work right away. While waiting for FS X, I couldn't resist and
and filled shopping cart at Newegg with upgrade parts; I realized that I can get fast system together for around $1100-$1400 (if I reuse
some of my parts). I'd grab defintiely E6600, ASUS P5W DH Dlx or P5B Dlx, 2GB of quality DDR2 6400, and 512MB videocard, either
1950XTX, or cheaper 7950GT. If I'll upgrade I'm not decided yet, but the wait for DX10 may be lengthty and the DX10 stuff won't come up
cheap...so I may get new parts anyway and then improve later where needed. The system that I plan to put together should have decent
lifespan and be upgrradeable.

Anyway, the mailman just brought the FS X Dlx copy, so the wait is over and I can try it finally. I also received UT Europe, GE and U206G
Stationair, so I'll have something to play with today..

Dave

[Ceemosp]

I just found out that my MoBo supports Raid 0,1,5,10 so let the harddisk roll

Greetz Carsten

[WBHoenig]

Fs9 is for me right now. I am happy with my 20fps while using ActiveSky in my PMDG 737 Virtual Cockpit. FsX has nice eyecandy - but I'll be sticking
with Fs9 for now. It's a very solid game and runs fine on Vista RC2.

And don't forget FsPassengers, of course!



Post Edited ( 11-10-06 05:02 )