Fs2004 Or Fsx You Decide

[Kiwikat 2]

Well, the only real evidence is the actual sales numbers, something Mathijs, won't give out. Sure it's none of our business, but it's still the only evidence for his claims and since he can't show numbers, there are no evidence to back up his claims, whether it's our business or not.

The only reason they make FSX addons is because they want people to move to the latest flightsim, and i seriously doubt that FSX addons outsells FS9. I can see here the only ones that are happy with FSX are the ones that don't have any high demands, they are happy cruising around at 10-15 FPS, just as long as the graphics are great.

Also, i have an E6700 core2duo CPU with an XFX8800GTS 640mb video card, 2WD Raptors in raid0 and 2GB ram and still i struggle to run FSX properly, my HD's are regularly defragged, very few processes running in the background.. Tell me what i am doing seriously wrong and i will give FSX another chance, which will be the 6th chance i'll give it.

The fact remains: FSX is not a worthy replacement of FS9, never have been and never will be. The only real improvement will hopefully be FS11, but until then the only real option is FS9.

Companies don't just release sales data on online forums. Asking them to do so is ridiculous. Mathjis and Aerosoft(and most other big companies) know what they are doing, get over it. The fact is, more and more FSX products are being released for FSX only... the way it SHOULD be. FSX gives the potential for more complex, more detailed addons.

I don't have any high demands? LOL I guess that is an insult... sad. I'm not even going to get into how wrong you are there... 10-15 fps? Sorry, I enjoy a solid AND SMOOTH 35 FPS, more than I can get with FS9 maxxed out- and my FSX looks 100 times better.

FSX is not a worthy replacement to YOU! Have fun playing your X-Plane... I'll stick with MSFS.

This is why these posts are ENTIRELY POINTLESS. I'll post it again...

[WEA-JHD 1]

Companies don't just release sales data on online forums. Asking them to do so is ridiculous. Mathjis and Aerosoft(and most other big companies) know what they are doing, get over it. The fact is, more and more FSX products are being released for FSX only... the way it SHOULD be. FSX gives the potential for more complex, more detailed addons.

I don't have any high demands? LOL I guess that is an insult... sad. I'm not even going to get into how wrong you are there... 10-15 fps? Sorry, I enjoy a solid AND SMOOTH 35 FPS, more than I can get with FS9 maxxed out- and my FSX looks 100 times better.

FSX is not a worthy replacement to YOU! Have fun playing your X-Plane... I'll stick with MSFS.

This is why these posts are ENTIRELY POINTLESS. I'll post it again...

No Companies obviously don't post their numbers on official forums, and therefore no one can say FSX products outsell FS9 products. there are simply no proof what-so-ever that indicates it. It's not ridiculous to ask for it as it would finally prove me or them wrong. I have no doubt that they know what they are doing.. they simply try to get more and more simmers to the shiny, new, buggy flightsim which still after 2 years of release have a vast minority of the simming community using it. FSX only gives more potential for ground textures and living animals, and of course bringing all the most powerful computers in the world to their knees. More details doesen't always mean better. FSX don't deserve to be made addons for, the way things should be is to still support FS9 until FS11 arrives, simply to teach the people at ACES to get things right. Get over that.

35 FPS in FSX? sure i can manage that with the deafult cessna's and the Acceleration P-51 mustang, but what about PMDG 747X? do you run that with 35 FPS "Maxxed out"? I seriously doubt that to be honest, but if you really do, please post a screenshot that proves it and i will believe you!

You can very well stick to FSX, your choice, enjoy being among the vast minority groups in the community that does so and enjoy! I don't use X-plane by the way, it's something i'm considering to invest in, but for the time being i enjoy getting 40FPS with all graphics and addons maxed out in a fully clouded day at KORD with the PMDG 747, i challenge you to beat that in FSX.

It's a fact that FSX with it's ancient coding is not a worthy replacement. The FS community have never, ever been more divided than this. Maybe you see it some other way, but this remains the fact.

As for beating a dead horse.. well i guess stating obvious facts over and over again is something you FSX folks don't want to see or realize.

FSX looking 100times better than FS9? well.. i guess that's an induvidual opinion, sure it looks better, but not THAT much better, certainly not enough to invest 1000's of dollars to get it looking great and still not be able to run it stable and flawless.

[Kiwikat 2]

35 FPS in FSX? sure i can manage that with the deafult cessna's and the Acceleration P-51 mustang, but what about PMDG 747X? do you run that with 35 FPS "Maxxed out"? I seriously doubt that to be honest, but if you really do, please post a screenshot that proves it and i will believe you!

