I Still Like Fs2004

[seahawk09 0]

Hey all,

I havent posted in awhile but I was flying my Cheyenne the other day in FS2004 from Vancouver to Kamloops and I said to myself FS2004 is way better then FSX. The reason behind that is that people like Aerosoft,PMDG,and whole bunch other company's have made flying so real that you find yourself getting called down to dinner alot because your having too much fun at your computer. Aircraft liike the Cheyenne, the beaver,seahawk,PMDG'S 737 8-900 jet and a host of other great planes. With companies like this our flight sim days are just starting. I salute all those companies who go out of there way to make flight simming what it has became today. I so look forward to the future of this great hobby.

Richard

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

you find yourself getting called down to dinner a lot

Or you find yourself hungry as you had no time to make any.

I share your love for FS2004.

Best regards,

Rafal

[HBukovac 0]

Same here. I own both Sims but I find myself more in the virtual skies of FS 9.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hey all,

I havent posted in awhile but I was flying my Cheyenne the other day in FS2004 from Vancouver to Kamloops and I said to myself FS2004 is way better then FSX. The reason behind that is that people like Aerosoft,PMDG,and whole bunch other company's have made flying so real that you find yourself getting called down to dinner alot because your having too much fun at your computer. Aircraft liike the Cheyenne, the beaver,seahawk,PMDG'S 737 8-900 jet and a host of other great planes. With companies like this our flight sim days are just starting. I salute all those companies who go out of there way to make flight simming what it has became today. I so look frward to the future of this great hobby.

Richard

Well I won't speak bad about FS2004, but being responsible for some of the products on your list I sure can make some comments.

For example the Beaver and Seahawk are just a lot better in the FSX versions. Not only in looks, but also in what's delivered for your money. The Cheyenne might look roughly the same but the FSX version comes with a complete extensive weather radar for the same money. Using these as example FSX has to be better then FS2004, perhaps there are other examples that would make sense, but for these aircraft the FSX versions are superior.

Just check out the two Beavers next to each other (of course all FS2004 features are in the FSX version as well):

FSX-Features:

* Fully FSX compatible, with all features new to FSX

* Special Mission: "Needle in a haystack"

* Separate internal and external MDL's (40 in total!)

* Reduced polygon count because of careful use of bumpmaps textures, even though far more details are shown (= better frame rates)

* Fully supports extensive damage/failure model of FSX (check out the engine fire)

* FSX specific effects for snow, crop dusting, fire fighting

* All textures in DDS format

* Includes specular, bumpmap, fresnels effects

* Additional VC views defined

* Extensive use of texture fall back folders

* Solid and dependable flight model

* Leather seats and electrical flap system (luxury!) on most models

* Five models (ski/wheel, floats, amphibian, wheels, tundra wheels)

* Seven different pilots, six different interiors

* Forty-five textures (plus paint kit)

* Extended manual, thirty-four pages, many illustrations

* High definition and fast Virtual Cockpit (defined as main view, no 2d panels provided)

* Signed gauges (so perfectly safe)

* San Francisco sea plane base

* Light on frame rates

* Gets you everywhere, snow, water, soft runways or tarmac, there is a Beaver in this package for every terrain.

FS2004-Features:

* 42 different liveries

* Five models (ski/wheel, floats, amphibian, wheels, tundra wheels)

* 20 MDL files (aircraft models)

* 10 different pilots

* 7 Panels: original and modern version

* 6 different and highly realistic flight characteristics, one for each model

* Detailed virtual cockpit, fully functionable, from start up to landing

* Full sounds

* All checklists in audio format

* Light on frame rates

Also if you use default scenery the flight from Vancouver to Kamploops will look a lot better in FSX then it does in FS2004. Just try it and you'll see. From the better mesh and better textures to the better water effects. Again, nothing bad about FS2004. But the examples you give do not work for me. They show rather clearly that FSX is better in my mind. Now talk bugs, framerate and some other stuff and I could agree with you!

[Waleed Nuseibeh 0]

I am not going to bash fsx, but prefer fs9 for now because I am used to it, and feel more comfortable with playing around with the settings, and moving files.

I know that fsx has more to offer in certain instances, but fs9 does have a lot more add-ons, including free airports that I cannot otherwise get in fsx, along with the infamous and yes extremely addictive aes services.

