Hi,I use FS2004 and have spent a small fortune on add-ons so have always been reluctant to move up to FSX unless it blew me away.I currently have a dual-core 3.33ghz machine running XP with 4GB ram and a nVidia GT250 and get about 40-50 fps for most things, occasionally dropping to 15-20fps. When I bought the machine the only quad core PCs ran at very low speeds so a dual core was more than enough for games like fs2004.I was recently given a copy of FSX and installed it on my PC and although had it running its most basic mode, I was not that taken with it. The cockpit did not zoom out far enough on my TH2G and the whole movement in the air felt sluggish compared to FS2004. Perhaps it was not a fair test as my FS2004 has AS6.5, GE Pro and REX to enhance its looks.Anyway, last week I purchased Balerics X and was surprised to see that you got both versions for the same price. I installed the Fs2004 version first and although you could tell some of the scenery was limited by the FS2004 engine, it still looked very good and ran nice and quickly, even with the big jets. I decided to install it into my FSX so I could finally compare the same scenery for both versions. Perhaps this would sway me in the direction of FSX and its glorious new sceneries?Well to be honest, I could hardly tell the difference and although disappointed that the ultimate home flight sim had not blown me away, I was also rather relieved that I can stay with my trusty fs2004. For the same scenery I was only getting a maximum 20fps and that was without any extra AI. I know sme people have been getting amazing resutls for FSX but for me it just does not stack up.I just hope that companies like Aerosoft will still release to both versions as there is some amazing scenery like Maldives X which I would love to get, but is for FSX only. Im sure that FS2004 users know that any dual scenery would not be identical to the FSX version, but saying that, I couldnt tell a lot of difference between the Balerics X version so why shouldnt we expect similar results? For now and the immediate future I will be a FS2004 customer so please keep the great products coming, FSX water may look better but its not worth dropping over

Hi, I just finished reading your post and it could have just as easy been written by myself. Like you I've spent thousands on FS2004 hardware and software and only installed FSX about a month ago. To me it is NOT either FS2004 or FSX, but Both !!! I have a high end machine and fly with 3- 26 inch monitors. I have many AES airports and have discovered that on long ( one hour or more IFR flights) I much perfer FS2004. I have many upscaled airports and aircraft. Just this morning I installed the MOST amazing scenery I think that I have ever seen: from PC Aviator: Aerosoft's US Cities X: New Orleans. I lived there for many years and this scenery is mind blowing !!!! As real as real can be. Sure for FSX I need more power and a new computer is in my future. Until then it's not either or, but BOTH. FS2004 for IFR flights and FSX for low and slow. Another mind blowing scenery for FSX is Orbx USA Canada Pacific Nothwest... the only scenery for FSX ( or FS2004) where autos comming toward you have white headlights and going away from you has RED tail lights. The only other "help" in FSX is Ground Environment X: USA and Canada and FS Genesis mesh.

I've found that FSG's 19 m mesh has improved FS9 scenery enough to keep me interested. I have too many FS9 addons and just can't see enough improve,ment in FSX to make the move. I must say, Jerry, that's one killer system you have. I bet you get some impressive results.

After 6 great with fs2004, I'm looking forward to Microsoft's new version. FSX. New to me anyway. Probably about 2 years from now. Meanwhile FSX users have no new version to look forward too. Its been all downhill for them long time now.

I can't beat this dead horse enough. What I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to make the "switch" to FSX. I have always said that FSX is not a replacement for FS9 but simply a different sim with different features. And it's awesome to use both for different purposes. As Jerry said, as you can't use the same sceneries on both platforms on the same system, and as most FSX systems are very slow/laggy with the heavy IFR flights, it's best to leave it to VFR and enjoy the real FSX detail nice and slow insted of just flying over it at 39,000 at .08MACH. The frames are much better at slower speeds ayway. IFR in FS9 isn't that pretty anyway...You don't switch from CounterStrike to Modern Warefare 2. You play with both. It just depends on your mood. What I don't like is some developers choosing to make big IFR airports FSX only. FS9 is not dying a slow death. That won't happen in my opinion untill a future generation of PC's are no longer compatable with it.Some day FSX very well may be the FS9 replacement but I really don't see that happening untill 90% of users can get a quad 4.5GHZ i995 system for about $1,500...