Yes, FS9, AKA FS 2004, so coded in 2002-3.  Old by gaming standards.  Very old.  To expect new products to support or work on that decrepid old platform is ludicrous and delusional.

Well, at least if I revew this 7-7 no one can complain that I didn't cover the FS9 version!

I would rather see developers put effort into one platform, honestly.  And it isn't like FS9 is hurting for good add-ons.  If anything, there's more available for them than us.

hochwang wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 9:32am:



Clearly Both you and James Chams have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

To this day there is no computer in the world that can run FSX maxed out with airliners in a densely populated area in IFR conditions at 40+ FPS.

Show me one computer that can do it and i will be convinced.

FS9 is the one and only usable airliner simulator and that's it.

If you like to fly VFR GA aircraft at nice scenic areas, then �FSX is for you, but if you want to fly the heavy birds around the Globe, FS9 is the best sim.

Anyone who claims different is in complete denial.


But if Captainsim have stopped supporting and developing for FS9, then i am no longer a Captain Sim customer. So with those words i would like to say thank you to the CS team for providing excellent addons for FS9 and wish you he best of luck in the future.

I don't think people appreciate how smooth 15 fps is in FSX (although I always get more than that) compared to FS9, and how good things look with the sliders far from all the way to the right. �And actually, you can run nearly every slider all the way to the right, see Nick's setup guide. �I use REX with 100% clouds for a skyfull and Traffic X at 50-70%. �You have to use some common sense and make compromises for certain premium products but it is nowhere nearly as dire as you think. aal is right: the days of "needing" anywhere near 40 fps are long gone with FSX.

Having said that, I'm glad you're happy with your platform and it is indeed a good one for big iron.  Without a CS767 is just became a little less good, though.

James F. Chams wrote on Jul 9^th, 2009 at 6:23am:


Such a childish remark James! Never in the history of Flight Simulator and I should know ( I've been using it since it;s inception), �has there been such a lack of customer support in the community and by developers (Captain Sim in this case but not necessarily the only one....there are a few others) �Over the last 4-5 years that I migrated to FS9 (I always upgraded to a newer version of FS) I have spent Thousands...yes literary thousands of dollars on products from many developers (Scenery and Aircraft) for my Sim... And I don't like FSX!!!! And, �where in the past it has never been a problem because developers continued to make aircraft that worked in both the newer version of the Sim and the previous, they have now suddenly decided not to do it....WHY?

Are you trying to insinuate that because you have chosen to use FSX that the entire Universe has to follow in your foot steps? The fact you don't seem to understand is, that there are tens of thousands of users who regardless of what you and those like minded people out there think regarding FSX....It was and continues to be a disappointing version of FS that did not meet expectations and not worth throwing my hard earned money away for....

Most of those that speak so highly of FSX are first time simmers or never really invested in any previous Flight Sim, thus making it easier to switch. I can see that for those that have moved over to the slide show are happy and I'm more the happier for it. Especially those that claim that 10-15 frames is smooth ( full scenery 'another company' 747 at 'FSDT' KJFK with all the traffic in the world and 33FPS...Now that's smooth and something you can actually enjoy a 6 hour flight on) ....But that is no reason to put anyone down for suggesting a FS9 version of a particular product, especially if they are customers!!

Anyways, since I get the 'News letter' from CS whenever something new is released....I would like to ask....Will you be releasing a CS 727 (the updated version) and the new 767 for your very loyal yet reluctant FS9 customers?


Frank Severino
Part-time painter....

Tim Capps wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 12:16am:


almost 3 years have passed since FSX was launched, after three years it should run flawlessly with everything maxed. There should be no need whatsoever to compromise anything in FSX by now, but that's not how it is unfortunately..

Microsoft and ACES screwed up big time on this flightsim, and i simply can't understand why anyone would run a highly complex airliner in FSX at EGLL with rain, fog and alot of ai traffic in FSX.

You will only get a slideshow with maximin 2-5 fps even with today's top end hardware, where in FS9 you get 40+ FPS with no problem.

And Hammer: thinking you can run IFR and heavy airliners in FSX with all settings maxed is denial. FS9 does the job flawlessly, FSX simply don't. It doesen't matter how old a product is, what really matters is how good it works.

Also FSX don't work wery well in today's technical climate as it can't take full advantage of either multi-cores or SLI. Only clock speed can help performance on it, just like in FS9.. so FSX is indeed based on an 8 years old (if not older) platform.

The latest isn't always the greatest, and FSX is a prime example of that.. it's an epic failure for IFR and heavy Iron flyers.

15-20 FPS in FSX is actually smooth for the most part so tha is a point,

Yeah I know FSX is not coded to use thye GPU properly, blame that on either lazy programming or attempts to stay backwards compatable.