FS9 IS IT WORTH IT??

[Guest RB211]

Fellow Pilots, I have purchased FS9 today, but after going through the Forum I am having second thoughts about using it.I have not even opened the wrapper yet so taking it back to the store is on the cards, now i know a lot of you good people will say its my choice if I want to use it, but Iam only running a AMD 1.4 on an Asus board and GFTI 4200 and this sim seems to struggle on top end machines.So is it worth it or do I stick with FS2K2? 50GBP is a lot for a program that is a bit, how shall we say not quite there yet. Any comments /advice welcome.Happy flyingRB211

[Guest Thunderchief]

> but Iam only>running a AMD 1.4 on an Asus board and GFTI 4200 and this sim>seems to struggle on top end machines.>Im my experience FS2004 is similar in performace to FS2002 when set with similar graphics settings, I have also found it possible to increase my settings to include some of the new graphic features, the clouds for example, without unduly affecting my frame rates.I have found that if you run high resolutions and or FSAA then you will take more of a hit with the funky new clouds, so if you want the new clouds you may have to run at a lower resolution/no FSAA.I currently run at about 14-20 FPS with most graphic settings on full except autogen which is normal and terrain mesh which is at 65%. Weather I have set at beyond the max setting, but I can't remember what exactly. At 1280x960x32 no FSAA. This is when running the PMDG 737, and activesky V1.9.My basic specs for reference:AMD Athlon XP 2800+Geforce 3 (The original one, better than a TI worse than a TI Ultra)512MB 333mhz DDR RamMSI Nforce2 Mainboard.Windows XPI my opinion FS2004 is worth the cost of upgrading, I certainly haven't regretted it.Simon

[Jimmy Angel 19]

Here's a visual comparison of the two sims:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=134140Could you stand to look at that FS2002 sky color? I sure couldn't ;)FS2004 offers the weather engine, much improved ATC, clickable VC, a nice selection of historical aircraft, an overall refined and polished look, etc. etc. Considering that most minor add-on's are $20 or more, I certainly think that the $50 or $60 for the upgrade to FS2004 is more than worth it.Your system should perform at around the same level as FS2002, until you bring 3d clouds into the equation. You will need to tweak the settings to run with 3d clouds. There have been lots of advice to help in this regard, and FSW's new 3d cloud set offers a performance improvement for many (including myself).There are some other things to consider. For example, the autogen in FS2004 at "normal" is comparable to the autogen in FS2002 at "dense", or perhaps even "very dense". Keep this in mind as you set your sliders--Microsoft has built some headroom in the visual settings to support today's faster systems.Rip off that shrink-wrap. Keep FS2002 installed. If you're not happy, just put it up on E-bay.

[Guest JonP01]

Hi Jimmy,What are the autogen density options in FS2004? Is there now a "very sparse" or does it just go from nothing to "sparse"? Is the lowest density autogen setting in FS2004 about the same as the lowest density autogen setting in FS2002, or has even the lowest level in FS2004 been increased?

[Guest Boone]

Hi There,Do not take it back! and don't be put off by what seems like an endless amount of negative posts.Most of these posts are from people who are having problems with the software for one reason or another and NOT a true representaion of FS9 users / customers.I have a mid to lower end PC, P4 1.4, 256MB RAM and FS9 is here to stay. In fact I'm uninstalling FS2002 this evening.In my opinion FS9 offers the same performance as FS2002 providing YOU DON'T MAX OUT SLIDERS. Just keep in mind the average settings in FS9 are roughly what high setting were in FS2002. I've had it now about a week and I'm still tweeking the settings to suit my PC. Also the clouds are extreme Frame Rate hogs but there are work arounds and sliders available to keep this density down. Not to mention Chris Wills (FSW Group) has brought out a set of improved clouds that significantly improve frame rates.At the most basic level FS9 LOOKS so much better, it is an absolutley gorgeous sim. Defrag your PC and install this gem.It has performed so well for me that I have been able to up my screen resolution size.Best Regards,Boone

[Guest SoarPics]

The options are:NoneSparseNormalDenseVery DenseExtremely DenseI run mine at Very Dense, though this gives me more Autogen features than I ever saw in 2K2. Right after I installed FS9 I did try the "None" setting, and indeed I saw just that. Then quickly settled upon Very Dense and haven't messed with it.One of the things I like about the new sim is the adjustability. There are far more choices for tweaking the sim to one's particular system.Hope this helps,

[Guest emergency_pants]

You just went out and bought it... and now you want to take it back because of some forum posts, without even unwrapping it? I hope this doesn't sound silly but... you have FS9 in your hands and you're browsing the boards??? Get it INSTALLED!!! QUICK! heheh ;)I agree with Boone. But take a look for yourself and make your own mind up :)Cheers, Simon.

[Guest JonP01]

>The options are:>>None>Sparse>Normal>Dense>Very Dense>Extremely Dense>>I run mine at Very Dense, though this gives me more Autogen>features than I ever saw in 2K2. Right after I installed FS9>I did try the "None" setting, and indeed I saw just that. >Then quickly settled upon Very Dense and haven't messed with>it.>>One of the things I like about the new sim is the>adjustability. There are far more choices for tweaking the>sim to one's particular system.>>Hope this helps,Hi Greg,I guess the reason I ask is that for me, auotgen is the last thing I go turning up, as most of the other features are more important for how I use the sim. As a result, I actually ran FS2002 with the autogen on "sparse". With the other things my machine needed to do, it could cope with this setting. I fear, however, that FS2004 autogen "sparse" = FS2002 autogen "normal" or "dense". I guess I could turn it off altogether, but it is nice to have some buildings and trees.

[TonyB 1]

Don't let all the negatie posts worry you. I think there are a lot more happy than unhappy people out there. It tends to be the unhappy ones that post. Well, the happy ones post as well, but the unhappy posts get all the replies with people disagreeing, trying to help or whatever. :) I myself love FS2004.Tony

[Guest daveg4otu]

Like Tony said - don't be put off - it's definately a step in the right direction.There are always going to be problems for some people but,I would hazard a guess ,that for every person who posts a problem on here there are probably several hundred FS9 users happily flying with no trouble at all.OK - it is more demanding of the machine's resources than FS2k2,but that in it's turn demanded more than FS2000, and so on.(Would you like to still be using FS98- we all thought it was marvellous then - but now???)To be fair ,I 'm sure( another "guess") that at leat half of the problems that people post about are probably precipitated by the user rather than the software or hardware(EG: you can't just install,whack all the sliders to max and expect everything to go like a dream unless you're lucky enough to have all the latest cutting edge technology- which very few do.)Better jump off my soapbox----Dave