Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content
keflin2612

Fs2004 Or Fsx You Decide

Recommended Posts

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 ...

Those claiming FSX is slow are a dieing breed? i think you need to take a reality check here :) Sure FSX looks better, but seriously, what did you expect after 3 years of development? And no, FSX with all sliders to the left certainly does not look better than FS9 on full sliders, tried that and that was certainly not the case, thats why i'm still flying airliners in FS9 with great FPS :) The coding in FSX is just like the pyramids in Egypt, Ancient history. for a little comparison, try the X-Plane V9 demo and see what i mean. Better graphics and much better FPS than in FSX.

Yet again i fail to see where you got your facts (if you really can call it facts) from? When you claim that "already a year ago the majority wouldn't invest in FS9"? You do understand that 90% of all addons released at the moment have an FS9 version, right? if people didn't buy them they would certainly not make it.

Yes, hardware and software does change and improve, but that's unfortunately not the case with FSX, if everyone was pleased with the way FSX ran, everyone would be using FSX and the flightsim community would never be as divided as it is today, so FSX is not the sim it should be. FS9 have alot more addons than FSX will ever get, FS9 is more stable and less buggy and certainly a much more complete flightsimulator than FSX.

Well, the fact remains that the way you see things does not reflect the vast majority, you are in that case one of the minorities in the flightsim community that thinks this. People are bashing FSX for some very good and valid reasons where most of them have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Sure you can enjoy FSX with the great visuals at 5 FPS, personally i prefer to fly the PMDG 747 in and out of airports like KORD with full thunderstorms at 40 FPS, sure makes alot better simming experience to me, but to each his own i guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS9 Was just as bad as FSX when it came out. All the complaints made about FSX were all made about FS9 for similar reasons. The hardware required for FS9 was more then was available at the time. FS9 runs well now because the hardware has caught up and so it is with FSX. The one advantage with FSX is it only really requires 15 FPS to get a reasonably smooth flight , FS9 needed 24 for similar results. I havnt looked back at FS9 since obtaining FSX its simply a better product and the new add ons are so much more superior then those in FS9. Oh and that piper cheyenne, simply brilliant, there is an update to fix a GPS bug in the pipeline, but its my favorite plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet again i fail to see where you got your facts (if you really can call it facts) from?

I have written that in my post. Check again.

Aerosoft as well as other companies confirm that FS9 add-ons don't sell anymore. Haven't for almost a year now.

I believe we must have had over a dozen or so :

user :"why no FSX version?"

MathijsKok : "because it doesn't sell"

... threads already ... those are "facts" ... you can use the forum search function for those on sales numbers and on "shelf time", I don't want to beat a dead horse here :)

Much of my post is subjective, of course. However sale numbers are not.

Well, to each his own - By no means do I wish to convince anyone NOT to use FS9. I have used it for a long time and loved it. However now, I'm happy to have access to all the new FSX-only add-ons. And all the (to me) important add-ons for which prettier FSX versions now exist :)

Actually I fail to see the point of such threads ... if you don't like FSX or can't run it because your machine is 3 years old, then don't ... no one will object :)

As "mjrhealth" has stated : It's the same with each new version of FS, just as it's the same with each new version of windows : People say it sucks. The number of people who say so, grows thinner every month and with every SP. And with the next version coming, the current one is always the best :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
user :"why no FSX version?"

MathijsKok : "because it doesn't sell"

That's a bit short, lol.

Basically the it is the sales PREDICTION that is bad for FS2004 addons as they have a short shelf live (in fact they can't even add up on a shelf anymore making the situation worst) because no matter how you look at it FS2004 is not a product line that has a bright future in front of it. So we can't sell them boxed and we think FS2004 sales will be very low around Xmas this year. As we internally design our products for a period of 2 year making FS2004 addons we simply do not have enough time to make profit.

But lately a second issue makes FS2004 hard. Our developers started to understand FSX better and they love the way if removes barriers. Products like the H1 and the F-16 would simply not be possible in FS2004.

Look below, this is just not possible in FS2004, it is just too complex, too many polygons, the compilers will just not compile this. If you are willing to do without progress like this and love FS2004, don't upgrade. We sure will have new FS2004 products for sale (though very few aircraft).

h1vc2.jpg

preview230_fsx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have written that in my post. Check again.

