Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Macsm

Is FS2004 the last MS FS that mattered?

Recommended Posts

Am I the only one who still prefers FS2004 over FSX? Will FS 2004 remain the sim of choice for some time to come for most simmers? or will X-plane displace MSFS eventually as the sim of choice for the majority?Macs

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Am I the only one who still prefers FS2004 over FSX? Will FS 2004 remain the sim of choice for some time to come for most simmers? or will X-plane displace MSFS eventually as the sim of choice for the majority?Macs
I think you know the answer really, don't you? Those that prefer FS9 prefer FS9. Those that prefer FSX prefer FSX. If most people move to X-plane, that will become the sim of choice. Can I buy PMDG and Aerosoft products for X-plane? Personally I prefer FS9, but also have, and use, FSX. Suits me just fine :(

Share this post


Link to post
Am I the only one who still prefers FS2004 over FSX? Will FS 2004 remain the sim of choice for some time to come for most simmers? or will X-plane displace MSFS eventually as the sim of choice for the majority?Macs
Interesting way to put the question. The answer, in a word, is yes. FS2004 was the last MS Flight Simulator that you could install without allowing Microsoft to snoop on your computer for the purpose of proving to them your innocence of software piracy. Similarly, it was the last MS Flight Simulator that would run on an OS that doesn

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I'm concerned, FS9 will continue to be my favorite for at least a couple of years. Why? Simple, because there are still excellent add-ons that are coming out freeware and payware. I recently bought the FSX gold pack (or something in those lines) for the future. I'll switch when FSX becomes popular and FS9 fades away. Which probably means never!! :( Oh yes, I will also need a better system to run the last FS properly. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting replies. Thinking also about the current state of MS's FS (and it's future) also makes me wonder what would have simming looked like if Terminal Reality's FLY! series would have been the victor in the "FS software wars" of years ago (think dot-com craze era)? They really had a nice software base for commercial flight simulation, with some of the current big names in FS add-ons included in their developers list (PMDG, Wilco Publishing, and a few others)...Macs

Share this post


Link to post

Nope, FSX is the last version of FS that mattered, because it was the last version of FS. Simple as that.But what matters to you personally might make you pick FS9 over FSX. If superior air mass modeling, dual control, tower operations, missions, better modelling capabilities and all the other stuff that is in FSX matters to you, then FSX would be your choice, because it does have those advantages over FS9. If on the other hand you prefer the way FS9 runs on your computer, leaving room for lots of other add-ons to run smoothly, and are prepared to forego the features in FSX, then clearly FS9 is going to be the one to suit you.Personally I use them both depending on what I'm flying: Miniscule thermal stuff is not really what I'm focusing on when flying a 747 (even though in the wider world it can have an effect), but when in a glider, obviously it is a big part of things. So for me, FS9 for the heavies and FSX for light aircraft.Each version of the sim has its own aspects better suited to different types of flying.With regard to other sims taking the crown. The main contender - X-Plane - has a long way to go to provide the kind of thing FS does. I've tried, and bought versions of it, but never been too impressed. But even disregarding my own opinion, it's not a stable enough environment to attract developers with the code changing so often. Compare that to FS, where even add-ons being released today are compatible with the current FS and the preceding version which went on sale over four years ago.It's true that you can tweak X-Plane to fly nicely, and if you spend the time, probably even better than FS, and it does have some other plus points. But until it is a platform where Joe Blow can stick the disk in his drive and be reasonably sure that the default set of planes are fair approximations of their real life counterparts without a lot of faffing around and the prospect of the goalpost moving in a week's time, it won't shift tons of copies. Blade Element theory is all very well, but it's nothing new (dates back to the late 1800s actually) and it is really suited to airscrew modeling rather than wings and fuselages, where Strip Theory is a better approach, as evidenced by the fact that you can't simply make a model of a particular aircraft with an accurate aerofoil in X-Plane and expect it to fly as the real one would, which is the impression X-Plane's marketing puts over. If that were true then it would sell itself without the need for a lot of spin. All credit to Austin for getting it going and taking on MS, and I'd like to see it improve, (if it does I'd buy it again), but as is, there's plenty of room for that unfortunately.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Will FS 2004 remain the sim of choice for some time to come for most simmers?
In asking this you already commit first mistake - you assume that FS 2004 is currently the sim of choice for most simmers.Do you have any evidence of that? For example don't you think if the above were true PMDG should have sold more MD-11 for FS9 than they did for FSX yet the opposite happened - FSX version outsold FS9 2:1.
if Terminal Reality's FLY! series would have been the victor in the "FS software wars" of years ago (think dot-com craze era)?
What "if" I have better questions - what if a really bad dude never attacked the Soviet Union in World War II or what if Douglas beat Lincoln in the race to US presidency. Much more interesting :(