I don't fly default aircraft tyvm... I enjoy most of Aerosoft's FSX aircraft at a solid 35 FPS, all of Flight1's FSX aircraft at 35FPS (including the Level-D 767 and MD-80), the Eaglesoft plane I have at 35 FPS, A2A's planes at 35 FPS, AlphaSim's planes at 35 FPS, IRIS's new stuff at 35 FPS, and the RealAir Spitfire at 35 FPS. The PMDG 747 is 35 FPS once in the air, and 25 while on the ground... FAR from unflyable (or in my case, untaxi-able). However, I've heard opinions from several different payware developers on PMDG's planes and they argue that it isn't the most efficient of planes. I'll leave it at that. All I fly is payware(some pretty complex ones too), and it performs perfectly. I don't have any complaints.

I don't "max out" FSX. I run mine on a mix of high to very high settings and use some config mods. I've also got a lot of scenery enhancements that have NO negative effects on my frames. Comparing FS9 maxxed out to FSX maxxed out is like comparing Counter-Strike to Crysis. Different games from different eras. Of course Crysis looks better as does FSX. Conversely, I get far better performance with FSX than I could with FS9...

[WEA-JHD 1]

I simply don't believe for a second that you can run the PMDG with those kinds of frames until i see a screen with everything maxed out, traffic, clouds, addons, big airport and urban environments..etc..

And what's the point of running FSX not maxed out? clearly people should be able to use it at it's full potential? How you get those frames even at those settings you specify, i simply fail to see, judging by my computer specs i should be able to get some decent FPS myself, but i can't. to me FSX is impossible to enjoy with graphics any better than FS9.

Also, i manage to run Crysis on full settings, unlike what i can do with FSX, there's the difference, the coding and the graphics engine in FSX is older than the pyramids.. That's also why i compared it to X-Plane V9, which have a new coding and performs great on my system with graphics far better than FSX and is also more realistic

[HBukovac 0]

Be a winner: install BOTH FS9 and FSX on your system, this way you don't have to be on a "side".

That´s exactly what I am doing. Best of both worlds!!

[Kiwikat 2]

I simply don't believe for a second that you can run the PMDG with those kinds of frames until i see a screen with everything maxed out, traffic, clouds, addons, big airport and urban environments..etc..

And what's the point of running FSX not maxed out? clearly people should be able to use it at it's full potential? How you get those frames even at those settings you specify, i simply fail to see, judging by my computer specs i should be able to get some decent FPS myself, but i can't. to me FSX is impossible to enjoy with graphics any better than FS9.

I JUST SAID I don't run FSX maxxed out. I don't because I CAN'T with my laptop. You have a better computer than I do. TBH some of the shiny effects and stuff FSX has I wouldn't turn on even if I could because personally I don't like the way they look.

A game's full potential is whatever YOU can run it at. NOT what others can get with it. You could run FSX at least as good as me if not better if you got another 2 gigs of ram. Your graphics card far surpasses my pitiful laptop card. We've got the same processor, and I have one gig of ram more than you. The ram is probably your system's bottleneck. FSX uses a LOT of memory(which is fine with me because I have it). It isn't a secret that you won't be running FSX on a P4 machine with 512 mb ram and a X600 radeon card. On my system, my graphics card may as well be that X600. It really limits what I can do. My new desktop I build later this year will fix that

As far as Crysis goes, check out youtube videos. They have quad-core machines with triple 8800 Ultras running it maxxed out and it barely maintains 30 fps. You can't run Crysis maxxed out, and you can't run FSX maxxed out. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO IN ORDER TO ENJOY THEM!!! I'm not quite sure where the idea that more sliders = better came from. If you are happy with how a game runs, THAT is what matters. I am happy with how FSX runs on my machine. I'm sure you could be too if you spent the time to get it right.

[Robert S 75]

WEA-JHD,

After saying this:

FSX only gives more potential for ground textures and living animals

please go back to page 2 of this thread and look at the cockpit photos of the Hughes H1 racer that Mathijs posted. This goes way beyond improved ground textures and animals, and is simply not possible in FS9.

Please understand, I'm not stating that FSX is "better" than FS9, but when you make generalized statements about your argument that can hurt your perceived reasoning.

To be honest, (and completely objective), valid points have been made about both platforms in this thread, but there is and never will be no clear and decisive winner; the best choice for anyone will be dependant upon:

Their current PC and configuration

Their preferred type of flying

Their preferred level of detail

Their preferred aircraft type.

So, there is no argument here...with all of the variables, there simply can't be!

[WEA-JHD 1]

I JUST SAID I don't run FSX maxxed out. I don't because I CAN'T with my laptop. You have a better computer than I do. TBH some of the shiny effects and stuff FSX has I wouldn't turn on even if I could because personally I don't like the way they look.

