Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content
keflin2612

Fs2004 Or Fsx You Decide

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

This is my first post on this site and I need a bit of guidance, I was heavily into flight simming until about two years ago when I decided that I was going to pack it all up because my wife kept nagging me about the amount of time I was spending on it so I sold all my fs2004 gear and tried to forget all about it.

Unfortunately I did not relies just how much I would miss it so I have decided to start all over again from scratch.

So what I need to know is fs2004 or fsx which is the best to go for, I still have some aircraft remaining on file in my computer but if fsx is the way to go I need to know. What are the advantages over fs2004, are the graphics any better do the aircraft fly the same any help you can give me really would be appreciated.

I thought fs2004 was great so any input on both would be great.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post

Now, that is a rather complex question. I would say it mainly depends on your computer system. FSX has much higher hardware requirements than FS9. In general FSX supports a higher complexity in scenery and aircraft. In the base program you will see this mainly in the ground texture resolution and of course in the reflective water. In addition some new aircraft included are much better models than the FS9 standard planes (while others are just ported over from FS9). When it comes to addons, you can clearly see the higher potential of FSX over FS9. However you will often need a quite current computer system (dual core processor, graphics card with at least 512 MB) to use these addons at decent detail and framerate.

The advantage of FS9 is that you can run it very well on an older system. And you can get many addons at a discount as they are often not supported any more.

Another thing you may consider ist that FSX is out for more than one year now. I guess it will take some time til the next FS version gets released, but staying with the cheaper FS9 for now and waiting for FS11 may also be an option.

Share this post


Link to post

And many other addons simply do not appear in FS2004 format of course. If you like to fly our Twin Otter, F-16, Catalina etc you will have to use FSX. Same with some scenery.

What many people just do not realize is that FSX removes so many of the things that held us back in FS2004, we now have far more options and really use them. If you only look at aircraft sounds you see a whole new world that is FAR more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm!

That's certainly something to ponder over.

Do you think FSX will ever be as popular as FS9 is, as I notice a lot of mainstream developers such as aerosoft are still producing payware add-ons for FS9.

And what sort of computer spec would you need to run FSX at reasonable frame rates of say 30 to 40 fps

at the moment I am running an ASRock 939Dual-VSTA Motherboard, AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual-Core Processor, 2 Gig memory and a Bliss 8800GTS Geforce 640mb DDR3 Dual-DVI Graphics card.

Oh and thanks for your reply.

Share this post


Link to post

Simply: FS9! If you're not a millionaire, that is the way to go.

I am sure you don't want to buy an extra efficient brand new PC especially for FSX.

And I'm sure you have tones of great addons for hundreds of Euro that work fine in FS9.

I also have no doubts even with some hardware upgrades you'd rather enjoy your limited free time on a smooth ride in FS9 instead of passing on to FSX and starting all over again (lowering sliders, tweaking, etc to make it work acceptably).

Plus I'm sure you would love to see how Oliver's AES puts simulation into another dimension.

For these and other reasons, that is what I wholehearteadly suggest to you.

Anyway the choice is yours.

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post

hmm, that is a complex question, indeed...

as far as i can judge that from here, your system should be fine for FSX - you should get a reasonably 30fps. Mine is only a little better than yours (Intel Core2Duo E6850 @ 3,0Ghz, 4GB 800 Mhz CL4-RAM, GF 8800GTX 768MB [600mhz core freq.]). I get up to 60 fps, depending on where I fly, but normally I have between 40 and 55fps. i run FSX @ 1280x1024x32, AA on, without special fixes, just sliders set correctly.

don't forget to set the fps slider to UNLIMITED - dunno why but it helps a lot. ;-)

another point to opt for FSX would be the new mission feature, which is a great addition and fun to explore.

anyway, it's your decision...

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Guys for all your great answers, just a couple more quick questions my favorite aeroplane in FS9 was the Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne I thought the graphics both external and internal were great can you tell me how this aircraft stands up in FSX better worse or the same as I think this will play a big factor in my choice of FSX over FS9.