Share this post


Link to post
In asking this you already commit first mistake - you assume that FS 2004 is currently the sim of choice for most simmers. Do you have any evidence of that? For example don't you think if the above were true PMDG should have sold more MD-11 for FS9 than they did for FSX yet the opposite happened - FSX version outsold FS9 2:1.
I could as easily prove that even though the MD-11 sold in favour of FSX 2:1, FS2004 could still be the sim of choice for the majority of simmers, as it would be reasonable to assume that not all have bought PMDG's MD-11. It would on the other hand, not be advisable for PMDG to prioritize for FS2004, if they knew that they would sell more for FSX. But you are right, my second question implies FS2004 still is the sim of choice for the majority. There were some polls taken a few months back here at AVSIM and other sites; taking a look at these would give you some idea, but they would still be far from perfect I believe.
What "if" I have better questions - what if a really bad dude never attacked the Soviet Union in World War II or what if Douglas beat Lincoln in the race to US presidency. Much more interesting :(
I agree they are all far more interesting questions, but this is a Flight Sim forum, not a World or American history one ;) regards, Macs

Share this post


Link to post
In asking this you already commit first mistake - you assume that FS 2004 is currently the sim of choice for most simmers.Do you have any evidence of that? For example don't you think if the above were true PMDG should have sold more MD-11 for FS9 than they did for FSX yet the opposite happened - FSX version outsold FS9 2:1.
The simple reason for that would be that many FS9ers purchased the combo alternative just to be able to try the MD11 in FSX before the FS9 version was released. Me included... :( You just have to take a quick look at the pols here at AVSIM and Simflight, Flightsim etc etc. The majority still prefers FS9. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I fell in love with FS9 the day I bought it, which happened to be the same day it was first available at a Walmart in Jacksonville, Florida. I still love the sim, but until someone can find a way to make the ground textures look good at low altitudes, particularly on approach, I will be sticking with FSX. The first flight I ever took in FSX was in the default 172 and I was amazed with how good the ground textures looked for the first couple of thousand feet in comparison to FS9. After that I am satisfied with GE Pro. It's a shame really considering how many addons I have for FS9. I can only assume at this point that the ground textures in FS9 will never be too great at low altitude. Regardless, I am happy that the OP is satisfied with FS9 and in the interest of the common ground of a love for FS and aviation in general I hope the FS9ers are happy for us in the FSX world.

Share this post


Link to post

Add my vote for FS9. FSX has some nice qualities, but what I find myself enjoying the most is FS9. The technical details in FSX meaning nothing when I'm on approach and my frame rate suddenly drops to 9 fps, blurries come on strong -- flight model goes out the window at those frame rates. Same approach in FS9 that looks almost as good as FSX at solid 40 fps will win the enjoyment factor every time for me.XPlane might pass FSX, probably will give time and now that XPlane has time...

Share this post


Link to post
You just have to take a quick look at the pols here at AVSIM and Simflight, Flightsim etc etc. The majority still prefers FS9. :(
I've seen polls with the complete opposite, with FSX overshadowing FS9 by a huge percentage. The results really depend more on the active demographic and bias of whichever forum/website conducts the survey than they do actual preference.In all cases though, the sample sizes are entirely too small to provide any significant statistical meaning.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, boys, but FSX may be the only FS that matters. I have both. With the exception of some of my own airports and a few AI planes, they are both RTM. FS9 is so far behind FSX. The only time I open FS9 is when the FSX computer is busy, and I need a fix. If the only reason you are not using FSX is because of poor frames...as they say, step up to the plate, man. If your rig is more than two years old, or has not been updated in that time, software and hardware have passed you by. I saved for a year and a half to build the box I have now. It can be done. Now, if you prefer FS9 addons, that is another story. Everyone has likes and dislikes, and I respect that. But to trash a piece of software because it doesn't run on your computer, is not facing facts. Because I have built a fairly strong rig, everything I do is faster and better. And I've learned alot ,also.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry, boys, but FSX may be the only FS that matters.
I don't think so sir!
FS9 is so far behind FSX.
In what way? FSX has moving cars and gates. How is it so far ahead? Care to explain.
If the only reason you are not using FSX is because of poor frames...as they say, step up to the plate, man. If your rig is more than two years old, or has not been updated in that time, software and hardware have passed you by.
Hmmm, my rig is now 4 weeks old (custom built). Now that Microsoft "canned" Flight Simulator, FS9 will be my last Flight Sim. Yes, I bought FSX the first day it came out (like all other releases). Heck, if you only knew the thousands of $$$$ I've spent on hardware to run a $50.00 piece of software.I don't think anyone has trashed FSX. If you fly GA aircraft, out in the country,, FSX works great, but please don't say "FSX may be the only FS that matters". The FS9/FSX debate will go on forever, but, that statement ("FSX may be the only FS that matters"), appears just a bit arrogant. X-Plane, may matter to you some day, so step up to the plate.RJ