I am looking forward to the f-16 for fsx, and it is definitive proof that fsx is more superior in detail, but am not willing to give up fs9 just yet.(oliver is to blame for that.)

[edetroit 529]

I am constantly getting emails from FSX virtual pilots asking how they can get their FSX rigs to look as good as my FS9 setup.

There are many reasons why FS9 is still far better than FSX IMHO and probably always will be......rollon FSXI

People keep mentioning what FSX can do and FS9 cannot......here are some examples of what FS9 can do that FSX cannot.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I am not going to bash fsx, but prefer fs9 for now because I am used to it, and feel more comfortable with playing around with the settings, and moving files.

I know that fsx has more to offer in certain instances, but fs9 does have a lot more add-ons, including free airports that I cannot otherwise get in fsx, along with the infamous and yes extremely addictive aes services.

I am looking forward to the f-16 for fsx, and it is definitive proof that fsx is more superior in detail, but am not willing to give up fs9 just yet.(oliver is to blame for that.)

As said, my post was not to say bad things about FS2004, it was to say that we have not stopped development 2 years ago and the FSX versions of the products mentioned are simply superior to the FS2004 versions. There are things that work better in FS2004 and some that are better in FSX. There are also a few things that are possible in FS2004 and not in FSX, but with nearly 5 years of FS2004 that's not so surprising. And keep in mind that AES is not a standard add-on, it enhances FS2004 with new functions and that's what makes it so popular. It adds some things that FSX does standard.

In the end, for a company like Aerosoft it is what customers decide to spend that determines what we do. FSX products are a lot easier to sell at this moment. If everybody would start to buy FS2004 products we would not make any FSX add-ons, it's as simple as that.

[EDOT-TH 0]

I am constantly getting emails from FSX virtual pilots asking how they can get their FSX rigs to look as good as my FS9 setup.

There are many reasons why FS9 is still far better than FSX IMHO and probably always will be......rollon FSXI

People keep mentioning what FSX can do and FS9 cannot......here are some examples of what FS9 can do that FSX cannot.

Nice movies and no doubt till mid of this year FS9 was and is still better for airliner pilots but things are changing and for GA pilots FSX was better right from its beginning.. so it always have more point of views then just one. As long as everybody is happy its ok. But I for myself think FSX now is the best simulator for me in all the years I had never a better "Bushflying" or GA experience before and this right of the box. And I am very thankful that Aerosoft concentrates on the strentgh of FSX and produces addons for that way of flying.

Airliner simulation is not everything in our hobby!

Btw hope to see the Glider this year on our screens

[edetroit 529]

I have no interest in a "which sim is better argument" I just let my videos speak for themselves.

[palm 0]

Then why do you post your videos?

I agree with EDOT-TH on this.

[Marc W. 0]

Interesting videos!

Dunno too much about the "featured content" as in moving cars on ground - but compared to FSX, I have to say, this looks "ugly", so to speak. (Everything from ground to sky ...)

But then I'm a very visual person Looking at the available HD-textures for FSX we are getting closer to a virtual reality here ... how will FS look in ten years? Mmmm ... guess that's worth a new thread ... I'll make one : http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19153

[edetroit 529]

Each to their own ....I still love / prefer FS9.

[Hans Grüber 9]

IMHO the real question is: "could we afford FSX?

Speaking for myself my computer is a 5 years old Pentium 4 with minor upgrades (RAM and GC) running on XP. I do not have the money for a new computer to use Vista, DirectX 10 and FSX only: except for Flight Simulator I have no other need today for a more powerful PC.

Considering the money I have spend on softwares for FS9, my knowledge of the sim and my own use (a lot of sceneries + real AI traffic at 100%) I will indeed stick to FS9 until a next possible version (FSXI?) that will really kick ass ...if ever.

Also I would compare the living fight "FSX vs FS9" to the similar "Vista vs XP"... It looks visually better but it takes too much resources for the end result. If I make the ratio cost/performances it is too low and the technological gap it is not worth -once again according to my own opinion.

Anyway thank you so much to the Aerosoft Team to develop products for both versions, making happy customers ...an growing incomes for you!