A game's full potential is whatever YOU can run it at. NOT what others can get with it. You could run FSX at least as good as me if not better if you got another 2 gigs of ram. Your graphics card far surpasses my pitiful laptop card. We've got the same processor, and I have one gig of ram more than you. The ram is probably your system's bottleneck. FSX uses a LOT of memory(which is fine with me because I have it). It isn't a secret that you won't be running FSX on a P4 machine with 512 mb ram and a X600 radeon card. On my system, my graphics card may as well be that X600. It really limits what I can do. My new desktop I build later this year will fix that

Thanks for the feedback : i may invest in some more and maybe faster RAM now that the price for them is not too bad. I will try to give it one more chance when i have installed them

I have had 5 other very frustrating attempts with FSX using countless of hours trying to tweak it to the best possible settings, but to no luck. I do realize that when a new FS version comes out it will require more resources, that's no secret and i have upgraded my computer for every new FS version that have arrived since FS98, but no other sim have brought me this much frustration. Please try to understand that i really do want to enjoy FSX,but when you can't run it at the potential it has i don't find it very useable

[Kiwikat 2]

So, there is no argument here...with all of the variables, there simply can't be!

Thats exactly why these kinds of threads are pointless.

[ManuelL 71]

More complex addons actually can run quite well in FSX, if you don't max out the sliders, but give it some thought. For example, when the mesh resolution is only 76m it doesn't make sense to set the slider to a higher value. And if you have to handle a stormy approach in a 747 you may not care about clouds reflected in the water or cars running on the streets below you. Its all about adapting the settings to the situation.

Below I am posting screenshots of the Majestic Dash 8 and Wilco A340 in stormy weather over VFR Germany. The original screen resolution was 1280x1024 and the sim was running solid over 30 fps. I must say I am quite content with that.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I believe actually the fact that the majority of long-time simmers (at least the ones I know personally or from the Net) stick to FS9 (even if they have fast new machines on their desks) is due to our shared feeling that somehow we've been disappointed (if not cheated) by the Microsoft team.

I am not saying FSX doesn't LOOK better than FS9 - you'd have to be blind not to see that. And all screenshots Mathijs and others show to us are only in favour of the LOOK. That's fine, I'm also an aesthete. But great look is not all and not the most important thing in my simulation.

New (especially young) simmers only discovering the new world of flight simulation will surely go for FSX (because this is the version that is selling now on the shelves) and its addons (good For Aerosoft and other developers). Why should they go back? They have no background to compare.

But we, old simmers, do. I'm speaking mainly for myself but also for many other people whose words I heard or read, so I'll stick to the first person.

Of course I had the feeling of having low-resolution ground textures in FS9. So it's nice they improved it in FSX, I really appreciate it.

But what I also didn't like in FS9 was the flight models that even few payware developers are able to improve over the base engine of the game, the faulty and unrealistic ATC (yes, I do fly online with VATSIM, but I also fly offline, especially while learning new machines), the huge FPS hunger of MFS, the texture blurring, the bugs, etc. Did FSX solve these problems? No! The FPS digestion is on an even higher level. And all that even though simmers were indicatiing the problems and the MFS stuff did know about them. So I'm sure people deciding to wait for FS11 (including myself) don't do it to show their malice and stubbornness to you, FSX enthusiasts, but because FSX is not want they expected and wanted.

To have a new sim working like the previous one you need again to spend fortune on a new system, addons, etc. We all have other money-absorbing things in our lives: families, homes, cars, jobs, etc. To invest a lot of money in something we must know it is something for us, something we do want. In this case we hope FS11 will be built from scratch (and it starts looking like it will be) and then we'll see and try again then.

I fully respect the points FSX supporters give here and understand them. And I hope you also understand us, FS9-ers, to remain FS9-ers for some more time. We are satisfied with our FS2004 simulation world, we spent hundreds of Euro (if not more) and we've made our simulator as good as we wanted. FSX is just not a good reason to start all over again. Please accept it.

No offence, please, but for all those repeating this conversation is pointless: stop typing then and don't take part in it. There's no obligation.

And to Mathijs: please don't say your FS9 addons don't sell because I'm all the time investing my money in your AES and your FS9 sceneries (and I'm still going to!), so I don't know how I should feel reading that.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Marc W. 0]

FSX is just not a good reason to start all over again. Please accept it.

Rafal, though being a FSX supporter, I agree with almost everything you said. Nice to hear a reasonable voice from the "FS9 camp".

Well, about the above quote "almost" everything : In my case, what add-ons do I need for flying :

- worldwide mesh

- landclass for most important areas

- AI traffic (though mostly I have it turned off)

- weather

- large area improvement with roads, railroads, coastlines, etc. (in other words : Ultimate Terrain)

- a few pretty planes besides the more or lessing boring default ones

- a few nice airports to fly to

Now, FSX has got all that in the meantime and has gotten it's SP ... framerates are also fine, even with all of the above running ... (not all sliders maxed, but you only need those for "looks" and looks alone are better than FS9 even with all sliders at an average 50%)

So for my it's enough to "start over" and make the step to FSX. Though I have to admit I'm the type who (unless they screw it up completely) will immediately make the jump to FS XI, once it's out ...