Share this post


Link to post

I was one of the first to buy FSX from my local FutureShop when FSX first was released in late 2006, but then I shelved it when it ran like crap on the computer I had at that time. I never thought that I would use FSX, and I kept with FS2004 right up until the beginning of January this year, when I bought a Q9550 with 8 Gb RAM and an nVidia 9800 GT.Although I installed both FS2004 and FSX on my new computer, I've found that I have spent all my time on FSX. I prefer FSX's graphics, and much to my surprise, although I rarely did so in FS2004, I enjoy and even prefer flying from the virtual cockpit. I am now busy buying add-ons for FSX, some of which I am buying for a second time (e.g., Aerosoft's DHC-2 Beaver) but many of which I haven't yet bought for FSX (e.g., A2A Simulations' excellent B377).Was FS2004 the only MSFS that mattered? No. Although I wouldn't have said this only six short months ago, it's time to move on--at least, for me it is.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think so sir!In what way? FSX has moving cars and gates. How is it so far ahead? Care to explain.Hmmm, my rig is now 4 weeks old (custom built). Now that Microsoft "canned" Flight Simulator, FS9 will be my last Flight Sim. Yes, I bought FSX the first day it came out (like all other releases). Heck, if you only knew the thousands of $$$$ I've spent on hardware to run a $50.00 piece of software.I don't think anyone has trashed FSX. If you fly GA aircraft, out in the country,, FSX works great, but please don't say "FSX may be the only FS that matters". The FS9/FSX debate will go on forever, but, that statement ("FSX may be the only FS that matters"), appears just a bit arrogant. X-Plane, may matter to you some day, so step up to the plate.RJ
Is there any reason to start this whole silly debate once again? Flight simming ain't religion and hopefully for sure it isn't politics.Fsx will be possibly the last in the fs series for some, and fs9 may be the last in the series for others.Seems we can settle it there and not let this thread degrade into another of the countless others of this ilk?I continue to shake my head in amazement why there seems to be a periodic need to either justify or convert why a particular sim may fit one's need. Considering at this point that there is only one left which is neither fsx or fs9 I would think it would be a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post

RJThanks for your input. And I love the "Sir". Slow down. Your being so defensive. You would think I insulted your mother or something. It's a good thing I didn't say FSX IS the only FS. Because when I have to reinstall XP, FS9 is not going back on it.Putting down cars and gates sounds like trashing to me.Fly any plane out of KSAN and head north to KLAX. There is no comparison between ground texture quality and resolution in the two stock sims.The OP set up the question, because that is the way he and you feel. Great . But my answer to the question is NO.Is there some reason I can not answer without being called arrogant.With all respect, Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Is there any reason to start this whole silly debate once again?
I agree,, it is rather pointless. What works for "you", is all that matters.Some ppl claim FSX has more "realistic" flight characteristics, then X-Plane.That debate will go on forever too, which is pointless, cuz no home based PC simwill ever feel like the real thing.RJ

Share this post


Link to post

And please forgive me if I said anything out of line. I don't usually let myself get roped into this type of thread. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
RJYou would think I insulted your mother or something.
FS9 is my mother :( Yeah,, she's old, but I still love her B)
Putting down cars and gates sounds like trashing to me.
Not at all. FSX is great, as is FS9. Even FS2002 has some qualities I prefer over FSX and FS9.You said "FS9 is so far behind FSX". Sorry, I had to :( I agree,, the textures in FSX have been improved.
The OP set up the question, because that is the way he and you feel. Great . But my answer to the question is NO.
My answer to the question is NO also, and if FSX was in the title,, it would be NO too.No hard feelings I hope Bob, like Geofa said, this type of thread is rather pointless,, and most times I don't participate in such topics.Tonight, it would appear my beer made me speak.. :( Please accept my appoligeis Bob.What is important, is having fun and learning like you mentioned.And heck,, pointless debate is sometimes fun too.RJ

