A little video comparison for you

Cazzie

Cazzie

SOH-CM-2024
FS9 vs FSX. The pros and the cons. Flying the same airplane, Manuele Villa's Ansaldo SVA 5 out of my home airport Danville, VA.

All the bells and whistles are in FS9: FS Genesis 38-meter DEM mesh (LOD 20), Ultimate Terrain - USA, Ground Environment Pro, Active Sky 6.5, and Real Environment Pro controlling water textures and extended bumpmaps. Notice how smooth the frames are while capturing the video.

In FSX I have FSGenesis 9.6-meter DEM mesh (LOD 22) and Ultimate Terrain X - USA. Colors are much brighter, resolution is much better down low, the moving traffic is nice eye candy. The default water colors in FSX leave much to be desired. The new beta FS Water Configurator is a well welcomed utility here. Frame rates while capturing video are down to about 15 fps and you can clearly see the motion is not as fluid as FS9.

Head latency in FS9 is controlled using Active Camera 9.1, in FSX head latency is controlled by default in the VC.

Caz

[youtube]0-yULz8hUJM[/youtube]
 
I was starting to think the same thing about the vid not showing, and then it finally connected to Youtube and the vid popped onto the screen. Just give it a few seconds.
 
Very good concept, comparing the sims side by side, although unfortunately YouTube's vid quality makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Overall FSX looks better resolution and quality but as you say at a significant penalty in fps. (btw You need to do some circuits to get those landings downpat :) )
Side by side comparo's were exactly how I measured FS9 over the newcomer. I really wanted to like FSX; have accelleration/SP2 and I'd spent weeks tweaking and testing FSX and believed I had it pretty much optimised and running as well as it seemed to be capable of (This is on a Quad core machine with an 8800 GTS 640Mb card). Id spent a lot of time with FSX and frustrating as all the tweaking was, it seemed to be working well. Then Lionhearts Epic came along with an FS9/X installer. So I did a leg up in Canada in FS9 (all default scenery in both excepting addon water in FS9 which equalled the FSX advantage there, AC for latency in FS9 & default for FSX), then repeated the leg in FSX, fully expecting to see a significant improvement in the new sim. Result? FS9 - less detail low down but better FPS and a very good experience in a great aircraft. I felt like a pilot; that I'd really flown the leg. FSX nicer detail initially, much brighter colours (unrealistically so) but terrible blurry scenery at altitude and unacceptably low fps on approach, making for a choppy, unhappy experience. I landed safely in the latter flight frustrated that I simply couldnt "suspend my disbelief" and buy the idea that I'm flying a plane and not sitting at a computer screen. Conclusion? Ditch FSX altogether, enjoy FS9. Still do.
LPXO
 
Cazzie said:
FS9 vs FSX. ...
Click to expand...
Sure, and the result exactly matches my own experience (and plenty of others too), which is why I am in the FS9 camp.

But this really wants a no-holds barred shootout:
The best FS9 video possible, any machine, all addons allowed
vs
The best FSX video possible, ditto

I am about to gain access to a 4GHz Core 2 Duo E8600 machine, y'see... it won't improve FS9 as it is well-nigh perfect already, but FSX??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top