FS2004 Opinions...

[Guest pete1_leeds]

i happily use both... and will continue to do so for some time yetboth have pro's and con's against each other

[1mikel151 71]

I feel opposite of most of the replies. I had FS9 on my last rig, with loads of great addon aircraft, scenery, and had it running really well. Then last April I had the rig built in my sig, installed FSX and never looked back. At first I missed a few of my addons, but most of the ones I used in FS9 were eventually released for FSX or are in the pipeline to be released. If you got the power to run FSX with most of the sliders at levels that make you happy you probably wont like FS9 as much. For me, I am able to run FSX pretty much maxed out, minus bloom and lens flare, but for me it looks and feels so much better than FS9 ever did that I never bothered to reinstall FS9. In my opinion there is no comparison between the looks of stock or aftermarket ground textures compared to FS9, or levels of autogen. Also the comparison I often hear about FSX only being reasonable for GA while FS9 is better for flying airliners will only apply if you don't have the horse power to run FSX reasonably well. I fly heavies all the time into major hubs with AI levels of 70% or higher all the time and suffer no adverse effects, so at this point I figured there is not point in settling for a less appealing looking sim and reinstalling FS9 just for flying heavies. Granted FSX might not deliver 50 fps when flying into major hubs, but in FSX 50 fps aren't needed for a smooth flight. You can be getting fps in the 20's and have a flawless experience.In the end you sould try FS9 for yourself and see. If your rig has less than 3.0 ghz per core FS9 may be a better sim for you. It's probably cheap enough, under $20's that you can try it and even if you dont like it your not out much money.Good luck.

I pretty much agree with cmpbellsdjc. I ran FS9 maxed for a long time with a ton of $$ invested as well and while it was a great experience, FSX gives me things that I wished for but couldn't have in FS9 as both a simmer and a developer. I tried it a few times after installing FSX, but it just wasn't the same and the whole enchilada went bye bye with no looking back. Even though my rig is sub par for FSX, my expereince has been great so far.

[Guest Autolite]

Even though my rig is sub par for FSX, my expereince has been great so far.

I would like to ask what do you have for hardware? You mentioned that FSX has been a good experience so far and I am curious as to what sort of set up one needs to get satisfactory performance even though you say your equipment is 'sub-par'.I haven't anything bad to say against FSX, it's just that I bought it without knowing how sophisticated the software is or understanding the hardware requirement. I am very much looking forward to the day when I can afford suitable hardware for running FSX properly and when true FSX compatible freeware is more available. I've just come to the realization that it won't likely be for a couple of more years yet anyway. I am sure that the folks who developed FSX did so thinking that the necessary hardware would be more easily affordable by now...

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I would like to ask what do you have for hardware? You mentioned that FSX has been a good experience so far and I am curious as to what sort of set up one needs to get satisfactory performance even though you say your equipment is 'sub-par'.I haven't anything bad to say against FSX, it's just that I bought it without knowing how sophisticated the software is or understanding the hardware requirement. I am very much looking forward to the day when I can afford suitable hardware for running FSX properly and when true FSX compatible freeware is more available. I've just come to the realization that it won't likely be for a couple of more years yet anyway. I am sure that the folks who developed FSX did so thinking that the necessary hardware would be more easily affordable by now...

Your not going to "need" 4.0 ghz, but it helps. If you look at the components in my sig, my E8400 is dual core 3.0 ghz stock. I overclocked it to 3.85 ghz, but even before I did that I could still run the sim pretty much full tilt. I had WinXP and FSX set up by FS-GS, I have done no tinkering or tweaking to the sim or my OS myself as it hasn't been necessary. I had my rig built last April for about $1800. Now with the economy in worse shape and deals to be had, you could probably build a rig with the same stuff for about $1300 or maybe even less.I agree with one of the other posters that for you with a single core at 2.0 ghz it wont get it done for FSX and on that rig FS9 would be a better bet. My last rig that ran FS9 really well was only a P4 2.53 ghz with 2 ghz of ram and a 128mb vid card. I don't know what your financial situation is but you could start buying parts to a new rig a little at a time, then once you have all the pieces have it built or do it yourself.One of the other posters made a remark about the default FSX textures being desert everywhere. The problem was not that there are only desert textures, but that the default landclasses made it appear that the world was mostly desert. This can be fixed just by buying a landclass replacement which is very cheap and then the correct textures for that region will appear.On a last note, before getting FS9 back in 2003 I didn't have much knowledge either about computers, operating systems, components, etc. Getting into flight simming has made me learn alot about all of the above and how they operate together. Not only that but you will come to learn a lot about the worlds geography in general. In real life I have only about 65 hours of PIC time in small aircraft, and most flights I do are not very long in nature maybe 1 to 3 hours max due to the cost. In the sim I have flown around the world so much that sometimes I almost feel as if I have actually been to some of the areas that I frequently fly to. Simming will bring you a lot of knowledge about the worlds geography, aeronautical knowledge, and computers in general.Good luck.

