View Full Version : OT : FSX or FS9

09-16-2007, 06:08 PM
Ok as the title says I bought fsx only to find that it soesnt run great on my system(although its not to bad at all) then i saw FS9 at EB for $30 Aus. so i grabed it,but havnt installed it yet.

The quetion is for you experenced FS guys is should i just stick with FSX until my system is better of should i install FS9 and try to add a ****eload of add-on(preferably the free ones) to make it look a lot better and (and this is the real clincher) have it run a lot smoother.

I'v only just discovered that i do like just flying around and checking out the views in different countries and what not but how good is FS9 in this dept.?

any suggestions or ideas ( and links to good free add-ons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) would be hugely appreciated.

cheers guys

oh yeah Im running a P4 3.4 with 2 gig of ram and an radeon x1950 pro card

09-16-2007, 06:20 PM
I loved FS9 until FSX came along and I had to dump it to make room on my HD for another massive program. FS9 has ****load of free add-ons and high quality add-ons for pay (recommend the Shockwave He 219). Before you give up on FSX, look here:

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/viewtopic.php?t=2005&sid=8ba5b...a023b43e09433865411f (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/viewtopic.php?t=2005&sid=8ba5bc8284e1a023b43e09433865411f)

09-16-2007, 06:22 PM
Nice screenies and advice here:

09-16-2007, 08:46 PM
cheers guys I'v tried the gozr's tweaks and between that and SP1 it is running better,I guess I'm just curious If a pimped out version of FS9 is comparable to a scaled down version of FSX.
I'd just try it but by the looks of it it would be pretty time consuming to pimp out FS9 where as FSX comes ready to rock with a little bit of tweaking

P.S. just install the freeware version of the Bristol fighter F.2B in FSX, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif sooo damm cool,cant wait for KOTS

09-16-2007, 09:47 PM
I got FSX for my notebook computer after trying the demo. The demo had some ugly spots on the terrain but I thought that the final version would be improved in this regard. Quite the opposite, the textures that looked good in the demo looked flat and cartoonish in the full version.

There are things I like about FSX; the increased detail at airports and the improved cockpits is very nice. I also like that FSX has pushed a little more towards an IL-2 'feel' like head shake when hitting turbulence. The package of stock missions is entertaining. In the end, though, I grew tired of FSX very quickly. Most of the areas I flew over looked bland and featureless; the runway textures and buildings only rendered as flat gray on my monitor; the crazy-quilt montage of sattelite images for urban textures was frustratingly unrealistic because of its clarity of detail...I know my city and that ain't it! I also had a wierd anomoly where a solid white layer would suddenly appear under my plane at around 8,000 feet even under clear weather settings. And I got file corruptions twice; after the second time I uninstalled and left it at that.

Now I only fly FS9. I don't have many add-ons installed for it, just the Wings of Power Thunderbolts, some airports and a few other planes. I personally enjoy FS9 more but I know that is greatly because my notebook computer's graphics card just can't render FSX properly.

09-16-2007, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by skarden:
I'v only just discovered that i do like just flying around and checking out the views in different countries and what not but how good is FS9 in this dept.?

To be honest, neither version is perfect. Right out of the box FS9 has very generic coastlines, rivers, roads and textures but with various third-party add-ons can be improved to look better than stock FSX. Many of the best add-ons, like the Ultimate Terrain series and Ground Environment Pro, cost a good amount of cash though.

Stock FSX has improved terrain features that are almost as good as the commercial add-ons for FS9. I thought that perhaps if FSX without Ultimate Terrain USA looks almost as good as FS9 with UT-USA, then FSX w/ UT-USA would be absolutely amazing. I tried it and wasn't very impressed to be honest. I think it all goes back to the problems I had with FSX that I mentioned in my earlier post: the ugly roads, runways and autogen combined with overly detailed but inappropriate terrain textures.

09-16-2007, 10:13 PM
No, FS9 isn't a scaled-down FSX. Two different mutts entirely. My advice is that a less-than-optimum FSX is still better than FS9---if you had a significant investment in FS9 with loads of scenary, weather mods, and pay airplanes, I'd say stay with it. I'm not getting FSX perfectly, but what I get is great, and I enjoy it tremendously. The airplanes look much better (especially AlphaSim made-for-FSX stuff). There is an add-on for FSX due to be released by Microsoft this fall, and it is intended to make it easier for computers to render, and have goodies.


09-17-2007, 02:28 AM
Some of the best Addons are for FS2004 still. . .I can run FSX just fine, but keep FS9 because other than for shared cockpit capability, FS2004 does most of what I need a sim to do, and it does it well. FSX is indeed better than FS2004, but depending on what you want, FS2004 can be just as good with the right addons, and at this point even better at many things which don't yet exist in FSX with any fidelity.

On the plus side, you can find FS2004 for very cheap now, so why not just get it, and keep your FSX too?

09-17-2007, 02:56 AM
Agree with Leit & EcoDragon. I've got so much added to FS9 (terrain, water, sky, airfields before we get to several Gb's of aircraft) I'm not ready to give it up. I can run it maxed out with a skyful of other 'planes over fully rendered cities at a silky smooth framerate. FSX is graphically far superior but I'm on reduced terrain and traffic settings (with Gozr's tweaks). It's acceptable, and I look forward to enhancements, add-ons and more powerful equipment to run it all on. My favourite rides are old biplanes - whether the low and slow nature of my flights are a factor in my results I'm not sure. Love the Just Flight Tiger Moth compatable with both sims.

A quick comparison. Tiger Moth over Cornwall.

FS9 - 25 FPS locked VSynch. 1600 resolution.


FSX - 10-15 FPS. 1024 resolution. (Thanks again Gozr!)


I normally use 'real world' weather and find low cloud/fog a hit to framerates in FSX.

Compaq Pressario
AMD Athlon 64 3400+
2.19 GHz, 1.5 Gb RAM
Sapphire ATI Radeon X800 GTO2 256Mb
XP Home Edition SP2

If you like the old stuff, I can't recommend Lyn & Bill Lyon's 'Golden Hawaii' package for FS9 highly enough - converts Hawaii to pre WWII with busy airfields - civilian and military - ships, blimps, terrain, sky & water improvements, and nice flights. Oh, and 'planes. Like flying around a 1930's movie serial. Available free from Simviation.

09-17-2007, 05:14 AM
I'll probably get FSX when I eventually get around to buying a new machine - by which time MS will probably be on to FSXI. In the meantime I'm sticking with FS9.


09-18-2007, 07:19 AM
cheers for the pics low flyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif looking at those i think FSX wins it,but not by as much as i thought it would(at least not yet).I think I'll defenitly install FS9 and have fun tweaking the hell out of it and and running it at a fairly high level while still having it play smoothly (hopefully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif)

although i gotta admit I'm starting to really get into FSX,I'v been looking around and you could spend a small futune on ad-ons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

09-18-2007, 08:16 AM
Glorious Moth, LF.