Aerosoft as well as other companies confirm that FS9 add-ons don't sell anymore. Haven't for almost a year now.

I believe we must have had over a dozen or so :

user :"why no FSX version?"

MathijsKok : "because it doesn't sell"

... threads already ... those are "facts" ... you can use the forum search function for those on sales numbers and on "shelf time", I don't want to beat a dead horse here :)

Much of my post is subjective, of course. However sale numbers are not.

Well, until i see some official sales numbers in person i will not believe the statement that FS9 products do not sell. It may be true when coming to boxed versions, but certainly not digital downloads. If FS9 products didn't sell, publishers and producers would never make addons for FS9, it's pure logic.

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, just to try and make as many simmers as possible to make the shift to FSX. If FSX really was as good as people here claims it to be, then why aren't the whole community flying it? why is the community so divided?

Again, i remain skeptical to the sales numbers until i can see official numbers. Especially considering the upload statistics in AVsim's file library where 75% of all addons uploaded there is for FS9, not FSX :) and that's also a fact.

FSX is great for GA and bush flying, that Hughe's aircraft is also perfect for FSX, but when coming to huge and complex airliners, there are no computers available to be able to run them in FSX with full details, clouds and traffic. i have yet to see someone put a screenshot with the PMDG 747X at KORD, KDFW, KJFK (or similar airports) with full clouds, full traffic and full graphics running at 40 FPS and only when i see it will i believe it :)

My experience regarding the FSX bashers get thinner and thinner after each SP and many months is actually the exact opposite from yours too, i guess this is a subjective thing, but the real improvement in the flightsim series will be when FS11 arrives, which will be a few years at the earliest :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a bit short, lol.

Thanks for clarifying this, Mathijs. Didn't mean to speak for you, of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, until i see some official sales numbers in person i will not believe the statement that FS9 products do not sell. It may be true when coming to boxed versions, but certainly not digital downloads. If FS9 products didn't sell, publishers and producers would never make addons for FS9, it's pure logic.

That's ok, believe what you want to believe, I read our spreadsheets, see our daily sales and know you are wrong. As I will not give you access to the data we just have to agree that we won't agree. I'm just very happy that you are wrong because if you would be right we would be in major problems and right now Aerosoft is growing rather fast. You think we grow on FS2004, I know it's not that way.

I really don't know about Avsim downloads, I am not very interested in how many people download a free repaint. FS addons for us are a business (but also a hobby) and we care about how much we sell and how happy customers are. If FS2004 is more popular with Avsim downloaders that great, good for them, just not an argument in this (rather silly) discussion.

Aerosoft will keep on supporting FS2004 in some way for a long time, as long as we got the customers we'll try to find products for them to sell. The development we start ourself however will all be FSX based for the simple reason that doing FS2004 version of them is either technical or commercially not possible. You think that's a bad commercial decision obviously. I think we'll survive, lol, as long as we can find people to grow, cause finding more staff to do FSX stuff is hard considering the professional level of development that is required. We got open jobs for a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right Mathijs, we just have to agree to disagree since you won't show the actual sales statistics which will prove either you or me are wrong, until you really do, i won't believe it since there is no real evidence for your claims. I know FSX is a bad and buggy simulator and i also know the vast majority flying heavy iron in and out of big, trafficated airports still use FS9 :) I'm still convinded i'm right im my case though.

The reason i write about AVSim is that it's a proof that the majority still uses FS9, it's the best reference there is since you, or other publishers for that matter won't give actual sale statistics and numbers.

I'm really glad that you do support FS9, that just proves it's still a market for it even 2 years after the release of FSX, not bad in my opinion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread is becoming more and more interesting. I guess both sides (can I call it like that?) are right in a way and both learn something.

My conclusion is, for example, that I may give FSX another try. However not before I upgrade to a brand new PC since mine today just won't handle it acceptably.

I know what I'm saying since I have given it a few attempts.

The one advantage with FSX is it only really requires 15 FPS to get a reasonably smooth flight , FS9 needed 24 for similar results.
Could you explain it? How can the human eye recieve one game's 15 FPS as smooth and require 24 in another?