[1mikel151 71]

Autolite, I think it really all depends on what kind of flying you do and your expectations. I have my settings where they "click" and I don't alter them for any addon, the addon has to work with my settings. I mostly fly GA, rotary and vintage warbirds with most settings on high, autogen at normal and locked at 30. I also design scenery, so I tend to have lots of detail at the places I normally fly. The only negative I have is I can't use real weather with updates, kills performance, but I have some good presets that give me good performance with good visuals, so until I upgrade, it works.Specs are: Asus A8N32-Deluxe Athlon-64 X2 4800+ ATI Radeon X850-XTPE 256MB 2048 PC3200 Corsair XMS XP

[Geofa 108]

Here is my opinion:All flight sims=good.All flight sims do and simulate something different in the flying experience.None duplicate real flight 100%-yet-but they had been getting closer and closer.Let's support them all-as lately there are not many of them left.For the price of a meal for two at a mediocre restaraunt I don't think one can lose purchasing any of them-or any of their add ins-or any of their experiences.

[Guest Autolite]

Well, building a computer myself isn't the problem. My goal is to do it as 'cost effective' as possible. That's the challenge. I built my FSX machine from a combination of new, second hand and scrap components. The problem is that I started with a MB that was way too old to begin with. It was a first time build and I wasn't even sure how well it would run FSX. The current MB is max'd out with the fastest CPU and the most RAM than it can handle, but it just isn't enough for FSX. For the time being I will install and run FS2004 until I can find a MB that will support a 4Ghz CPU and 4gig of RAM (on the cheap). I'm betting that that's going to take some time. Actually, the main reason that I want FS2004 is because I've found so many interesting freeware aircraft that will only load on FS2004.At some point in time I want to learn how to modify FS2004 aircraft files so that they will load and perform properly in FSX. However, the bottom line is that the computer I have now can only barely run FSX anyway. In the mean time I will be keeping an eye out for a newer, better MB and then I will take it from there...

[Guest Autolite]

Your not going to "need" 4.0 ghz, but it helps.

Well, I am trying to imagine what sort of machine I would need if I were to try and run FSX max'd out with all sliders full hard right and achieve smooth operation. I mentioned 4Ghz CPU speed with 4gig of RAM but I suspect that that wouldn't even be sufficient. When I say 'max'd out' I am using that as a goal, just something to aim for on my next computer. I doubt that it is even a realistic goal. Having said that, is there anyone here that actually knows what sort of hardware it would take to achieve that? In any case, I'm guessing that it's going to be several years down the road for something like that to be easily affordable...

[Geofa 108]

Well, I am trying to imagine what sort of machine I would need if I were to try and run FSX max'd out with all sliders full hard right and achieve smooth operation. I mentioned 4Ghz CPU speed with 4gig of RAM but I suspect that that wouldn't even be sufficient. When I say 'max'd out' I am using that as a goal, just something to aim for on my next computer. I doubt that it is even a realistic goal. Having said that, is there anyone here that actually knows what sort of hardware it would take to achieve that? In any case, I'm guessing that it's going to be several years down the road for something like that to be easily affordable...

Well I have a two year old dual core that runs fsx just fine with most sliders almost to the right so am trying to understand your discomfort. I use the sim to duplicate my real flights and have been very satisfied....

