Page 3 of 3

Posted: 17 May 2007, 12:38
by TSR2
Truth is Dan, I'm getting old and the pub is becoming a bad place... must remember that I'm not 21 anymore. :lol: :lol:

Posted: 17 May 2007, 12:41
by DanKH
Who is nowadays? :lol:

Posted: 17 May 2007, 16:36
by snave
FSX is the future.
Just not the present.

FS9 is the past
Just not yet.


I'm a stickler for `equivalency` - in order for an upgrade to be worthwhile there has to be sufficient information that the new thing will do what the old thing will do. Only better. So the starting point for a `new'un` is to ask it to do the same job as the `old'un` - and see if it does it more efficiently, faster, better, or whatever critieria you apply.

Until now, FSX failed that test - on equivalent settings I got much less smoothness, never mind fps - and that indefinable `feeling of flying` in FS9 was superior.

But I have to say that SP1, for me, tips the balance. Maybe...

I'm not really fussed as its DX10 and NEXT year that I bought FSX for - I have a hardware upgrade planned for late this year, so I can probably get at least another nine months out of FS9. But there are things in FSX that FS9 cannot match.

Posted: 17 May 2007, 22:53
by DanKH
snave wrote:Until now, FSX failed that test - on equivalent settings
Please bear in mind, that the same slideposition in FSX is NOT the same slideposition in FS9, a point that has been stated quite a lot from ACES/M$

Just a comment, not to mix things up :smile:

Posted: 17 May 2007, 23:10
by kit
snave wrote: I'm a stickler for `equivalency` - in order for an upgrade to be worthwhile there has to be sufficient information that the new thing will do what the old thing will do. Only better.
Bill Gates should have that writ large on a plaque on his desk!

The number of M$ products that WON'T do what the previous version did is legion......... :tuttut: