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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites