FS9 Revisited

[Goran_M]

I was working with Theo today and was uploading something to him in Dropbox.  I felt like taking a small break so I decided to fire up FS9 purely out of curiosity as I had forgotten what it looked like.

Turns out I wasn't missing much.

I quickly drew a few comparisons between the default Cessna 172 in both simulators.  It amazes me how the FS9 fans keep saying if you put x-plane and FS9 side by side and compare default aircraft, FS9 smashes X-Plane.  

Keeping in mind, my X-Plane settings are at roughly half that of FS9 settings.  My FS9 settings are totally maxed out.

Anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?  Anybody at all?  

LOL?

FS9

X-PLANE

[MdMax]

;D That's true, default XP9 looks much better, but please don't forget this:

1) In 2 days, FS9 will be 7 years old.

2) You'll never find a FS9 fan using a default FS aircraft. They're all using tons of add-ons. If someone uses a default aircraft, it's not a fan, it's a newbie.

Happy flying, and happy birthday FS9 ! 

[Goran_M]

;D That's true, default XP9 looks much better, but please don't forget this:

1) In 2 days, FS9 will be 7 years old.

2) You'll never find a FS9 fan using a default FS aircraft. They're all using tons of add-ons. If someone uses a default aircraft, it's not a fan, it's a newbie.

Happy flying, and happy birthday FS9 !  

Both valid points.  However, my point was, I see many FS9 veterans still say that X-Plane doesn't even compare to FS9 with no add ons.

I read just about all the forums out there.  And that is the common thread.  A mod who is involved with a very well known add on for FS9 and FSX even had the nerve to show his sarcastic side while drawing a comparison.

I would love to fire up FSX to take a few screenshots of that, but I don't have it installed and it takes about half an hour to have it installed.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the X-Plane default Cessna is from V7, I think.  And it looks the same now as it did back then.  That was quite a while ago.  Perhaps around the same time as FS9

Again, I'm not in this to bash FS9 or FSX.  They both have their pro's and cons and people have the right to choose.  But seriously, FS9 "smashing" X-Plane?  I don't think so.

[Mikkel]

FS9 and most FSX addons don't seem to match X-Plane in texture quality - even if we say the XP9 C172 is reference.

I have the PMDG MD11 and it is a hell of an addon but the texture quality isn't near X-Plane as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I have FSX installed if you need some sort of comparison screenshot (let me know if you do)

[MaidenFan]

and x plane has the most realism.  ISNT THAT WHAT A FLIGHT SIMULATOR IS FOR?

[Goran_M]

FS9 and most FSX addons don't seem to match X-Plane in texture quality - even if we say the XP9 C172 is reference.

I have the PMDG MD11 and it is a hell of an addon but the texture quality isn't near X-Plane as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I have FSX installed if you need some sort of comparison screenshot (let me know if you do)

Mikkel

There is no doubt some add ons for FSX and FS9 are extremely high quality and are much better than X-Planes 3rd party add ons.  However, what struck me was peoples comments that when making a true comparison between the simulators, take out all the add ons and just compare them straight out of the box.  And I remember more than a few people say in various forums, that when this kind of comparison is done, FS9 leaves X-Plane "in the dust".

In no way do I want this to be a X-Plane vs FS9 thread.  I was simply making an observation based on other peoples comments.  I have all the MSFS's from FS98.  But imho, FS9 does not leave X-Plane "in the dust" when comparing straight out of the box. 

[MdMax]

However, what struck me was peoples comments that when making a true comparison between the simulators, take out all the add ons and just compare them straight out of the box.

Did they focus on airport buildings, on the color of the ocean near tropical islands, or on default clouds ?

Were they unable to takeoff in X-Plane because they did not find the parking brake key ?

Did they forget how FS9 looks like without any add-on ?

It's hard to understand why they prefer FS9 out of the box if there's no argument, but here is a nice collection of FS9 screenshots:

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0803/fs2004_review/part1_intro/part1_intro.html

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0803/fs2004_review/part2_aircraft/part2_main.html

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0803/fs2004_review/part3_scenery/part3_scenery.html

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0803/fs2004_review/add-ons/addon.html

Today, not only X-Plane looks better, but also FlightGear:

http://www.avionic-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17181

But FlightGear is still behind when you test the flight models.

And FSX has a big problem with the "average" computer. This is still true 4 years after the release of FSX, and this may explain why 69% of IVAO's traffic is still using FS9.

[Mikkel]

I don't really have anything negative to say of any of the three simulators. I've only used X-Plane until a few month ago where I bought FSX and the MD11 to satisfy my need for flying advanced airliners. However, I still think the texture quality is much better in X-Plane even with many FSX aircraft. Not that it matters, 'cause each simulator satisfies different needs for me so...

FS9 and most FSX addons don't seem to match X-Plane in texture quality - even if we say the XP9 C172 is reference.

I have the PMDG MD11 and it is a hell of an addon but the texture quality isn't near X-Plane as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I have FSX installed if you need some sort of comparison screenshot (let me know if you do)

Mikkel

There is no doubt some add ons for FSX and FS9 are extremely high quality and are much better than X-Planes 3rd party add ons.  However, what struck me was peoples comments that when making a true comparison between the simulators, take out all the add ons and just compare them straight out of the box.  And I remember more than a few people say in various forums, that when this kind of comparison is done, FS9 leaves X-Plane "in the dust".

In no way do I want this to be a X-Plane vs FS9 thread.  I was simply making an observation based on other peoples comments.  I have all the MSFS's from FS98.  But imho, FS9 does not leave X-Plane "in the dust" when comparing straight out of the box. 

[Lukasz]

Here's a pack of screenshots of FS9 (with a very slight and cosmetic modifications) versus X-Plane 9.0 (vanilla) - the planes being the most "modded" parts of screenshots. As you'll see, screens were made in pairs, from more or less the same places and angles around LOWI. Check out framerates - all was done on the same PC!

I really liked FS9 and it's X-Plane's "fault", that I didn't buy FSX Remind you, I prefer X-Plane's graphics that FSX. Regarding flight model, to avoid all the discussion about "the advantage of blade theory over look up tables" (or the opposite, whatever your inclination is ) one thing is undeniable: flight instruments in FS are moving incrementally, in opposition to X-Plane's smooth movement and that's what always made me mad in FS. Not to mention helicopters' dynamics... And now, all that I missed from FS9 is said to be included in X-Plane 10

After flying many sims I've come to a conclusion, that it's not a question of "what is the best sim", instead it's "what is the best sim for me". People have various likes, tastes and temperaments, as well as they expect many different things from flight simming.

Here, check out the screens and make up your own mind, which one eats the other "out of the box" As a side note, FSX on this very computer looked more like a FS9, in order to keep acceptable framerates. The same computer runs ArmA 2, Crysis and Stalker: COP on Hi-Med settings with very few hiccups...

[MaidenFan]

Wow, X-Plane is way better!!!

[Planes]

Indeed, X-Plane has nice default scenery.

[Sulman]

It's easy to forget that the global scenery project for X-plane was a massive undertaking - and the results really do show.

I think FS9 has been surpassed for a while. It's never been great at high altitude, and FSX makes huge strides in this area. I love the Level D 767 for FSX but the control feel in the MSFS games has always been a little strange for me, in particular I've never liked the pitch behaviour in MS games, not since FS5. I suspect it is less the physic modelling and more the fact that you seem to get developers choosing very heavy damping to induce 'heavyness'.

There are some incredible flight models for MSFS (I think the VRS Superhornet is amazing) so it is capable but I do like the engineering-led approach that X-plane takes. Flying X-plane craft feels a little more enjoyable to me.