[seahawk09 0]

Hey Mathjis,

I will alway's be an avid Aerosoft customer you have no fear of losing me no matter what FS I use your company is one of best for addon's I have seen in a lonnng time.

[Snave 466]

I think Hans hits the nail on the head. Visually, FSX is superior to FS9... but at what cost!?

I think the problem of comparison is that nobody ever wants to compare vanilla installs of each. If you do you soon discover that FSX has lots going for it...

...Equally, though, you find that FS9 still has lots going for it after all these years. When comparing, one also needs to consider more than just the visual factors. Personally, I think the sound stage of FSX is far better than we got with FS9 and there is an indefinable something in the atmosphere dynamics that makes desktop flying seem more real, when the fps can be kept up. But FS9 still has a massive advantage in terms of system overheads. You buy the hardware needed to run FSX well, then see just how fabulously FS9 runs!

Add those complex models, systems simulators, high quality mesh and textures and FSX is dog, even after SP2. Meanwhile, FS9 just looks and feels fabulous - and at 60+fps!

So I can see the point about GA flying - treetops and above with 1m ground textures is truly an experience in FSX. But only if you've got the horsepower to also rack up the autogen. But try taking your simple Cessna into a major international airport and see what those textures and autogen cost you.

But then, those with longer memories will recall we said exactly the same things about FS9 when it was first released.

But there is one HUGE, over-ruling, overriding and major problem with FSX, compared to FS9:

Two years after release FS9 already had most of those things listed above - scenery, mesh, complex system simulators and the like. I don't see anything like the volume or quality of equivalent products for FSX, and after all this time, I doubt we ever will. The major advantage FS9 still has, and will always have, is that it matured nicely into what we have today, while FSX is a `fits'n'starts` bastard child, one that consistently fails to reach its potential. Tantalising glimpses, yes, but seemingly always something that stops that potential being realised.

And I don't see how the aftermarket can solve that problem when the developers have already moved on to FS XI.

Which is why FS9 is the superior product, even after all these years.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

IMHO the real question is: "could we afford FSX?

Speaking for myself my computer is a 5 years old Pentium 4 with minor upgrades (RAM and GC) running on XP. I do not have the money for a new computer to use Vista, DirectX 10 and FSX only: except for Flight Simulator I have no other need today for a more powerful PC.

Considering the money I have spend on softwares for FS9, my knowledge of the sim and my own use (a lot of sceneries + real AI traffic at 100%) I will indeed stick to FS9 until a next possible version (FSXI?) that will really kick ass ...if ever.

Also I would compare the living fight "FSX vs FS9" to the similar "Vista vs XP"... It looks visually better but it takes too much resources for the end result. If I make the ratio cost/performances it is too low and the technological gap it is not worth -once again according to my own opinion.

Anyway thank you so much to the Aerosoft Team to develop products for both versions, making happy customers ...an growing incomes for you!

Yes, but there will be hardly any new game that would work well on your system. Yes what we do might always demand high end hardware, but at prices for killer rigs that are perfect for FSX running well under $ 1000. You can not expect us to see your hardware as the 'standard' hardware of our average customer. Our average customer has pretty serious hardware, many times faster in processing power then you got. And when we develop we need to do so for the average hardware about 6 months in the future. So almost all our developments are now aimed for that.

There is just not a lot of FS2004 development going on, not with us, not with other major companies.

[Kiwikat 2]

1) You buy the hardware needed to run FSX well, then see just how fabulously FS9 runs!

2) So I can see the point about GA flying - treetops and above with 1m ground textures is truly an experience in FSX. But only if you've got the horsepower to also rack up the autogen. But try taking your simple Cessna into a major international airport and see what those textures and autogen cost you.

3) Which is why FS9 is the superior product, even after all these years.

My responses point by point...

1) Sorry? FS9 runs like crap on my laptop. I can run FSX at 35 fps solid. I have to set FS9 way down to get it to run at all. New drivers and new hardware are best suited for new software. (though FSX is nearly 2 years old, but is still "new" compared to FS9)

2) Take a cessna into a big city... and still get 35 fps. Check. My autogen is set higher than what FS9 will show (which isn't much...)

3) Why again is FS9 superior? Because you don't have the machine to run it or can't adjust your settings properly? It sure doesnt look/feel superior to me. I was once a fan of FS9. I thought it was the best thing in the world... until FSX came out. Even with thousands of dollars of addons for FS9, it STILL doesn't look or feel as nice as FSX.

