Absolutely, FS9 isn't perfect but with both versions set to max realism I personally find FSX much more stable... I guess I kind of expected improvements in this area and ultimately found the opposite. Without real-life PIC experience in heli's I am no expert but it's possible to fly the FSX Bell hands-free which as far I know isn't the case in the real world.
Hi DM, no long hauls here just the odd short sightseeing hop... with only 1GB of RAM anything too far renders blank scenery :roll:
Best,
Lee
Last edited by LeeC on 16 Jan 2007, 16:14, edited 1 time in total.
Now that I finally have a PC that will run it, I have FSX. Do I fly it? Not a whole heck of a lot! In FS9, my new rig runs a MelJet 777 at KLAX, in spot view, looking past the jet at the main terminal, with AI at max at about 30 FPS. Easier planes at less detailed airports run at better than 60 FPS. Load up FSX, and I'm lucky just to get fluid motion on the screen. The eye candy's great, the stock VC's are a dream, but it's just not worth it.
FS9 all the way for me, I tried FSX but it felt like flying a rocking horse.
I was happy because I won it as first prize in a raffle.
only to find out that second prize was two copies!!!
Robbie.
Frame rates are a catastrophe in FSX and I can't see things getting better quickly in that all the advances in the immediate future are about adding additional cores and FSX makes only marginal use of multicore technology.
:tuttut: 
I suffer from paranoid amnesia. I can't remember who I don't trust.