FS9 add-ons don't sell anymore. Haven't for almost a year now
Marc, what are you saying here? Did I suffer a midsummer night dream of buying tens of FS addons in that time (including seven packs of AES credits) or maybe I'm alone?

Actually I fail to see the point of such threads ...
Why? The thread was a question about our opinions and either they are all useful or all useless - including yours. ;)

And for pure and frank curiosity (absolutely NOT to prove anything) I would like to ask FSX users (Marc, Mathijs and others):

what except the texture resolution (which I mentioned I do appreciate and admire) is really better and new about FSX?

If you are so kind to give me a few reasonable answers, you may count on at least one more FSX client (I do buy a lot of addons) in nearest future.

Seriously!

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmarket's Bestseller of the week: (almost two years after FSX release)

1. Atlanta FS9

2. AES credts FS9

and fs9 is not selling???? This actually means that Aerosoft's most selling product it's a Flight Simulator 2004 that cost about 20 dollars! and I've purchased to time about 7 serials!

almost two years after the release of FSX and all scenery designers are still creating FS9 sceneries (including you guys at Aerosoft otherwise none of you would waste the time making two sceneries, one for FS9 and a version for FSX) it's bussiness, yeah I'm sure you want to make FS9 simmers to change to crappy FSX so you wouldn't have to work twice on a scenery, but hey I have FSX and it's definately not for the technology we currently have, unless you want to waste over $1,200 dollars on a computer that would take FSX, which I kinda did and it's still very slow, and not that many addons that would make it that realistic. AS I said there are so many great addons for FS9 that sometimes it makes no realistic difference from FSX. Most simmers still use FS9 and it's proven by how two year's after FSX has been release most of us still download FS9 products. It's a reality and we have to accept it how it is. In two years when Microsoft comes with a good computer that won't give any problems to run FSX that's the time I would take to migrate.

Simmers claiming FSX is slow aren't a dying breed! and that's a fact most FSX simmers don't wish to see. We're more alive than ever, proven by the download statistics shown in most FS addon sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I don't like this absolute statements "FSX sales better then FS9" because nobody can say that:

1.) No product of aerosoft in the last two year (since FSX release), except AES, was selled for FS9 only, even when it was only for FS9 available.

2.) No product was selled seperate for FS9 and for FSX, so there is no base to compare sales of a product based on the simulator. You never know, which FS was the reason for the sales. When I buy a product, I download both version, because I never know when I need them.

3.) Some products was selled for both version (upgrade included) even when only the FS9 version was available. I have never heard, this products was not selled. So why should a FSX used buy such a product, before it is available for FSX. It will be true, that after the FSX Version released, the sales will rise, but are they better then before? I don't think so.

4.) It is normal, that a product, which is only available for FSX sells better then the non existing FS9 product.

So, I never see a trustable statistic, which give us statement, that there are more Customers for FSX then for FS9, when you compare a brand new product.

It is true, that you don't sell a product for a old FS as good as before a new FS was released, but in the special situation we are now with FS9 and FSX it is difficult to say "which is better". And I don't think it is needed to say, as long as the base for FS9 is as big as it is now.

When there is a product, which need the features of FSX, there is no reason to produce it compatible for FS9. But if it is possible to do so, there is also no reason, why it should not be done. And when I sell 30%-50% more copies, when I support both version, it is not relevant, which FS is selling better. The absolut sales are relevant.

The user will make his personal desition, which FS it better for his needs. A bush pilot will use the benefits of FSX, a IFR Pilot with 1000 of addons will have no benefit to change to a simulator, where he can use 10 addons, only because the textures of the trees in a 5 minute approach are more detailed.

The FSX is a nice preview for all of us, to see where the future is going, but it is not a MUST HAVE to push all what we have into the basket.

And, since I have my new PC, it's the first time, I can fly every scenery in FS9 with all settings to the right, without thinking about frames and now, my FS9 is look as good as I never see him before. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
almost two years after the release of FSX and all scenery designers are still creating FS9 sceneries

really interesting! I know MANY designers who have stopped their FS9 work an switched to FSX. It´s true that many designers stay with FS9 because in FS9 you can still use design codes and techniques from FS98 onwards! Means: they have a lot of practise and tricks to work efficient for FS9 but would have to "learn" new things or read the SDK. And if FSX is really as bad as many people say why are designers like Holger Sandmann or the FTX-Team so happy with FSX? Why has flytampa released a new FSX-version of their TNCM package although they stated during the first month after the FSX-release they will stop their work?