There's no addons for FSX that we had for FS9? I have freeware mesh for the entire world minus the eastern half of the united states. I have landclass for the entire world. I have UTX europe and usa. I have flight environment X and ground environment X. I have more and higher quality aircraft installed than I had on my FS9 install. Whoever claims FSX doesn't have adequate addons available obviously isn't looking.

The ONLY valid reason I see for people stick with FS9 is if their computer is like >2-3 years old and can't afford a new machine. Everyone I know personally who has moved to FSX doesn't regret it even a second. Microsoft should run the "mojave experiment" on FSX Somehow its reputation is as bad as Vista's. Funny I'm running both and have never been happier. My XP/FS9 combo can't even come close to comparing to what I have now.

[Snave 466]

My responses point by point...

1) Sorry? FS9 runs like crap on my laptop. I can run FSX at 35 fps solid. I have to set FS9 way down to get it to run at all. New drivers and new hardware are best suited for new software. (though FSX is nearly 2 years old, but is still "new" compared to FS9)

2) Take a cessna into a big city... and still get 35 fps. Check. My autogen is set higher than what FS9 will show (which isn't much...)

3) Why again is FS9 superior? Because you don't have the machine to run it or can't adjust your settings properly? It sure doesnt look/feel superior to me. I was once a fan of FS9. I thought it was the best thing in the world... until FSX came out. Even with thousands of dollars of addons for FS9, it STILL doesn't look or feel as nice as FSX.

There's no addons for FSX that we had for FS9? I have freeware mesh for the entire world minus the eastern half of the united states. I have landclass for the entire world. I have UTX europe and usa. I have flight environment X and ground environment X. I have more and higher quality aircraft installed than I had on my FS9 install. Whoever claims FSX doesn't have adequate addons available obviously isn't looking.

The ONLY valid reason I see for people stick with FS9 is if their computer is like >2-3 years old and can't afford a new machine. Everyone I know personally who has moved to FSX doesn't regret it even a second. Microsoft should run the "mojave experiment" on FSX Somehow its reputation is as bad as Vista's. Funny I'm running both and have never been happier. My XP/FS9 combo can't even come close to comparing to what I have now.

Then you obviously have a system problem with your whizzbang system if it cant cope with FS9. That is something that you should look into as it most assuredly WILL be affecting your FSX experience. I think it fair to say that I can adjust my settings as I can get the best out of both sims, while you it seems cannot. Obviously as your vision is clouded by your poor iteration of FS2004 you are hardly in a position to judge one against the other.

And to deal with your addons point by point: Freeware mesh for the entire world? Really? Where did you get the Iceland mesh from? Australasia? The Baltics? Landclass for the entire world? Interestingly, I have two different sets of European landclass, three if you count UTX Europe. NONE of them are accurate in the three areas I have compared with what I have seen in the real world. I have both landclass and mesh in FS9 that closely replicates what I see in real life.

Flight Environment X. Yep, agree on that one, but there's still only a single aftermarket generator of weather, and that doesn't integrate with FEX. And I see the Amero-centric view prevails - "I'm alright Jack" says you have Ground Environment X. But that is for the USA only, isn't it..? Where is the equivalent for Europe? (Don't bother looking, there isn't one).

More and higher quality aircraft? I don't think so, even if you judge by your own system. A quick perusal of the GENUINE FSX aircraft reveals maybe 50-100 models, of varying complexities. tenfold less than the still-showing up FS9 models. And when it comes to freeware comparisons the ratio goes up to 100's to one. Nope, FS9 is a devloped sim, based however surprisingly on scaleable architecture that responds well to modern hardware (well on most users systems). By the same token, there is still NO hardware in the mid-to-upper reaches that will enable a simmer to fly a complex sim model in heavy weather, with high menu levels, and maintain a steady 30+ fps. You need deep pockets for that, two years after launch.

And that is simply because the software is not matched to the hardware - barebones multiple core utilisation, no serious SLI implementation, no Physx. No offloading the CPU load onto the GPU. By ACES own admission they got the choices wrong of future developments in hardware. No way is that going to get fixed, not now. So what we have now is what we have to work with. And two years is a LONG way into a softwares lifespan to be making such comments, especially when developments continue in FS9, where by comparison the arrival of FS9 killed FS2000/2002 stone dead within months.