Share this post


Link to post

No problems.Ah, the wicked brew. Same could be said in my case.How sad am I, that I have chosen to sit here with this sim.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Is FS2004 the last MS FS that mattered?
Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes.
No. Well all I can say is the resolution of the textures has greatly been increased. The mesh is also very good and the real world weather is awesome. The feeling of inertia in FSX compares to no other commercial simulator on the market, its just that good. Even though on many youtube videos on the 747 for FS2004 you can "feel" the weight, it is more refined in FSX and even better. The inertia and simulation of weight and size in FSX is what makes it very real and it what distinguishes a small C172 from an A320, B737, etc. In a C172 when I accelerate the screen moves back into the seat a bit, but try that with a big heavy plane with lots of inertia and powerful turbofan engines and it makes you feel like you are there. Take off with a B747 and it will move a good distance back in the seat, then when you turn onto your legs you move in the seat and your head pans a bit due to the g-force. That is what I call attention to detail! :(. The visual features are also majorly improved. Shader Model 2.0 also plays a big part of the visuals of FSX. Lemme tell you this, visuals does not mean less simulation as some think (cough... Speedbird ..cough....). More visuals means more simulation as it is closer to life, and a better representation of what you will see in the real world. One example of SM 2.0 in FSX is plane models. Look at many planes released for FS9 and FSX. Take screenshots of the PMDG MD-11 for instance. The PMDG MD-11 in FS9 does not have bump mapping which makes the parts of the plane such as the tail and the fuselage look less real. When you look at screenshots of the PMDG MD-11 in FSX you can see the bump mapping clearly. You can see where the surfaces reflect and diffuse light, you can see where the plane reflects light well, etc. Also SM 2.0 really makes the water a lot closer to real life. For example in FS9 even though the animated water was OK in FSX it looks magnificent. You can see the crest of the waves and you see it reflect in the sun. You also see the water animating a lot better, and sometimes it even changes with the weather. The water in FSX also reflects many objects now because it does not use just a reflection map. When you fly over the water in FSX with settings high enough, you'll see the reflection of clouds, the reflection of planes, the reflection of SCENERY, the reflection of runway lights (depending on the airfield location) and many more. SM 2.0 helps improve precipitation effects as well because when it rains or snows you see those really nice reflections on the taxiways, ramps, runways, etc. and the world reflects on it. One more thing, which is not even the last of the many features of SM 2.0 is the smoke effects. When a plane lands in FSX the smoke is a more soft and real, also when you fly in industrial areas such as New York and see factories with smoke rising it looks like a real life representation. I know I'm saying a lot but I want to elaborate and show just a small amount of features added by SM 2.0. In FSX reflections on ground scenery objects such as autogen and airfield buildings is a lot nicer then FS2004, specifically because of the amount of reflection features you can do with SM 2.0. Remember all this is just only on SM 2.0, lots of cards such as most Geforce 7 series and ATi X series have Shader Model 3.0 and cards above that (Geforce 8 series, Radeon HD 2 series) have Shader Model 4.0 depending on if they are certified for DX10. If FSX was programmed using SM 3.0 or 4.0 we could have had a simulator looking like Crysis! Seriously, but sadly, when FSX was being developed we were still in the SM 2.0 era.FSX did look good and still does today, and I can always fool some people into thinking that some shots are real world shots (as long as they are not 1 inch away from the screen :().I will try and find some screenshots on the forum here and compare the FSX model with the FS2004 model.FSX:Here is the FSX PMDG MD-11. Look at the bump mapping and specular mapping on the body of the aircraft, specifically the belly, and look at the bump mapping on the vertical stabilizer (the tail) which is awesome:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...;hl=PMDG+MD-11Xhttp://forum.ivao.aero/index.php?topic=89039.0FS9: Notice the lack of bump mapping on the planes.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...;hl=PMDG+MD-11Xhttp://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1536042

Share this post


Link to post
FSX has moving cars and gates. How is it so far ahead? Care to explain.
Cars and moving gates, that's all you have noticed? No, it is superior, high resolution ground textures, water effects, plus better aircraft texturing/lightning techniques. By the way thanks for reminding me about cars and gates - but I actually never need it for my kind of flying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Cars and moving gates, that's all you have noticed? No, it is superior, high resolution ground textures, water effects, plus better aircraft texturing/lightning techniques. By the way thanks for reminding me about cars and gates - but I actually never need it for my kind of flying ...
Micahl 1 - 3Green 0! :( :(. Just kidding, just kidding.What Micahl said is very true, and I do not get what it is with the procrastinating FS04 users. How could you resist all those new features? You have enough money to type on the internet and your messages right now, so save up and buy a new PC later on. One thing that FS04 users must not forget is that hardware advances on an average of 6 months, so you have to be ready to upgrade your computer after a while. One way I do this is fix computers(and I'm only 15 so I do not have a job), which I'm sure many of the people on this forum can do. Family members spread around how good you are with PCs at work, and then you can get some extra $$$. Just the other day I was fixing some nasty viruses on someones PC. All it took was taking off crappy Norton Anti-virus and installing AVG and avast! antivirus (2 is better than one, no anti-virus has 100% detection rates), then I ran a couple of virus scans and did an online scan to make sure everything was gone and voila! An instant 40 dollars closer to that new processor, graphics card, etc.

Share this post


Link to post