What I have read in this thread from FS9 simmers is nearly always the same (main) argument: I´M not able to run FSX / VISTA on MY system so VISTA / FSX are crap and NO it CAN´T be true, that on YOUR system VISTA / FSX is running well although you haven´t spent thousands of dollars for a new system.

You can think of this what you want but I HAVE been able to run FSX with SP2 on a P4 2.66GHz, 1 MB RAM and a 512MB GF 6600GT on WinXP with 15fps constantly. No megatweaking or anything else. And now with my new PC (Q6600, 3 GBRAM) I´m more than happy with FSX. It´s not true that FSX is a buggy crap. I don´t have ANY problem with my FSX SP2 on VISTA with DX10.

Could you explain it? How can the human eye recieve one game's 15 FPS as smooth and require 24 in another?

Beside the fact that I agree totally that 15fps in FSX feel smoother than 24 in FS9 the fps-index doesn´t mean that you can simply split 1 second in 24 same parts. It just means that you have 24 pics per second but you would even have 24fps if you have one pic at the beginning of the second and 23 at the end. So FSX seems to count the fps in a different way.

And for pure and frank curiosity (absolutely NOT to prove anything) I would like to ask FSX users (Marc, Mathijs and others):

what except the texture resolution (which I mentioned I do appreciate and admire) is really better and new about FSX?

I can tell you what I love on FSX: I´m a VFR-Simmer (low and slow) and next to the better ground resolution I love the really good default road network (based on GPS-datas), more precise location of the default airports (if you try to add some scenery objects with tools like Instant scenery using real world GPS-Datas you´ll see what I mean), the improved default mesh, the improved glider functions, the improvements for Heliflyers like sling loads (with Acceleration pack), the missions (let´s say: the possibilities Addon designers have to make missions to simulate real world operations), the better default graphics and even if someone stated nobody would fly the default aircraft I LOVE my Maule! And I like the new aircraft like the Twotter, love pictures of the Hughes seeing what´s possible with FSX that FS9 wouldn´t be able to handle, things like having something like an orbit and much more. I won´t use hard facts here. It´s just the way better feeling for me.

But as I stated: I´m a VFR-simmer and for me FSX is far better than my FS9. I know that "airliners" have a different point of view and if you talk about problems with complex airliners flying in FSX (CTD, etc.) maybe you could think of one point: most of the high complex airliners are using many tricks for reaching their goal and have been ported over to FSX. Maybe the main problem for airlinerpilots in FSX these days is, that there´s no really high level native FSX airliner available.

OH and finally: everyone should have fun flying with the sim of his / her choice. There is no BETTER sim. It´s just a personal feeling what´s better. Even not more realistic! If you want to have it as real as it gets you´ll have to go to the next airport / airfield of your choice and fly the real thing. No reason for bashing simmers of other simulators. We all have the same hobby!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considerations, regarding the original question:

Costs. I bought FS2004 second hand when FSX was released, before I had FS2002. It saved me over 66% over buying it new. I have plenty of addon airport sceneries, and carried over some older planes. Much of this stuff I also was able to buy second hand, when people abandoned FS2004 for FSX (and I must point out that the majority of my friends who did so meanwhle have gone back to FS2004, sometimes with grim faces). All in all, although having bought new full price stuff also, I estimate my full FS2004 collection (40+ GB) has costed me only around half of the money I would have spent when buying it all new, at full price. I also were able to save money by using cheaper update options for titles I already had for FS2002. Some FS2002 titles I also sold away: that's why I never buy per download, but almost always solid CDs with manuals. And Aerosoft - still earns money with me, since I used, as said, their update options on several CDs, and also still buy (occasionally) new stuff that has been released since then - so even them cannot complain! :lol:

Time: It will cost me several years before any FSX installation would be as complete as my collected FS2004 installation. It's early eniugh when I buy all these titles in a couple of years - when they are all available, and thoroughly patched as well! ;)

Frames. You may have a decent machine that can run FSX alone nicely. But what if you hope to install addons? Traffic? complex airliners? Weather? More complex global mesh? Texture replacements? Etc. You start to lose frames sooner or later, and sometimes drastically. Even more so when you wish to do a major part of your flying in the virtual cockpit. A system that barely runs FSX, has no reserves to run additonal stuff. for me the solution was optimal to update to FS2004. My older system was more than capable to run FS2004 alone, and I have all the updates from the categories I just mentioned: now the same system just can handle it, it is playable, but I have no more reserves left. If you want to add addons, you need to have reserves in your system.