By contrast, the proper application of that technology to what is a five year old game yields far better bang-per-buck. In fact, if we had 1m ground textures and higher res VC's, I dare say we wouldn't be having this conversation. FS9 would rule the roost.

[Kiwikat 2]

Snave,

Obviously you missed the fact that I had FS2004 running for a couple years and I was very happy with it. I have near 2000 hours on FS9, way more than FSX so far. I've only been running FSX for about 14 months now, got around 1100 hours on it.

Look on flightsim.com for mesh. There are gigabytes upon gigabytes available.

Don't blame FSX for the "accuracy" of landclass. It has NOTHING, literally NOTHING to do with it. Blame the addon developers. I've messed with landclass near some local airports to make them "real-world accurate" with ADE.

GEX Europe is coming... go on the flight1 forum and look yourself.

As for the software not being matched to the hardware, I agree. That is one problem with FSX AND! FS9. They run on an old engine which will be replaced with FS11. This doesn't make FS9 better in this aspect though, just makes FSX equally bad.

You don't get 1m textures and high res VC's, or detailed models. You never will on FS9.

Another final note, developers are finally letting go of FS9. What FSX can bring to the table has yet to be seen. True 3D virtual cockpits, detailed models, high resolution textures, and realistic failures are just the start. You'll see

[WEA-JHD 1]

Well said, Snave, i agree with you 100%

They run on an old engine which will be replaced with FS11. This doesn't make FS9 better in this aspect though, just makes FSX equally bad.

Where did you read that? do you have any link to back that statement up? As far as i have read they will be using the same engine as Trainsimulator 2, which is based on the FSX engine, which again has it's roots back to FS2000. I seriously hope that's not the case, they should really start with completely new and blank sheets.

Another final note, developers are finally letting go of FS9. What FSX can bring to the table has yet to be seen. True 3D virtual cockpits, detailed models, high resolution textures, and realistic failures are just the start. You'll see

Maybe for general aviation aircraft and small, rural sceneries, but certainly not for Complex airliners and detailed, urban sceneies

that's my two cents

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well said, Snave, i agree with you 100%

that's my two cents

Well, I think that in urban scenery we have shown with Venice that FSX is far more capable, and very soon London VFR, Paris X and Manhattan X will show this even better. Certainly in an city that has much water and modern high rise the self shading and better reflection options really help. It's rather simple. An image below, that I think shows urban scenery pretty good, can simply not be recreated in FS2004. And we see that at 20 fps on our systems.

If you think this is not good urban scenery we better stop discussing. I think it is pretty good.

Now I still agree that complex aircraft with roots in FS2004 and complex airport scenery causes problems. But certainly not urban scenery, that's VFR stuff and FSX simply is pretty good at that. I like to see nice stuff as I fly and not just gauges and hours of water, so I am pretty happy.

[WEA-JHD 1]

Well, Mathijs: i have no clue how high the graphics settings is on your computer, but when you were able to tun it at 20fps, which i find a bit too slow when FS9 could un this at 40+fps on all settings to the max.

Now i doubt you got 20fps with all settings to the max, and knowing how much the fps drop when you're in London, Paris, New york.. and so on i really doubt you have the settings to the full.

What's the point in having so highly detailed urban sceneries when you can't use the sim at it's max potential? Because when you get a scenery like that you want it to look as good as possible, right?

And as i have said earlier, i don't see that much difference from the FS9 manhattan scenery as compared to the FSX version, with the exception of the water and the light bloom, both which is poorly optimized and takes up too much system resources.

I like to see nice stuff when i fly as well Mathiijs, but i can see alot of nice detailss in FS9 too, the only difference is that i can enjoy it with great FPS.

Now, you may very well call me a "fanboy" and a "troll" too, but it's my opinion and the way i see things. The cost of performance against the Eye candy is just not worth it in my opinion.

Now, i have never said that the sceneries looks bad, but they don't look that much revolutionary. I see textures from France VFR that looks just as good as the latest FSX product. It's just not enough to make me want to switch over, epsecially since i can't run FSX the way it should be run in the first place.