Ok here's whats going on. I recently became an FSX user again after flying X-plane for over a year. I've really been enjoying myself in the VC and the scenery compared to X-plane is unmatched. However after only buying two addons (REX and DA Cheyenne), I find myself always being unhappy with the performance I am getting and I hate not being able to have smoothness at all times.So here is what I am considering. I still have my FS2004 discs laying around and am debating what I should do. I guess what I need to know is what would I be losing with FSX if I went back to FS2004? Does FSX have a better flight model engine or is there no differences. It's stuff things of that sort which I would like to know. I realize that FSX is the new simulator and FS2004 is being outdated everyday with all the new addons coming out only for FSX. All advice and/or suggestions are welcomed with arms wide open. BTW: If you want me to post my system specs for those thinking maybe I could upgrade some components. Let me just warn you that I am terrified of doing my own upgrading because I am not that hardware savvy.Thanks to all that reply and hopefully you can help me sort this out.-Cameron

No one has any thoughts? :(

There is no doubt that FSX is prettier when you compare it in a default state to that of FS9's default state, but as you know, there is less headroom in FSX when you start throwing improvements and add-ons at it.You should ensure that your FSX install and all the add-ons for it are well defragmented as that can help, but there comes a point when there is no more you can do without addressing the hardware limits of a system. If you are not enjoying the frame rates in FSX, then all the prettiness it can offer is of no consolation if you want to run your add-ons and cannot do so smoothly. You can of course try dropping the detail, and you can do that a lot, because even with the sliders quite a long way from being maxed out, it can still give FS9 a run for its money by being prettier to start off with, but it still might not be enough.So, you may decide that FS9 is a better option. The main thing you will miss is the better air mass modeling of FSX, although there are a few weather add-ons for FS9 that can address some of that, so there is at least something you can do on that score. You'll of course lose the 'missions' capability and some prettier default aeroplanes, multiplayer stuff and glider capability, but beyond that, there is not much to to choose when you get past the eye candy. What you have to decide is whether that is okay, and that may indeed be the case if you want to fly a PMDG 747 into a photo-realistic Heathrow with 16x antialiasing on and four or five other programs running alongside FS.On the plus side you will find yourself with much more flexibility and power when it comes to piling add-ons onto FS9, and since FS (in any form) has always been a 'base package' intended to be tweaked and expanded, you might find that is a better decision unless your want to throw money and hardware at the problem, which is of course another option. FS9 may be seen as the 'poor man's choice' when it comes to hardware, but it has to be said that it is abundant in riches when it comes to add-ons and the flexibility to pile them on and still get good frame rates. The fact that things are still being made for FS9 is evidence enough that it is still a valid choice for many, even given its limitations in terms of features compared to FSX, just look at that F/A-18 which came out for FS9 a few weeks ago if you aren't convinced FS9 can still cut it.You don't have to limit yourself to just one or the other of course. You could have one as your super detailed multifunctional airliner sim and the other as your simpler GA sim, which is something many people do.Al

No one has any thoughts? :(

Well post your specs, but I can tell you as a former unhappy FSX person that with some effort you can get FSX to run fine and it's much better then FS9. The limits to FS9 are shown in the aircraft and scenery textures and such. Unless you have GEpro which only does some justice. Just compare non adjusted photos of FS9 and FSX and you will be able to immedietely see the differences. You don't have to spend a bunch of money to get FSX running right but it does take trial and error.

It is hard to give advice based on a couple of factors. First, what kind of machine are you running? If you are running an old machine then, yes running FSX with sliders full will be difficult. You have to figure out what you can live with an what you can live without and then dial it down until you get acceptable performance. It has been discussed many times here at AVSIM that if you tone down the FSX setting you WILL get FS9 performance but you will have to sacrifice something. I can not run everything at MAX and run ASA, FEX, GEX, UT, UT2, PMDG and all the airports, so I have no road or boat traffic. Since I like to fly high I also have no autogen trees and buildings. For those who like low and slow this may be an issue. Do you fly in DX10 preview? Do you fly with Bloom on? Bloom is a known frame rate beast and I never fly with it on because I simply do not need it. It is simply learning what your system can handle. Try dialing down your water to 2Xlow. The water still looks really good but the gracphics engine is not having to take two passes to draw the water. I hope this helps.

Vista 32Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5ghz)3 GB DDR2-800MHz Dual Channel768MB Nvidia GeForce 9600GS500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard DriveThe computer's name is HP Pavillion Elite d5000ATX customizable Desktop PC.

There's nothing preventing you from running both FSX and FS9, as long as you have hard drive space. A fair number of people are happy doing that. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Lol not a bad idea...why didnt i think of that? Just kidding, but I am going to heed that advice and just do some comparisons I guess. As for my hardware, is there something that is screaming it needs to be upgraded?