Hardware: just consider what I said on system reserves. And then additionally figure the costs in case you do not have state of the art machinery that can handle FSX and leaves you reserves. Let me say your new computer will cost a lot of money.

Addons. FS9 simply has more addons available, by Aerosoft, Flight1, and others. As time goes by, this balance will shift in favour of FSX, but it does like this at slow pace only. For FS2000, the four parts of GA-series were released in a relatively small ammount of time. for later incarnations of FS, it took them more and more time. The last part of GA2 for FS2004 took them since FS2004 was released - and it was was faded out meanwhile by microsoft one and a half year ago! The sims longevity on the shelves no longer was sufficient for acchieving what before was measured in months, instead of years. This is no complaint by me, by far not. But it is a trend, and a fact. Developers need more and more time to finish their work, due to the raised possebilities with every new generation of FS, and growing experience - the the resulting higher complexity that needs to be mastered.

Patches. For FS2004, many products are grown up. You also know what you get, you find plenty of feedback and reports by experience, not only from official staff reviewing something (and may besometimes having a motivation not to be too harsh to a given producer and not to stress the relations...), but from sometimes more honest experiences from private users (at the price of those guys who annoyingly mock around but never have read the manual :) ) - and you know that what you see is what you get - there will be no more patches, support, improvements. You either like what you see, and buy it, or you don'T like it and know that it will never change again, so no need to buy and hope, to "kick and run". The good old things often do not need these improvements and repairs anymore, since they have been out for so long that they are thoroughly patched. New releases for FSX must still play through the full time match of these proceedings.

FSX can look stunning, yes. But for the time beeing i must say for most people I talked to, FS9 still is the more reasonable option. There also is Xplane available. And if you are getting serious about small planes and realistic air and wind and thermals physics, soaring simulator Condor beats all these titles hands down - disdvanatge is it is hardcore soaring, and offers nothing beyond that, and no special airport sceneries.

I would stay with FS2004 even if today my system breaks down and I get a new one, with slightly better performance. As I said, the addons have eaten up the system reserves, and now it is playable, but not constantly smooth. I would prefer to gain an additonal boost is FS performance over getting FSX - and again have to deal with stutterings once the installation is as complex as my current one is now. Also: I am an airliner flyer for the most, and my VFR desires have been completely killed by migrating to Condor, regarding small airplanes. as Helialpin has said: your decision also is influence dby wether you prefer IFR and airliners (->FS2004), or small aircraft and VFR (-> FSX).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I don't like this absolute statements "FSX sales better then FS9" because nobody can say that:

1.) No product of aerosoft in the last two year (since FSX release), except AES, was selled for FS9 only, even when it was only for FS9 available.

2.) No product was selled seperate for FS9 and for FSX, so there is no base to compare sales of a product based on the simulator. You never know, which FS was the reason for the sales. When I buy a product, I download both version, because I never know when I need them.

3.) Some products was selled for both version (upgrade included) even when only the FS9 version was available. I have never heard, this products was not selled. So why should a FSX used buy such a product, before it is available for FSX. It will be true, that after the FSX Version released, the sales will rise, but are they better then before? I don't think so.

4.) It is normal, that a product, which is only available for FSX sells better then the non existing FS9 product.

So, I never see a trustable statistic, which give us statement, that there are more Customers for FSX then for FS9, when you compare a brand new product.

It is true, that you don't sell a product for a old FS as good as before a new FS was released, but in the special situation we are now with FS9 and FSX it is difficult to say "which is better". And I don't think it is needed to say, as long as the base for FS9 is as big as it is now.

When there is a product, which need the features of FSX, there is no reason to produce it compatible for FS9. But if it is possible to do so, there is also no reason, why it should not be done. And when I sell 30%-50% more copies, when I support both version, it is not relevant, which FS is selling better. The absolut sales are relevant.

