Can FS-9 be made to look as good as FSX?

[minuteman10]

Add-ons are key...and as stated, not as expensive as they used to be! FS Genesis mesh...a good environmental enhancement (I like Birds Eye View) and Active Sky will give you all that you are looking for...and run smoothly on your machine..just my 2 cents!

 

[T6flyer]

I'm very seriously thinking about taking FSX off of my system. Only use it once a month I suppose and although I have the Gen-X British scenery and a few aeroplanes that I do find interesting or accurate, I love my FS2004 set up and wouldn't change a thing.

I'll give it a day or two and then make my mind up.

Best wishes,

Martin

 

[LonelyplanetXO]

I have X/accelleration and a quad core machine with a 1.1ghz graphics card. I've spent hours, days and weeks tweaking and tutuing with FSX to get it to a point where it runs smooth-ish mostly with moderate settings, although crashes arent that unusual. I also have a mature, well sorted FS9 install that runs very smoothly.
For me, FSX does indeed look cartoony insofar as the sky environment is too bright - you only see sky like that in US and Australia, nowhere else in the world and even then, only in summer. The ground scenery in the US at least is good, better than default FS9 although other parts of the world look like deserts (Could argue the same for stock FS9). The flight models which people say are better in FSX are in my (albeit limited) real world experience worse than FS9. As a general rule, most aircraft dont yaw & flop around randomly like they tend to in X. So far as I can tell there's no decent flightplanner for FSX. That said, both the sky and ground can be resolved with payware addons and presumably third party developers can address the flight handling issues.
So in theory I could buy addons to make FSX as good as FS9 (mine looks a lot like Fengs) but re-buying my favourite aircraft plus environmental addons plus a flightplanner if one exists would likely add up to over $NZ1000. And it still wouldnt be smooth. Needless to say, no sale.
Roll on an all new sim. until then It's FS9.

LonelyplanetXO

 

[falcon409]

Personally, I just wish that people would stop comparing the two sims. We all know that they're completely different animals, so comparison is really a waste of good flying time.

If you really can't choose, then do as I do -- install both, but know that they're not the same nor ever shall be.
Dave

Yep, every time this comes up (always in the FS9 Forum) it's the same old story. . . .you're not gonna get a bunch of folks in this forum to stand up and say. . ."yep, I love my FS9 but I sure wish I could get it to look as good as FSX", lol, so the reactions and answers are very predictable.
I have yet to see a thread started in the FSX forums that asked the question, can I get my FSX to look as good as FS9? Better still would be . . ."I really love FSX, but I fly FS9 also, can I get my FS9 setup to look as good as FSX? The consensus would be. . .NOPE!!

So I'm of the opinion that most diehard FS9 users will rarely if ever see anything good in FSX, it's just the way they see it and these questions of comparison, as dhazelgrove has noted, are a waste of good flying time. . .and by the way, I believe I have landed sideways on more than one occasion, lol.

 

[SlamBam]

I'll stick with what I said a thread or so ago, when they stop making FS9 stuff, and I get bored with my FS9 sim......I'm done with FS. I have way too much invested in FS9 to switch over. If there are some out there who can just throw money away in this day and age...good for you. Me I have a goverment I don't trust and I won't and can't afford to be just throwing my money at a new sim just to stay with the big shots.


POWER TO THE FS9 PEOPLE! :ernae:

 

[Francois]

I'll stick with what I said a thread or so ago, when they stop making FS9 stuff, and I get bored with my FS9 sim......I'm done with FS. I have way too much invested in FS9 to switch over. If there are some out there who can just throw money away in this day and age...good for you. Me I have a goverment I don't trust and I won't and can't afford to be just throwing my money at a new sim just to stay with the big shots.


POWER TO THE FS9 PEOPLE! :ernae:

Looking at the 25 year-or-so history of Flight Simulator, you would then be pretty unique, I'd say

We've read these sort of comments for the past 15 years, forever in the life of 'add-ons' really.

Reality teaches us that in the end 99% of the real flightsim hobby-ists WILL go over to the newer sim, no matter the investment in old add-ons.
Heck, I myself have been buying and re-buying and re-buying add-ons for 20 years already and I've never looked back.

If your hobby is fishing, wouldn't you continue to buy new rods and flies from time to time too, no mater if the old bamboo rod of 25 years ago in the shed would still do the trick too ??

 

[PilatusTurbo]

Look, I believe I have a relatively level headed approach to this argument-- Which is why I hardly ever chime into these discussions.

First: I realize FSX is clearly capable of far deeper graphical detail, and more dazzling effects. And I love the way Helis handle in FSX.

Second: I have a machine I thought would be capable of running FSX without issue (back in November 2007, it still should have done ok). However, I still have relatively low FPS in FSX, which I'm not happy or sad about.