And one last thing and maybe I should start a new topic for this one, but will my old CH usb yoke, pedals and throttle quadrant work with FSX and does anybody know how the (Saitek Pro Flight Yoke System)

stands up against the CH

<H1 class=itemTitle> </H1>

post-17617-1211399946_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

LONG LIFE TO THE FS9 VERSION... I hate FSX (about performances) I have a Quad Core QX 6800 2,93 Ghz + XFX 8800 GTX + ASUS STRIKER EXTREME MOTHERBOARD = 12 fps average

Im so proud with Aerosoft because still working for FS9 products, thank you! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I started on FSX with the same processor and mainbord as you and a 7800GT GPU. This setup allowed me to run FSX with low to medium slider settings bilinear filtering and framerates around 20 FPS (At these settings FS9 is significantly better). As you have a better GPU you will be able to set the graphics settings a bit higher and use anisotropic filtering, but the processor will get you into trouble if you want to go for complex addons or fly over a big city. Some airliners in FSX are real framerate killers. Therefore I would advise to stay with the graphics card but get a faster CPU (+ mainboard).

The Cheyenne in FSX is really one of my favourites. I don't know about the FS9 version, but the FSX one is fantastic.

Regarding the CH and Pro Flight Chokes, I would try the search funktion on the forum. There may be a couple of posts.

Share this post


Link to post

Keflin 2612 I think your answer depends on what type of Simmer you are. If you are into GA or bush flying (low and slow) then FSX may just be perfect for you on your machine (the scenery is breathtaking). However if you like to fly heavy iron into large cities with complex airports then it's easily FS9 that takes the cake.

So I guess the decision is yours really; do you like low and slow, or are you a heavy iron flyer?

And in my opinion AES makes FS9 the easy choice by the way :D .

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys for all your great replies, I think I have decided to stick with FS9 for the time being anyway.

It's nice to know that when your on your own and cant make a decision that there's always someone out there to guide you through.

So to everyone that answered and to all those that bothered to look at this Topic, a big Thank You. :D

Share this post


Link to post
LONG LIFE TO THE FS9 VERSION... I hate FSX (about performances) I have a Quad Core QX 6800 2,93 Ghz + XFX 8800 GTX + ASUS STRIKER EXTREME MOTHERBOARD = 12 fps average

Im so proud with Aerosoft because still working for FS9 products, thank you! :rolleyes:

Does anybody know how long aerosoft will carry on supporting FS9

Share this post


Link to post
Does anybody know how long aerosoft will carry on supporting FS9

At leat 1 year more... sure... said :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Do you think FSX will ever be as popular as FS9 is, as I notice a lot of mainstream developers such as aerosoft are still producing payware add-ons for FS9.

FSX will never be as popular as Fs9, not going to happen. FSX is simply so full of bugs, bad coding.. etc. it still uses the Fs9's graphics engine, however the graphics are much better in FSX, the frame rates are horrible, even to this day the majority still plays FS9, that alone is proof that FSX will never be better than FS9 :)

I have an Intel Core2Duo E6700, XFX8800GTS, 2GB of ram and 2 WD Raptors in raid-0. Sure i can fly deafult GA aircraft such as the cessna and the acceleration mustang P-51 at around 30FPS, but when i load up aircraft like the Level D 767, PMDG 747-400X.. and similar planes, my system stalls completely, often getting single-digit frame rates.

That is completely unacceptable for me as i mostly fly big and complicated airliners instead of GA. If i am to enjoy flying the heavy iron in FSX i have to turn down the graphics in FSX so much that the graphics and performance will be better in FS9, so there are really no point in having FSX.

If you really want a fresh flightsim, go for X-plane V9 or the next FS11 which will be around in a few years, or just enjoy Fs9 for what it's worth :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah... FS9 Rules.

I have both fs9 and fsx on my new computer. Fs9 ;) runs soooooo much better than FSX. Thought FSX would be "the big surprice", but.... no :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

We have a mine FS9 version, with awesome and truly add-ons never seen before... it's a worth, Im so proud... and I hope Aerosoft will continue working on that version.

Share this post


Link to post

FSX would be my choice definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dag

Hi,

FS9 for sure, no question about it.

Sure, FSX has more eye candy but at a very high price.

Best regards

Share this post


Link to post

Definately FS9!!! I purchased few months ago a brand new Gateway 3GB of RAM 500gb hard drive Inter Core 2 Quad with a 512 MB card reader just for FSX and pff FSX still runs terribly slow! and some horrible framerates, besides not that many sceneries made for it yet. So, being said FS9 will still stick around with me for a couple of years until I can afford an extra powerful computer that would take FSX and there will be more sceneries too.

