Do You Think FS9 Planes Perform Poorly In FSX?

[lionheart]

Hey all,

This is going to be a difficult question for alot of you that are FSX hardliners.

Do you think that FS2004 planes run worse in FSX then FSX planes?

Now, before you immediately answer yes, think about if they 'really are' performing worse?


If a plane has no bumps to bump map, and the glass and chrome in the FS2004 port-over look reasonably good already, then why make it in FSX format? For instance, the Boeing I just created was so huge, that you really cannot bump map it. The pixels for the rivets would be scaled the size of plates, so it would have looked goofy. I could actually see no reason to convert the monster into FSX.

Now the Skylark utilizes all the nice FSX materials such as bump mapping, even enabling surface deformations as well as the rivets and screws, etc.

But on some planes, I am wondering if they can just be in FS2004 format.



One of the reasons I bring this up is that I can now make highly sophisticated aircraft mesh in FS2004 format that is equivalent to FSX mesh (basically the same) and it appears to run perfect in FSX.



So, if no bump maps are required, and you convert the textures to DDS, couldnt you have an equally 'smooth performing' FS2004 mesh in FSX?


Concerning DX-10, I believe the only thing DX-10 requires is DDS textures.



For those that would like to test this, they could try running an airliner in FSX, checking the frame rates, and then running the Boeing 797 Blended Wing (download here at new addons section) and again check the frame rates. Mind you, the 797 does 'not' have DDS textures, so the test wouldnt be a 100% 'match' for performance, and the 797 uses 'alot' of 32bit high rez textures. If these textures were in DDS, it might be in equal performance with FSX models....

I look forward to your answers.



Bill

[CitMusJoe]

Hi Bill,

this is a good question, but hard to answer in common words. Nonetheless I'll try to describe emotionless.

But I don't believe that we can state "FS2004 planes run worse in FSX" in general.

FS9 planes are designed for FS9, FSX planes are designed for FSX.

It depends - amongst many other things - on user's preferences. Some FS9 aircraft perform good in FSX (e.g. the LIC Aeronca series aircraft) some others do not, or let's better say cannot due to basic differences within the compared FSs aircraft. Latter is the case with PMDG's B737NG series. If some people out there found a 'solution' to get her 'fitted' for FSX, I tell you this might be partially correct for a 'Sunday pilot' but this doesn't suit to a more sophisticated PC-pilot. Gauge programming is a new root of science as I can imagine, so I can't expect an FMS system to work with both sims.

For myself I only use FS9 aircraft with FSX if there is no other option available and if the resulting limitations don't minimize my expectations. Reason: I bought FSX not only to import converted aircraft but to have most of FSX's capabilities, see the Citation Mustang or ESDG's Citation X 2 (I own both, the FS9 and the FSX version), which have 'HiFi' gauges that arn't possible with FS9 (as some gauge programmers tell and you can verify).

So I own both, FS9 and FSX aircraft from the same type (e.g. Carenado's Cessnas). Re. the NG-series from PMDG I'll wait until release, meanwhile take FS9-PMDG.

Normally aircraft produced for FSX arn't compatible with FS9. FS9 aircraft can be 'ported' to FSX => made be compatible with FSX or the same aircraft is nearly newly designed using all capabilities of FSX.

IMHO, as a conclusion someone gets only the most when owning both Sims/aircraft.

So all in all I can't say in general FS9 aircraft perform good in FSX nor I can say FS9 aircraft run bad in FSX.