What FS Version

[Jimmy]

or me with FSX default looking comparable to FS9 with addons the frame rate just about halves

Excatly, I must get some screenshots of what fs9 looks like in comparison to fsx with the same fps, definatly fs9 is the best choice

If your running fsx with sliders half way why not run fs9 with them all the way, same visuals better performace....

James

[toprob]

Results are pretty much as expected. I predict that with the release of SP1 this will be 50/50, with an 80% takeup of FSX by the end of the year.
Although I develop scenery for New Zealanders, first and foremost, I do rely on overseas sales to make a living. I suspect that in Europe and the US the uptake would be higher. Products I produce now need to sell in the future, which means FSX compatibility.
The fact that MS have addressed performance is remarkable, really. I wouldn't expect to be able to play any cutting-edge games on my aging PC -- Half Life 2 pushed it too hard, and that was more than two years ago. Yet we all expect miracles from MS.
The fact is, though, that FSX will win us all over eventually. After a week away from FSX -- mainly due to breaking it -- when I finally got to try Deane's Fletcher around Wanganui with the autumn autogen, 2m/px textures and real weather I was just blown away -- not by the eye-candy for its own sake, but for the degree of realism.
I actually chose FS2004 in the poll, but within a month this may well change.

[steelsporran]

Sticking with FS9 until I get a Cray.

[boldpilot]

FS9 and Falcon 4

[ZK-TJL]

FSX exclusively

Same here . I think many people tend to knock FSX when they should be knocking their computer.......X is a big beast......it takes a big rig to handle it.

[P2-ANG]

Spents heaps on FS9 addons so sticking with that product....and my 4 grand laptop allows me to max everything out....I did install the demo version of X but it did not run that well.I plan to make up a computer later in the year that will run X and by then most of my addons will operate in X like activeSky & FSNAV.

[Matlo]

Finally got myself a new pc, so I am running FSX now.. woohoo !! (this explains my recent absence as I was sulking in the corner... )

[chopper_nut]

I bought a 1gb stick of RAM today to boost my total to 1.5Gb. I have a 3.2GHZ processor and a 128mb video card and I can only get 5 to 7 FPS on FSX. Theres something wrong with that isnt there.

[Alex]

I've got 2.5Gb of RAM, 3.4GHz P4 HT and 512Mb of onboard graphics memory, and get 7-10 frames.

Definately staying with FS9.

Alex

[Naki]

Crikey Alex - your computer is no slouch and only 7-10 FPS - ouch! I may as well forget about FSX as I have 2.2 ghz processor, 2 gig ram & 256 mb graphics card and no sign of an upgarde - roll on FS 11 as that will be out by the time I get an upgrade!

[bardos]

After the HD crash in febr. still problems with my pc: FS9 with 3-6 FPS isn't a pleasure.
This summer a new one with FSX and Vista and then online flying again.

[Zöltuger]

I've got 2.5Gb of RAM, 3.4GHz P4 HT and 512Mb of onboard graphics memory, and get 7-10 frames.

onboard video? well there's your problem
a dedicated graphics card will bring you much FSX joy

[JonARNZ]

FSX exclusively

Same here . I think many people tend to knock FSX when they should be knocking their computer.......X is a big beast......it takes a big rig to handle it.

Egzachary! If people dont know I'm X-clusive now they never will.

[Naki]

Okay I didn't read Alex's specs very well - mine isn't an on board graphics card - do you think my specs will give reasonable FPS for FSX or maybe I should just wait until the patch is out and then decide?

[JonARNZ]

Okay I didn't read Alex's specs very well - mine isn't an on board graphics card - do you think my specs will give reasonable FPS for FSX or maybe I should just wait until the patch is out and then decide?

Hmm, be ok but I would wait until we fully understand what SP1 brings to the table performance wise.

[scon]

Ahhhhhh how SP1 may change my life (actually FSX runs ok as it is)

[kimz28]

There is to much high quality add-ons for FS9 to drop it, My hardware is more than capable of running FSX, but choose to use FS9 (just got Flytampa's St Maartens, to good to resist) though I predict over the next few month's FSX may end up being my main version to use.

[Alex]

Sorry, I worded that wrongly, I meant to imply my video card (Radeon X700) has 512mb of dedicated video RAM. (NOT an integrated card)

Alex

[jastheace]

i am an fs9 man myself, fsx won't run on my pc, and i have to much dollars tied up in fs9 to change, espically when my fav program isn't fsx compatible. then theres the cost of upgrading my pc. going to have to wait awhile!!!

[Grumble]

On a Core2Duo E6400, 2gb ram, 256mb 7600GT, I can run FS9 spread across twin monitors at (virtually) 2560x1024, with active sky and a whole bunch of addons and traffic with all sliders (bar clouds) maxed and it is silky smooth.

On FSX I can run the whole show on ONE monitor at 1280x1024 at low-med settings at get 10-20fps. As for going over a city... forget it.

But the real deciding factor for me is that RealNZ Rotorua and Tauranga don't work on FSX. ROoooooooooooooooooooooooooooobin!!!

I rarely, rarely fly FSX.