The user will make his personal desition, which FS it better for his needs. A bush pilot will use the benefits of FSX, a IFR Pilot with 1000 of addons will have no benefit to change to a simulator, where he can use 10 addons, only because the textures of the trees in a 5 minute approach are more detailed.

The FSX is a nice preview for all of us, to see where the future is going, but it is not a MUST HAVE to push all what we have into the basket.

And, since I have my new PC, it's the first time, I can fly every scenery in FS9 with all settings to the right, without thinking about frames and now, my FS9 is look as good as I never see him before. ;)

Very well said, Oliver :)

I could never have said it better myself, but i agree with you 110%. There is no real evidence that FSX outsells FS9 to this day, the only reference we have is the freeware sites that states otherwise, with AVsim's upload data suggests that 75% of all uploads are for FS9 only, and that's still almost 2 years after FSX is released :)

Regarding to helialpin's post about many addon producers have stopped producing FS9 products? Can you name any developers, except for Aerosoft?

FlyTampa's SABA and St.Barths did take alot of time to make for FSX because of all the SDK problems and they needed time to figure out how to use it properly. George and Martin have also clearly stated that if they ever will make a new FS scenery, an FS9 version is guaranteed to follow. So FlyTampa will support FS9 for a long time. Even the developers of the ultimate terrain series plan on updating and implement some of the features of the FSX versions to FS9.

Also if you are happy with 15FPS, flying GA aircraft.. that says it all. I'd rather fly in FS9 and have 60fps and a smooth ride, since alot of the GA aircraft addons are also available for FS9, that also comes down to the sceneries. I will agree that FSX's ground textures looks amazing, but the trade-off for horrible FPS is not worth it in my opinion, it's just not enjoyable.

That being said, i have no problem running FSX with the deafult Cessna at 30+ FPS, but seriously, who flies deafult? And when did Canada and Norway become a desert landscape? In the winter months, Norway looks like the north pole and in the summer it's a dessert there. Sure you can buy addons that fix it, but that will also impact frame rates severly, so we're again back to the drawing board.

Also, i'm not a big fan of GA, i prefer flying the big airliners in and out of big airports and that's when FSX will bring all computers, new or old to it's knees, making it completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi keflin,

your decision to stick with FS9 is the best thing you can do IMHO. As you don't have much time for simming, you should avoid to waste the time by tweaking your PC or getting addons to run properly.

Of course, FS9 is not the best simulator in the world, but it runs more stable, has a huge range of free-/payware addons and it runs smoothly on most PCs.

FSX demands a high end PC to run, as FS9 did a few years ago. But even if you would own a Core 8 CPU and Quad-SLI graphics, FSX itself is still too buggy and unstable to be fully enjoyable.

FSX out of the box definitely needs to be patched with either Servicepack 1 or SP2 (included with Acceleration addon or as download).

Here the compatibility problem with FS9 and FSX addons begins: if you want to use your old FS9 aircraft in FSX, you should use SP1, as SP2 does not support all of the former BMP texture files anymore (you see erratic prop textures etc.). SP2 supports the new DDS files for new graphics features and is required for most newer "native FSX" addons.

Unfortunately, this affects "FS9 & FSX compatible" addons, they were designed before SP2 was released. Only a few developers have released patches for SP2 yet.

Some flightsim magazines (e.g. FS Magazin german) have even started to run compatibility lists of FSX addon products (OS: XP, Vista 32/64 and FSX: SP1/SP2/DX10)...

Also, some featrues of FS9 have been omitted in FSX:

- no VC rain effects anymore (you can use the FS9 files for that, but only on FS9 aircraft)

- no hatviews in photorealistic cockpits anymore (e.g. like MAAM's B-25 or DC-3)

I think, the best new feature in FSX is to fly missions. Some of them are pretty good and challenging, others are boring or quick time trials and with Acceleration there are too much races for my taste. I really miss some long hauls... The whole feature is not perfect, but it is a start. One argument to buy FSX addons is that sometimes new missions are included (e.g. Lukla X/Helgoland X/Beaver X). Mission packs like "Flight Tales I" (stable) or "Twin Otter X Missions" (needs to be patched) are also available. However, some annoying bugs within some missions make it difficult to enjoy them.

