Thinking of FS9 again?

D

DaveKDEN

Charter Member
Out of curiousity more than anything else, I'm thinking of installing FS9 on my XPS630. I'm running FSX just fine, but would like to see how this rig handles FS9. So, any gotcha's when installing FS9 on a system that already has FSX? Also, can I still expect to have the stttuttters on a Q6600 2.4GHz Quad-Core o/c'd to 3.0GHz?

Specs;
Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
4GB RAM
768MB GeForce 800GTX

One final question, if I decide to remove FS9 after checking it out, will the removal screw up FSX in any way?
 
I have a Vista system, very basic Dual Core 2.5ghz, 4gig of RAM and an NVidia 9600GT video card w/512mg RAM. FS9 runs consistently at 30 to 40fps with all sliders maxed and the occasional stutter. My previous PC was a PentiumIV, 3.2ghz, 4 gig of RAM and an NVidia 7600GT w/256mg RAM and with identical overall performance, so not sure what that says about my current setup.
Personally, despite what "experts" say, I don't think there's any way, on a standard PC, to completely rid yourself of the stutters. My opinion.
 
My system:

P4 3.0 gig
2 Gig Ram
512meg Nvidia Geforce 7600GS (AGP 8X)
On Board Realtech Sound

I have a fairly fresh install of FS2004 (Christmas present) with totally stock scenery....too busy adding planes to worry about clouds and grass at this point....

All sliders set to max...the only time I get stutter is when I am in external (Spot view) and doing a lot of panning around looking at the plane's detail/checking alignment and quality of some repaints I am working on. FPS is in the 40 to 60 range with most planes.

OBIO
 
I have an HP M9540f, from Circuit City for $1200. it runs FS9 and FSX quite well. The monitor is a 22", also HP, for $230.

2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300 with 6MB L2 Cache
8GB PC2-6400 DDR2 SDRAM Memory (4x2048MB for ultimate performance), 750GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT Graphics Card with 512MB Dedicated Video Memory
SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology, Wireless LAN 802.11b/g
Windows Vista Home Premium
 
Thanks. Any issues with un-installing FS9 I need to consider? Don't want to mess up FSX. :redf:

Edit; Oh yea, was there just the one update for FS9 (fs91upd.exe)?
 
DaveKDEN said:
Thanks. Any issues with un-installing FS9 I need to consider? Don't want to mess up FSX. :redf:
Edit; Oh yea, was there just the one update for FS9 (fs91upd.exe)?
Click to expand...
As Cazzie said: FS9 on a hot rig is a real pleasure!
I have FSX and FS9 co-existing with no problems on the same HDD partition, but I have heard some anecdotal talk of cross-intererence between the sims.
Just set a restore point before you install FS9.
And FS9.1 is the latest version, yes.
 
Hi Dave,
I have 2 installs of FS9 and 2 installs of FSX on my machine.No problems.
FS9 only uses one core so your specs are basically the same as mine at the present(just ordered my new machine today).
I currently have an
E6600 Core2Duo running at 2.4ghz...No overclock.
4gb 800mhz ram.
8800gtx 768mb graphics card.
Get on avaerage 50-60 fps out of town and 20-30fps in built up areas.
So it should be as smooth as silk.


Buddha13
 
First off, thanks to all those who responded to my initial post! So you understand, I'm very hesistant to make this post, but I wanted to share my experience after re-installing FS9. As I stated earlier, I installed FS9 on this computer more out of curiosity as to how it would run than anything else. As such, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I don't mean this post to be inflammatory!!!

I installed FS9 again yesterday and ended up with a big smile on my face the first time I booted it up. I truly wish I had the capability to run FS9 this well years ago when I first purchased it (you see, I was stuck with a rather dated computer until this past March). After installing FS9 + the update, I maxed all sliders out and ran at 60fps 90% of the time (even in dense scenery areas - e.g., Seattle). Overall, it's quite nostalgic and enjoyable, however, FSX is still going to be my primary sim. You see, I can run FSX at 30fps 90% of the time, and it's extremely smooth. Also, to be honest, after comparing the two side-by-side (so to speak), FSX's out of the box graphics are far superior to FS9's (IMO). If you prefer FS9 as a result of the hard work you've invested to make it your sim of choice, that's fantastic. However, for me, the "believability" of FSX is far greater. I really don't have the time to completely re-build FS9 to improve the "experience" of using it. I also don't want to invest any cash in any environmental or textural add-ons for what is now a very dated sim. I'll likely keep FS9 on my rig (for now), but really don't see using it for anything more than checking out FS9 designs that aren't compatible with FSX. Having said that, I do find it extremely enjoyable to "fly" some of the more complex add-ons for FS9 that I had a tough time running on my old rig (KBT's F/A-18E-G series comes to mind). So, once again, please don't take this post as anything more than just my experience and opinion. I am honestly VERY HAPPY for those of you who are still very satisfied with FS9. I also still think it's a great sim that still has quite a bit of life left.

Thanks for listening. Also, I leave the option open for changing my mind at some point in the future as I tinker with FS9 some more.
 
Certainly out of the box, FS9 cannot compare with FSX.
But as you point out, this discussion is not about FS9 vs FSX...it's about what you can do in the sims.
I also have them both, and quickly ran out of headroom in FSX.
For example, I loaded up Aerosoft's superb Budapest scenery which crippled FSX, while in FS9 I have a blissful scenery experience, plus all the AI I can find, with no problem.
The reason many people stick with FS9 is like me, they already have that major FS9 investment. Last time I checked, the FS9 folder was 40GB, and the "holding tank" was 160 GB. That's an awful lot of enjoyment: scenery, aircraft, plus all the water, ground and sky textures you'd ever want in a sim.
I run FSX as an out-of-box arcade game, and have some fun with it. But on my computer FS9 will be the simulator of choice for many years.
For someone installing flightsim for the first time, the choice might not be as obvious. But I think going the FS9 route might keep you happily occupied for longer than FSX would.
Cheaper, too.
 
***** said:
The reason many people stick with FS9 is like me, they already have that major FS9 investment.
Cheaper, too.
Click to expand...

A very valid point!!! :amen: I lost everything I had with FS9 due to a virus and subsequent re-install of WinXP on my old machine. As such, I ended up buying my new rig, and had installed FSX on it as soon as I received it. Never had even tried FS9 on it until yesterday.

Oh yea, another neat thing about FS9 - "zip-zing" and it's loaded up and ready to fly :jump:.
 
I have both FS9 and FSX on my E6850 (overclocked to 3.6 GHz) Windows XP SP2 system. Out of the box, FSX looks really good, but does not provide more than 30 fps on my system (but it's pretty smooth) while FS9 screams along at 50 to 60 fps with the occasional stutter. FS9 could probably be made to look almost as good as FSX with replacement mesh, scenery, and environments, but FSX has that out of the box plus more AI traffic and moving AI ground traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top