[Guest pete1_leeds]

Well, I am trying to imagine what sort of machine I would need if I were to try and run FSX max'd out with all sliders full hard right and achieve smooth operation. I mentioned 4Ghz CPU speed with 4gig of RAM but I suspect that that wouldn't even be sufficient. When I say 'max'd out' I am using that as a goal, just something to aim for on my next computer. I doubt that it is even a realistic goal. Having said that, is there anyone here that actually knows what sort of hardware it would take to achieve that? In any case, I'm guessing that it's going to be several years down the road for something like that to be easily affordable...

such a pc does not exist yet.. the core I7's will do a good job on the basesim with all sliders to the right but once you add a complex airliner, traffic and weather then things slow down a little in built up areas.. we are getting close but still not quite there yeteveryones definition of 'smooth' differs though

[Guest Autolite]

such a pc does not exist yet..

After reading through this forum and others, that's the impression that I am beginning to get. It just gives me more reason to want to try FS2004. I have one on order from Amazon.com and it should arrive any day now.I suppose what I am really trying to say is that I don't want to spend any more money on hardware upgrades unless there is an affordable CPU/MB set-up available that will allow FSX to run at it's best. I am worried if I spend a wad of cash now that 18 months later I will find the 'best' hardware which could have been had for less.We shall see. If FS2004 runs as good as folks says it does, I will likely just stick with that for a while...

[Charlie Chew 0]

If computing power is a concern, it may be worth trying FSX with Tileproxy. You'll won't get autogen trees and buildings, but you should see a marked increase in performance, and Tileproxy offers an incredible sense of "being there."Personally, I've been swinging back and forth between FS9 and FSX for the past two years (I don't have enough room on my hard drive for both). Right now the pendulum is back to FS9. As much as I enjoy FSX, I'm hooked on simming with 3D glasses, which effectively halves my frame rate. Frame rates are fluid enough in the air in FSX, but a bit too choppy on the ground. FS9 gives me good frame rates with my 3D glasses, and I'm once again enjoying all the great scenery from Flight Ontario, which isn't fully FSX compatible.Good luck with FS9, FSX, or both, and have fun!

[Guest Aviator4life]

. . . "I am unable to take advantage of the 'improved' performance of FSX because of the limitations of my hardware anyway. Actually, I spent a bunch of money upgrading my computer just so that it would run FSX at all and I don't see being able to afford any further upgrades in the near future. . . .". . . "I'm beginning to think that giving FS2004 a try might not be a bad idea. Do many FSX users keep FS2004 on their computers? What do y'all think???"

You answered your own question with this statement in your original post. You don't need anyone else's validation for running FS9 instead of FSX anyway. If you had to upgrade your rig just to meet the minimum system requirements for FSX, well, I don't think you'll find anyone (well, maybe not, this is the internet afterall, lol) who can intelligently argue that with the minimum system specs for FSX you are ever going to be able to run it with the sliders "maxed out". Yes, I believe there are quite a few people, especially long time flight-simmers, who have both FS9 and FSX installations on their current rigs. I do. If for no other reason I have kept it so that I can use it as a test platform for compatibility with new scenery, aircraft, etc., and to have a working copy of FS9 that I can use to help others with their FS9 problems/issues.Again, you don't need validation from anyone to run FS9. Given your hardware limitations, it makes perfect sense. Decent performance with FS9 or a slide show with FSX (not to mention the dumbed down settings), seems like a no-brainer from where I'm sitting.Whatever you do, have fun with your flight-simming and best regards. :(

[Guest Autolite]

Again, you don't need validation from anyone to run FS9. Given your hardware limitations, it makes perfect sense. Decent performance with FS9 or a slide show with FSX (not to mention the dumbed down settings), seems like a no-brainer from where I'm sitting.Whatever you do, have fun with your flight-simming and best regards. :(

Well, I started the thread to find out what people who run FSX thought about FS9/FS2004. I found all the responses quite helpful and encouraging. Recall that I had mentioned that I had never actually seen FS2004 in operation. FSX is the only fltsim I have ever seen run. This is all very new to me. I wanted the opinion of others who are familiar with both FSX and FS2004. I wanted to know how FS2004 and FSX compare. In any case, as you've mentioned, FS2004 seems to be the way to go considering my current hardware "handicapp"... :(