Besides with aerosoft AES and so many extremely realistic sceneries made compartible for FS9! WHO WOULD CHANGE??????

FSX it's just like Windows Vista. CRAP! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

I think it really depends:

Older system or mainly flying airliners - FS9 (when you need all FPS you can get for a stormy approach)

Current systems and/or mainly low and slow - FSX (when FPS don't count so much).

I took a little flight around Seattle for comparison - FS9 all sliders to max (50 - 70 FPS), FSX sliders optimized (30 - 40 FPS).

Share this post


Link to post
Definately FS9!!! I purchased few months ago a brand new Gateway 3GB of RAM 500gb hard drive Inter Core 2 Quad with a 512 MB card reader just for FSX and pff FSX still runs terribly slow! and some horrible framerates, besides not that many sceneries made for it yet. So, being said FS9 will still stick around with me for a couple of years until I can afford an extra powerful computer that would take FSX and there will be more sceneries too.

Besides with aerosoft AES and so many extremely realistic sceneries made compartible for FS9! WHO WOULD CHANGE??????

FSX it's just like Windows Vista. CRAP! :angry:

Yes... Vista ***** and FSX looks an ARCADE game, go FS9!!!

Share this post


Link to post
I think it really depends:

Older system or mainly flying airliners - FS9 (when you need all FPS you can get for a stormy approach)

Current systems and/or mainly low and slow - FSX (when FPS don't count so much).

I took a little flight around Seattle for comparison - FS9 all sliders to max (50 - 70 FPS), FSX sliders optimized (30 - 40 FPS).

You can't beat that image comparison with comments. Nice one!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad that those claiming FSX is slow are sort of a dying breed ... after all, even with sliders at min FSX looks better than FS9 with all details maxed and the frames are fine. And about add-ons : With 90% or more of all newly released add-ons requiring FSX, well ...

Besides, the argument that FSX is slow in fps is over 18 months old ... and even then, very fast machines could run at high slider values ... in the meantime, every new machine has no problems with FSX, unless you buy a typing machine. Hey, if the "max slider position" would be at 70% of what it is now, no one would complain and it still would look gorgeous. People complain that there's potential in FSX?

Already one year ago, the majority of customers wouldn't invest in FS9 anymore, as has been stated here by Aerosoft on numerous occasions ... I'm sure, the one or the other fellow simmer is still happily running FS2002 or even FS98 and happy with his 2.000 bucks of add-ons. No problem, hey. But times changes, so does hardware and so does software. You can either live in the past or in the present. Occasionally I love running an old computer game, but with simulations I want realism and optics is a major part of VFR flying. Every other major add-on from landclass over mesh to AI traffic and weather is available for FSX in the meantime. The sim is complete.

As I see it, those few people still bashing FSX is really nothing but sour grapes and it's slowly getting boring and the "arguments" aren't as convincing as they used to be, to put it diplomatically ...

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, Marc!

I deeply respect your point of view but I dare to disagree.

I'm glad that those claiming FSX is slow are sort of a dying breed
I don't know where you got those statistics. In my company (I know lots of simmers) opinions like mine are the case. Reading this topic suggests the same.

times changes, so does hardware and so does software. You can either live in the past or in the present
Though the statement itself is very true, I see no relation of it to MFS. MFS is not a synonim of progress to me. What we got after all those years compared to what we expected (and we did have a right to expect) was... waste of time to type here.

the "arguments" aren't as convincing as they used to be, to put it diplomatically ...
They are, Marc, read them again.

As for the potential in FSX, well... . I admit I haven't played with it long.

But the only potential I found (if I can call it a potential) is the ground texture resolution.

Something I would love FS9 to have, true. But nothing else comes to my head.

Yes, the default planes are better than in FS9 but which one of us here flies them anyway?

The adventurous missions? Burning landing, Red Bull race, etc? No, thank you. At least for me.

Elephants here and there? Not that it bothers me in any way... .

When FSX was coming I was very excited, indeed. But when it finally got into my hands (as a gift)... well, someone else has expressed it well enough.

Let's watch it again:

http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI

I really wish I could fall in love with FSX. Really! :)

No way though...

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...