Why FS9 ?

- Runs very smooth and stable even with a lot of addons. You won't run out of memory very often...

- You don't need to go and buy a new PC.

- You get 2D panels/hatviews and VC cockpits with rain effects.

- Install all the "World of AI" traffic and run it at 100% - fabulous.

- Get AES if you like.

- No need for an online activation.

FSX (deluxe) aircaft are nice but some look like being included from standard FS9. If you want the Maule and the Goose for FS9 go and download them at avsim (very nice freeware).

The Garmin 1000 in FSX is nice but according to the book "FSX for pilots" it is not entirely simulated and lacks a lot of real world features, even those a flightsim could simulate.

FS9 has still got room for improvement. If you see that fantastic London Heathrow 2008 in FS9, you wish all scenery textures of FS9 would look like this. Moving ground traffic is also possible.

If you don't need the mission feature, I recommend to stay happy with FS9 and wait for a hopefully better FS11.

And as long as new addons are advertised like "buy FS9 version now, get FSX version free later" (or vice versa), everything should be fine.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

For the longest time I was in the FS9 is better crowd but I have to say that I have given FSX another try and I am slowly coming around. :rolleyes:

I Still use FS9 when I'm in the mood to fly my "heavy iron" but when I'm in the VFR mood or want to just goof off (read "Low & Slow"), FSX fits the bill. ;)

I would still like to some improvements made in the new platform. Maybe FS11 will be better! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested, as you know, Phil Taylor is one of the lead developers of FSX (and man, has he weathered a storm for that distinction!). Anyways, he maintains a blog, and here is an entry that relates to a recent FSX SP2 performance test:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...fps-batman.aspx

You may be surprised (perhaps) to see that FSX turned out amazing FPS results. To quote:

Toms posted a OC CPU-GPU review on May 15th that included FSX-SP2 and shows a whopping 83.1 FPS at 19x12 with no AA,trilinear and Ultra Quality, and a still excellent 72.7 FPS at 19x12 with AA, Anisotropic and Ultra Quality.

I have a pretty good system with specs very similar to the Toms system (8800GTX, not the 9600 series though) and I can't get anywhere near that using those exact sim settings...I also find that a stock install of FSX w/SP2 runs the best, but once I add aftermarket add-ons, that can uniquely affect the sim experience in many ways (mostly as a detriment).

In the long run, Phil Taylor has already admitted FSX was "handicapped" and they are already working on FS11, but from scratch. It should be a much better platform but for now, running FSX AND FS9 is the way to go IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just about fell off my chair ROFLing about 10 times while reading these posts... but here it goes. I could spend an hour or so picking out quotes and answering them, but you can only do this:

beating-a-dead-horse.gif

so many times...

I find it hilarious that some of you don't believe Mathjis. How much Aerosoft sells or doesn't sell is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Don't you think that if FS9 was where all the money was at, they would be focusing primarily on it? Same with all other developers. It was asked to name other developers who have stopped FS9 production(new products), so here it goes: Nemeth Designs, Captain Sim, A2A Simulations (formerly shockwave productions), Flight1(and many of its subsidiaries), and many other smaller, more specialized companies. Most developers are putting out new products for both. There are far too many to list. As people move to newer versions of flight sim, the developers will too.

I totally loved FS9, spending nearly 2000 hours on it flying about. I was happy to move on though. I used FS9 up to the point I got my new computer which was way less than what some of you FS9 pilots have. If you can't run FSX with a Q6600 and an 8800 GTX, you are doing something SERIOUSLY WRONG. Get some help at a forum or something. I run FSX way better than I can run FS9. I finally deleted FS9 a couple weeks ago because it has ceased use. Some will still run FS9 if they have invested a fortune into it. If you are one of those people who hasn't though and has a newer computer, get FSX.

FSX offers a fresh new look to flight simulator. It is much more detailed in every aspect than FS9 is. It provides developers a larger platform to create their art on. I applaud those companies who have started to make FSX-only models. The possibilities FSX have provided have only started to be explored. I think in the next year we will be seeing products that crush old milestones and benchmarks, and add more dimensions of reality to the sim.