Third: I have been tempted, as recently as 3 days ago, to really try to get FSX running to give it a shot. I attempted to install Vista 64 on my machine back in June, which was a total and complete failure in itself (Vista failed miserably, not me), just to get FSX everything that might help it. I still fly FS9 to avoid the heavy, heavy work that will be required in almost every computer sense to get FSX going the way I want it.

In conclusion, I'll keep flying my FS9 and staying loyal to it. Yes, it's not as pretty as FSX can be. However, for the amount of time/money I've invested in FS9 since 2003, It's simply wallet suicide to start upgrading another sim as deeply. I will probably do that once I can get a whole other new rig running.

I remember back to those 2003 days; I had a 2001 era machine, and FS9 ran woefully slow, when I first got it. With time, patience, and continuation of buying payware, it finally became a non-issue (And, I eventually got some upgraded machines over those years). However, since I'm now spoiled by FS9's smooth FPS, it will be a while before I'm ready to revert back to the slower FPS times of a newer and more in-depth sim.

 

[Wing_Z]

Looking at the 25 year-or-so history of Flight Simulator, you would then be pretty unique, I'd say
...

Unique?
No…not really, part of a growing migration, more like.
I came across this little picture of my own flightsim history, previously posted here but eaten by one of the several calamities past.

I had never stuck with, or gone back to, the previous version of the sim.
Always: the new computer, the tweaking, the frustrations, the video cards, the new improved sim.
Yet, when FSX arrived, I bought it, installed it, and dumped it.
Three years down the FSX road, it remains the poor relation on my computer.
I bought a couple of addons, which were a complete performance joke compared to the same thing in FS9, and not much prettier, despite the hype.
And it's not as if I had skimped on computing power - 4GHz o/c should not be a problem...

I imagine someone entering the Flightsim scene would go for FSX because it's the new one on the shelf.
I get ...tired, of looking at FSX, it has these FEATURES...
I think folk would be better served buying FS9 and spending the same money there, to better effect.
The products are simpler to produce, look gorgeous (with new features almost weekly) and are still being produced at a rate that I cannot keep up with.
Why would I dump that?
Unique?
No...proud to be an FS9 user, and loving it!

 

[Lionheart]

FS9 has been my fave also.

 

[Zevious Zoquis]

Looking at the 25 year-or-so history of Flight Simulator, you would then be pretty unique, I'd say

We've read these sort of comments for the past 15 years, forever in the life of 'add-ons' really.

Reality teaches us that in the end 99% of the real flightsim hobby-ists WILL go over to the newer sim, no matter the investment in old add-ons.
Heck, I myself have been buying and re-buying and re-buying add-ons for 20 years already and I've never looked back.

If your hobby is fishing, wouldn't you continue to buy new rods and flies from time to time too, no mater if the old bamboo rod of 25 years ago in the shed would still do the trick too ??

I don't know Francois, I think FS9 was/is a bit of a different bird. First of all, the sheer volume of payware add-ons released over FS9's lifespan means that many of us invested way more $ in it than any previous version of the sim. Secondly, theres always been the sense that Flightsim was a never ending progression and if you were in the hobby, you kept progressing with it. if you didn't , then by the time you finally moved to a new version, another new version was just around the corner. But now, with the closure of Aces, there isn't that same feeling. Theres no particular need to make the jump to FSX any sooner than we really feel we want to. Finally, with previous version of the sim, it only took maybe a year or so before there was a real volume of high quality add-ons coming out for the newer version that made us all go "YOWZA! I gotta have that!" I don't think that's been the case with FSX. I personally haven't seen much come out for it that made me feel like I was horribly missing out by staying with FS9. I mean theres a few nice things available for FSX, but its taken so long for them to arrive that I don't feel compelled to make the jump just to get them for some reason...

And as far as the point being made that you never see threads like this in FSX land, well its true I suppose. I mean how many threads do you see in this foum asking about how to make FS2002 look like FS9? Once you've moved on, theres not much point looking back. It's interesting though to note how many of the comments come from folks who have and have tried FSX (sometimes more than once) and ended up shelving it. So yeah, its true - people who have decided to stick with FS9 are to a degree going to look for ways to validate that decision. Otoh, I'd suggest its also possible that people who have made the decision to hit the delete key on FS9 and the years of building, modifying, and improving (and spending) they did on that sim and go with FSX have some validating to do too...

 

[Kiwikat]

Personally, I just wish that people would stop comparing the two sims. We all know that they're completely different animals, so comparison is really a waste of good flying time.

Why worry about what can't be changed? Just go land on a carrier - sideways!

Dave

Amen to that.