Of course I do understand that not some want to skip an FS incarnation every now and then, especially if money is an issue.

I couldn't go back to FS9, I'm too much of a visual type ... I have to say it : FS9 (unless high res photoscenery is used) looks just ugly if you are used to FSX, even unmodded FSX. Of course if looks don't matter ... I do remember "Airline Transport Pilot - ATP" - anyone recall that one? Loved it ... ah ... getting off-topic ...

Happy flying!

[loww_md 0]

Which question

FSX what, otherwise ?

One must be blind not to see his potential. And what he already has DEFAULT more.

And the FSX runs fluidly with current hardware. (No Commodore64 LOL)

(like it also once of the FS9 acted. After some time. But much more badly.)

"Only developers at first her old socks want to sell say the opposite."

Some believe it.

Installation even still their PseudoAddOns and surprise LOL

(outdated cockpit technology, no FSX/SDK etc.)

But then get angry about MS

Also the division in SP1, SP2 is etc. a nonsense. Sales tactics.

Wrong competition, deception. There is only one FSX.

Aerosoft and few others prove it. Demonstrate it.

FROM BEGINNING (Thanks)

[Yoan 5]

It's really pointless to keep on arguing which is best or worst as we all stick to one for various reasons (mine are mainly because in my computer FS9 is much faster, I've spend over a thousand dollars since I acquired FS9 about 4 years ago [yes!] on addons which many are not compatible with FSX). Therefore for keflin2612 who started this threat my answer to your question is to download both! Since you already have FS8 you can compare it to FS9 and FSX; that's the smartest idea! Although it's not bad to listen to fellow simmers opinions and our reasons why we prefer one or another . I just don't like to see great scenery designers stop making FS9 sceneries as most of FS9 simmers aren't ready for FSX (yet!).

[Kiwikat 2]

Therefore for keflin2612 who started this threat my answer to your question is to download both!

Errrr... buy

[Yoan 5]

Errrr... buy

I apologize I actually meant install which technically he does has to buy them.

[Kiwikat 2]

Just making sure hehe... sometimes what you say on forums comes back to bite you later. "Downloading" is a rather sensitive topic in the flight sim community.

[Yoan 5]

I don't see why "downloading" should be a sensitive topic anywhere specially on a site where cd's and instant downloaded games are sold If I would of thought twice I would take that as a personal attack since I see it as you're changing my words and what I meant to say. Anyway, I had answered to the person who started the threat which is and should be the topic in this discussion.

[Kiwikat 2]

I didn't mean that as a personal attack. Sorry if it came out that way. What I was trying to say was that the way you said it originally in your post (which you corrected) made it sound like he should go download flight simulator from some website. I know that was not your intent though.

Forums have an odd way of changing what you meant to say

[Yoan 5]

Kiwikat reply #64 is there and nothing has been changed, again your behavior is suitable for child coming into a forum where a discussion should be made on a topic which obviously people will have its personal opinions and therefore they should be respect it, you're only attacking people that opinionated FS9 is better than the flight simulator version you're currently using (FSX). I find it ridiculous to suggest anyone (specially in a public forum) to go on any site and illicit download a copyrighted content. Your low thoughts only reflects the type of person you are and what you do.

Stop provoking a change of outlook and especially a gradual doubt and suspicion of my words contrived to gain favor or confidence to your point of view.

[Kiwikat 2]

Kiwikat reply #64 is there and nothing has been changed, again your behavior is suitable for child coming into a forum where a discussion should be made on a topic which obviously people will have its personal opinions and therefore they should be respect it, you're only attacking people that opinionated FS9 is better than the flight simulator version you're currently using (FSX). I find it ridiculous to suggest anyone (specially in a public forum) to go on any site and illicit download a copyrighted content. Your low thoughts only reflects the type of person you are and what you do.

Stop provoking a change of outlook and especially a gradual doubt and suspicion of my words contrived to gain favor or confidence to your point of view.

You later explained that you made a mistake with your wording. I am not acting childish... I am a VERY active beta tester and am involved in many projects with AlphaSim and soon with Flight1 (I'd like to help out here too). I take even hints of pirating very seriously as it is a very big deal right now. I didn't accuse you of doing it (or anyone else). People DO talk about this stuff on public forums(sadly), you just have to pay close attention and do some investigating (which I do being a moderator elsewhere). I'm not provoking anything, just making sure what you said was cleared up. Again, in another post you explained it("I apologize I actually meant install which technically he does has to buy them."). That is all I am talking about. I am sorry if it seemed more than that.

As for the whole FS9 vs FSX deal, I still recommend FS9 to people. I believe FSX is far superior, but not everyone has the computer to run it.