I have seen the dark side.....

O

OBIO

Retired SOH Admin
and it scared me!

I installed FSX just to tinker around with it....and found that there really isn't anything there that I liked...other than some of the sound packs...which I copied out to a folder to use as building blocks for new FS2004 sound packs for some of my planes...the Beaver sounds were incredible!

At one point, I was actually getting better frame rates in X than I do in FS2004....but I had all the detail sliders on minimum (other than those related to the aircraft) and was out in the middle of the ocean with nothing around. I started up a flight in an area that was more than just water...and frame rates were less than half of what I get in FS2004 with full detail settings.

I will not be returning to the dark side anytime soon.

OBIO
 
What version did you get and install OBIO?

It's finicky, but when it's right, it's downright gorgeous.

I don't get the constant knockout fps as I do in FS9, particularly using FRAPS, but then I need a better processor, W7, more RAM, and a better vid card too for FSX to do right.

Tell you what, I have all slider full right save auto-gen, that is set to normal for most flying, none for shoting some FRAPS videos or using Photo-real scenery.

And as long as I stay in rural turf, no matter the terrain, I get very constant and reliable 24-30 fps from the VC and 20 - 24 in Spot. I like the VC because the scenery loads faster than in Spot. FS9 portage aircraft and jets get less, but I am a low and slow flyer, you know that.

I got the Gold edition with Acceleration and I have had no whims. I have GEX-USA, UTX USA-Canada and UTX-Europe (which is gorgeous), FSGenesis 9.6-meter USA mesh, REX, the FS Water Configurator (free), Plum Island, Frank's Grand Tetons and Alps.

Whoo-Whee, in Piglet's M-18C (highly recommended), I am in hog Heaven. :medals::icon29:

Caz

canyon_4.jpg


port_view_vc2.jpg


balloon.jpg


yosemite_1.jpg
 
I love addons, and FS9 handles anything I can throw at it

Folks that are happy with FSX generally have different requirements of their simming experience.
I'm watching computers develop, and so far haven't seen any that will handle FSX the way mine does FS9.

Easy sum, really.
 
A while back, the owner of my favorite pizza shop GAVE me FSX Deluxe Edition and a set of Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar flight controls (stick and throttle...no peddles...really need peddles to use the set). I have only installed FSX twice...once just to see what was there that was "lacking" in FS2004 (NOTHING) and again today just to tinker around with it a bit. There is no way my P4 3.0gig, 2 gig PC3200 RAM system is going to be able to run FSX at any level that I find acceptable. I can throw the kitchen sink at FS2004 on this system and get smooth performance...as long as I don't go heavy on the storm clouds...those really knock the socks off this old puter.

OBIO
 
OBIO said:
....... the Beaver sounds were incredible! ........... OBIO
Click to expand...

I've never installed FSX so can't comment there.

I'd love to get a realistic FS2004 sound for the Beaver .... I really hope you do that OBIO :jump:

I regularly fly the Ag Cat in real life and it shares the same P&W R-985 450 Hp engine. Sound wise there's nothing so far in the sim that comes close to it.

Love the sounds that come out from your workshop OBIO :applause:

Pete.
 
Digging around in my sound library today and came across a folder marked Beaver Sounds. I have no idea where they came from, who made them...but all there was in that folder was a series of sound files for internal and external views.....very sharp Beaver sounds....best I have heard yet. There was no read me file, no clue what so ever as to when or where I got them...though they have been around for quite some time as these were burnt to CD with a bunch of CFS2 stuff from back in 07.

I am working up a sound pack for the Beaver/Pratt and Whitney R-985 using these files, some files pulled from Lawdog's sound packs (prop sounds, environmental sounds and such). Once I get it fully tweaked, working 100% and to the liking of my ears....I will upload...and hope that the author of the Beaver files does not hunt me down and whoop my butt for using his/her files without permission or credit.

OBIO
 
I have them both installed but I almost never use fsx, the reason I have not used it much as I'm really busy with my fs2004 add ons I'm building and secondly, I just found that after I ported over a lot of scenery files from fsx to fs9 there wasn't really much use playing fsx. And I'm happy designing with fs9 as it is right now with a family and all Its hard just to do fs9 add ons let alone relearn every thing for fsx.

Fs9 dose everything fsx dose and it loads faster, uses less resources and does not have to have an activation. Like my buddy ran into a few problems with his computer, after a few installs it turned out to be a bad mother board, after that was corrected the game/Fsx would not re-activate, and he wasn't about to go out and re buy a new version of both the flight sim and Acceleration.. so he's back to fs9. I feel the same.
So I just use fs9.

Nothing against fsx either.


Tom/Crashwoody
 
FSX might just be the greatest thing since sliced bread for all I know. But I like what I've done with FS9 and see no need to reinvent the wheel.
 
AND....I just have to many pay ware planes for fs9.. and I haven't really used to many of them yet...lol so I kinda need to fly those before I run off to another playing field.. and besides why go over there when my team is here...:jump:

Crash
 
I have them both installed and use both. Some aircraft I fly aren't built for FSX and some aren't built for FS9. FS9 loads faster with is a plus for the work I do in FS -- and I do have to look at things in both versions.
:ernae:
 
With all the texture and terrain upgrades I've invested in for FS9, it looks pretty darn close to FSX, at least judging by the demo version I downloaded. My old system runs FS9 OK, barely, so in order to run FSX I'd have to invest a bag full of cash in a very hot new machine. And what would I end up with? Something that looks and runs pretty much like what I have now. People with systems many time faster than mine complain that FSX still doesn't run all that great. Why should I spend lots of dough on hardware just to end up in about the same place I am now? If I upgrade my hardware I'd rather run FS9 real fast and smooth rather than FSX at some marginal pace. :wavey:
 
I decided to give FSX a run when I found it at A$59.95 for the entire package, well under half the 'normal' RRP.
Thanks to some of the good information posted in the FSX forum I've been able to tinker with it, but I'm not a fan so far.
I can get a steady 20FPS with good weather and scenery, but it needs plenty of grunt to do so.
At the moment that boils down to an i7, a pair of 1G graphic cards in Crossfire (which ignore one another from time to time!!!) and 6G of DDR3 RAM, all running under XP Pro 64.
Be interesting to see what happens under W7 on a newer box, but as far as I'm concerned FS9 running with everything maxed out at 40FPS (all the time) is the way to go for this little Hairy Hosed Wombat.
:applause:
 
Nope, wouldn't even recommend FSX for a P4 OBIO.

I have to agree with everything all have said about FS9, because all are the reasons FS9 will never leave my system, ultra smooth and steady frame rates regardless of weather, fx, or city, so many payware add-ons that I have, so many airplanes, which got better as the sim aged.

That's one fine screenshot with the Binder Feng. :ernae:

Caz
 
I can't play any games unless it can hit a constant 60fps (i have vSync on to avoid screen tearing). If it's lower than that, i can actually get headaches. I also refuse to downgrade the graphics to meet that high fps.

I bought and deleted ARMA II for this reason. The game will only run at 45fps max on my crazy machine. If i wanted 60, i'd have to set everything to medium and low; making the game look like crap.

FS9 is so perfect. It never drops below 60, even parked at JFK in overcast conditions and full AI. If i turn vSync off, the fps sometimes shoot through the 100+ range... not many games can acheive this at 1920x1200 res....

-feng
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top