However, I do wonder the true reason why this topic keeps coming up. I've got my own theories... :mixedsmi:

 

[Zevious Zoquis]

For someone who wants to stick with FS9 for the time being, why isn't "what can I do to make my sim look more like FSX" a valid question? I mean, my response was the very first one and I basically said that given a powerful enough system to run FSX really well, not much. Isn't that a resonable response? Are you suggesting that it doesn't take a very powerful system to run FSX really well? I personally don't want to see my framerate drop much below 30 on approach to even the biggest, baddest airport with a decent amount of AI traffic flying around. Can I achieve that with high density scenery and real world weather on my AMD 5600+ 2.8ghz, ATI HD4850 512mb, 3 gig ram system in FSX? In FS9 I can fly into Flytampa's Hong Kong with the scenery density at extremely high and autogen at very high with ground shadows enabled, a sky full of realworld clouds and AI at 65% and still not drop below 30fps...

 

[jhefner]

Hi,

Can I make FS9 look like subLogic FS II?



Not being serious, of course; but I do long for some of simplier games on my old Commodore 64, and minimum amount of fuss it took to run them. And, you didn't care what the next version of Flight Simulator looked like another computer; either because you didn't know better, or it wasn't that much better.

What I DON"T miss is swapping floppy disks everytime I flew to another region.

-James

 

[Henry]

I have fsx, fs9 both
and fly both for different reasons
i do not believe you can ever make fs9 "look as good"
whatever addons you purchase
a question? what do you personally want in a sim
that would be in my opinion a better question
its like saying can i get my truck to look like a Rolls Royce
no! but can you get better gas milage, load it up with stuff
sure
H

 

[Willy]

I don't have FSX, but have my doubts that FS9 can be made to look like FSX. It'll always be a different sim. That being said, you can make FS9 look outstanding. I spent the better part of three years converting FS9 into FS 1954 and that's what I fly now. As long as I've got a computer that'll run it, I'm going to keep it.

 

[Bobcat]

I would just like to say there are some really good posts here; some really good discussion and points of view that are all valid. I find myself agreeing with just about everybody as I too am stuck in the middle! I have both installed.

I am lucky - I have a water-cooled overclocked E8600 rig that can handle both quite well now at maximum settings, so performance is not the issue for me anymore - just the content.

I still dabble with FSX, but like others here, I use FS9 more because of all the add-ons I have invested in.

I suppose the main point for me is that FSX never made it quite good enough to make me throw FS9 away - unlike all the previously superceeded versions. And I look at the duplicate cost of getting the equivalent extras for FSX and I am a little bit daunted by it.

If FSX had been an FS9 killer I would have done it, but it just seems like an FS9 and a half. I do look at some of the new payware and get tempted though, such as the new X-1. It is possible I will get this and just treat them as different sims - shame really as I would like it all in one, but nothing is perfect - I suppose we should think of it as having FS9, and CFS3 and not worry about it too much.

I know FS9 can never quite meet some of the extra content and eye candy of FSX, but it is far from obsolete for me. I have most of the tweaks and enhancements; the light bloom tweak is great once it is set up properly and if you have a decent video card. And I live in hope that REX FS9 can bring it a little bit closer.

 

[rich12545]

I don't have FSX, but have my doubts that FS9 can be made to look like FSX. It'll always be a different sim. That being said, you can make FS9 look outstanding. I spent the better part of three years converting FS9 into FS 1954 and that's what I fly now. As long as I've got a computer that'll run it, I'm going to keep it.

Just wondering how you can take 3 years to convert fs9 into fs1954. There is silver wings. The calclassic airports and cities. And some misc freeware stuff. Is there more that I'm somehow missing?

 

[Wing_Z]

...
However, I do wonder the true reason why this topic keeps coming up. I've got my own theories... :mixedsmi:

Because we're programmed by our consumer experience to accept that if it's NEW it somehow is more desirable.
People who do not automatically adopt it are then obliged to rush about and reassure themselves that it's actually permissible :d It's a healthy response to the prosumer equation...
The correct answer to the thread question might be:
Why would you want to?

 

[Willy]

Just wondering how you can take 3 years to convert fs9 into fs1954. There is silver wings. The calclassic airports and cities. And some misc freeware stuff. Is there more that I'm somehow missing?

I did my own AI flights for it worldwide.

 

[Kiwikat]

Why would you want to?

Because it looks better! If I didn't care what the sim looked like, I would have stuck with FS2002...

To me there is a bigger difference between FS9 and FSX than FS2002 and FS9. I'm talking about stock, of course. Addon sceneries and environment enhancements change everything. FS9 may be the best performance/dollar we will ever see in the FS world. However, those with better computers can and DO enjoy a smooth and improved experience with FSX.

If it means sacrificing a few FPS for improved visuals, I'll go with the visuals. Still, 36 FPS on my FSX is as smooth as any FS9 I've used at 50 FPS... :mixedsmi: