General Category > General Discussion

New Scenery Old Scenery or A REAL GOOD FORM FSDT!!!!!!

<< < (3/3)

bradl:

--- Quote from: ESzczesniak on October 25, 2009, 09:24:45 pm ---
--- Quote ---...(I've heard some stories of people getting less than 25FPS on a $2000 machine that they could get 60+ FPS on with all sliders maxed in FS9)...
--- End quote ---

I've heard this argument before and it is just terrible.  True, FS9 will run at 60+ FPS with all sliders to the right while you can get maybe 25-30 fps in FSX with mid to mid-high settings ont he sliders.  However, even at that point default FSX looks a lot better than FS9 with all the sliders to the right.  While add-ons can make FS9 look better, FSX has much better graphic texture handling and there are some add-ons in FSX that are just mind blowing.  I can't tell you whether or not FSX is an efficient code and agree that right now it is a beast to run, I am sure that once hardware becomes readily available for FSX (the way it is for FS9 right now), FSX will be the standard.

--- End quote ---

And that is my entire point. Why go from something that works and smoothly, to something that leaves you half crippled for the sake of 'better features'? If something 'just works', don't break it. When FSX came out, you were already looking at a $2000 price jump just to get the hardware to make it work nicely. Why spend that much money when FS9 gets you what you need. 'better/more features'? I'd rather wait until prices come down to where they can be afforded than spend more money for something that you'll be replacing in 2 - 3 years time anyway.

If I can build myself a box for less than $500 that can get me those 60FPS versus $1500 for 25-30 FPS.. let's see.. which is more affordable and gets you better Return on Investment? I wonder..   ::)

Besides.. I could put that extra $1000 towards something better... I dunno.. like a PPL.

BL.

ESzczesniak:

--- Quote from: bradl on October 26, 2009, 02:52:57 am ---And that is my entire point. Why go from something that works and smoothly, to something that leaves you half crippled for the sake of 'better features'? If something 'just works', don't break it. When FSX came out, you were already looking at a $2000 price jump just to get the hardware to make it work nicely. Why spend that much money when FS9 gets you what you need. 'better/more features'? I'd rather wait until prices come down to where they can be afforded than spend more money for something that you'll be replacing in 2 - 3 years time anyway.

If I can build myself a box for less than $500 that can get me those 60FPS versus $1500 for 25-30 FPS.. let's see.. which is more affordable and gets you better Return on Investment? I wonder..   ::)

Besides.. I could put that extra $1000 towards something better... I dunno.. like a PPL.

BL.

--- End quote ---

This is logical in today's state.  I have chosen FSX personally (although I still use FS9 as well).  However, I can understand saying that FS9 is best for you currently.  What I don't understand is the people who use this argument that they get 60+ fps in FS9 and only 20 fps in FSX to state that FSX will never be a good simulator and they will never ever upgrade from FS9.  It'll have it's day, it just may not be there quite yet.  Of course, the investment in FS9 add-ons takes some to over come too, but that is why I have focused on buying add-ons that are dual FS9/FSX licenses.

felixthreeone:
...I don't see how this turned into FSX/FS9 at all??? If I read it correctly, It looks as though he is pointing his finger at microsoft with disdain....not FSX. I see a complaint about the discontinuation of flightsim. Nothing more, nothing less.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page