Finally, I agree with Marc that these posts and are entirely useless... all it does is result in a fight between both sides, with no winner. It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME on EVERY SINGLE FORUM. I finally decided to post at one of them with my thoughts. Refer to the picture at the beginning of my post once again...

I couldn't be more satisfied with FSX! (and the addons for the new sim that the great developers put out for us to enjoy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Just wonder how the FS9 people will go when FS11 comes out. As the graphics improve and the detail and resolution get better, the PC requirements are only going to get higher. The bandwidth required to shove all this data around is just huge, A new SIM engine may make shovelling all that data around more efficient but the bandwidth requirements i doubt wil get any less. Yes FSX has its issues, and i wont say i have the greates frame rates, but i find it so much more engrossing. I never really noticed the feel of speed in FS9 but in FSX accelerating down the runway, with the head slowly moving back due to forces, the buildings flying past at a great rate of knots, certainly seems so much mre immersive then FS9. Then there is the plane models, the cheyenne X is just majick, i only fly VC these days and it seems so much more real. Well ill just enjoy this sim, i did go bak to fs9 for a look but it was only very brief. Well i cant change peoples minds, eventually most people will come to FSX as develpoers get more products on the market.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just about fell off my chair ROFLing about 10 times while reading these posts... but here it goes. I find it hilarious that some of you don't believe Mathjis. How much Aerosoft sells or doesn't sell is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Don't you think that if FS9 was where all the money was at, they would be focusing primarily on it?

Couldn't have said it better ... which is why I argued this thread is sort of pointless ... :)

Some people read forum posts, ask friends and then believe they know the market better than those who make a living by selling stuff ... as if those who post in FS forums are representative of the number of sold products ... it's almost like making an online poll about who has internet access ... uh well ... ;)

But as you said : It's funny to read it ... :)

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish now I had never started this post off, I'm more confused now than I was before.

So here goes I have decided to load my old fs2002 and to hell with it but thanks for all your help anyway. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish now I had never started this post off, I'm more confused now than I was before.

So here goes I have decided to load my old fs2002 and to hell with it but thanks for all your help anyway. :(

Well, the thread isn't completely useless ... at least most people agree on a few things, like :

If you got a very old machine or if you are not interested in eye candy or the latest stuff like the F16 here if you want to keep your old investments from FS9 as you put loads of money into it, then stick with FS9.

If your machine is fast enough (about 2 years old or newer, depends) or if you only like to fly low and slow or if you want the newest add-ons with latest tech behind it or simply "show off", go for FSX.

So "which one is better" can't really be answered, should be "which one is better FOR YOU" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a copy of FS2 for Commodore 64 - sometimes I think its a pity I can't run it on my system. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it hilarious that some of you don't believe Mathjis. How much Aerosoft sells or doesn't sell is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Don't you think that if FS9 was where all the money was at, they would be focusing primarily on it? Same with all other developers. It was asked to name other developers who have stopped FS9 production(new products), so here it goes: Nemeth Designs, Captain Sim, A2A Simulations (formerly shockwave productions), Flight1(and many of its subsidiaries), and many other smaller, more specialized companies. Most developers are putting out new products for both. There are far too many to list. As people move to newer versions of flight sim, the developers will too.

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.

Then we have the developers you so claim to have stopped FS9 products. You're right about Nemeth, they make helicopter and GA addons, they are perfect for FSX and the low and slow flyers. Captain sim have stopped making FS9 products? that's news to me, just about a month ago they released the Block F for FS9 and more products are on the way as far as i know. Shockwave have also made FSX only products, but then again they focus mainly on older warbirds that's not very complicated and works great for VFR and is also perfect for FSX. Flight1 still have FS9 products in development, so you're pretty much wrong there.

To sum it up: the ones you have mentioned here which are making FSX only products represents about 0.02% of all the addon developers, most developers are still making FS9 products, accept it or not.

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.

And to the person claiming FS11 will require more hardware than FSX, well that may be true, but the coding in FSX is older than the ancient pyramids of Egypt and needs to be completely rewritten from scratch for FS11. You can see what X-Plane V9 does, it have insane graphics and details, but still it runs flawlessly. FSX should be just as good, or even better than that, but it's not. I think most simmers will stick with FS9 until FS11 is out, or may have switched over to X-Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...