I agree with you. FS9 is still my favorite, even 20 years later. With today's new hardware and graphics, it's rock solid, runs flawlessly, and can look absolutely beautiful. Even if you are only using freeware, it can still look absolutely amazing! Long live FS9! 😀
I was wondering this the other day. My guess is that most people bought either the least expensive or most expensive version. I only bought the Deluxe version simply for the enhanced Cape Town International airport, and the steam gauge 172. If it weren't for that, I'd have bought the Standard version, since, well it's a lot of money extra for stuff that I probably won't use.
I'm reasonably happy with my choice, since I visit Cape Town fairly frequently in the game and also have other scenery and airports in the area as well. I don't fly the any version of the 172 much these days however. But if I do, I usually go for the steam gauge one.
What about you? Which one did you get, why, and are you still satisfied with the purchase?
This sounds realistic. Even with FS9 and high end add-ons, you don't get 200fps. The other big benefit of FS9 over FSX is the choice of ground textures. FSX you basically have Orbx or default. While FS9 textures are lower resolution, at least you can change the look of your FS world more often. I'll take the hit to resolution in order to have more choice. Aircraft and airports, as I said in my post above, there is incredibly little difference when you compare apples with apples.
FS9 doesn't need internet activation. You just need to install v9.1 patch and the nocd.
On FSX v MSFS performance, I could run MSFS on my PC reasonably well but FSX totally struggles simply because it is so CPU bound and only utilizes a single core. FSX needs far more CPU power than MSFS despite being a much older sim.
FSX on it's own (default) sure, you can get some very high FPS with a modern processor but this all drastically ends when you throw in high end add-ons. My estimate will be about right. It would allow you to max FSX out, run any combination of add-ons and maintain around 60+fps. There is no one who can achieve this right now or ever has in the past if using the most system intensive add-ons.
This is the reason I have stuck with FS9 as with my 3.7GHz CPU I can still maintain 20-30fps in the most extreme situation. I'd need to go to the 5GHz CPU I mentioned earlier to push over 60+fps in FS9 in such a circumstance. GPU also comes into the equation a little so with 5GHz you would likely get the 60fps even if running quite an average GPU.
The other FSX issue is VAS. Even if eventually I get my 7GHz CPU, VAS will still greatly limit what I can do in FSX. In FS9 once you increase the VS limit, it is incredibly difficult to have an OOM.
SSD is an interesting one. I've had one for so long I can't remember back to the days of running FS on a mechanical drive. However, I think they are greatly overrated. With FS9 or FSX, the only difference between mechanical and SSD is the initial load time of the sim. I'm not 100% certain on this but can't recall ANY other benefit with FS. I'm not even sure loading a flight is any quicker from the main menu, I doubt it is.
Finally, I've always said FS9 is the best overall sim. I outlined some of the reasons why above. It is fuss and problem free. If you then compare identical high end add-ons in both FSX and FS9 (I have), there is soooo little difference FSX is simply not worth the hassle. The only reason I would eventually use FSX is to run some add-ons that are not available for FS9.