November 19, 201015 yr Yep. This topics been beaten to death over the years. No one will want to post on it any more . . .! :( I wonder if the original poster is any clearer now on what he should do. Smooth Skies! -- Chuck B. MACHINE 1:FS2004/WinXP Pro 64, Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 Clocked to 4.35 GHz, Corsair H50, Asus Maximus Formula, 4GB PNY XLR8 DDR2 @1067, ATI 4870 and 4650, WD Raptor 10K RPM 160 GB HD, Seagate 500 mgb 32mgb cache, 2 Analog 2HTGs w/ 3 19" I-INC flat panel monitors 1280x1024x32, and 1 17" at 1280 x 1024, PC Silencer 750 Quad, FSPassengers, FSUPIC, (Payware), WideFS MACHINE 2: Dell Dimension, P4, WideClient, FDC Live Cockpit, Pro Flight Emulator, Active Sky v6.5 MACHINE 3: ASUS u81A Laptop, Windows 7 (what a joke!), WideClient, FlightSim Commander
November 19, 201015 yr Would I choose FS9? Yes!Would I choose FSX? Yes!I wouldn't want to be without either.I would hate to loose some of the old FS9 birds that don't work in FSX (Or at least have poor panels for FSX). The same goes for some airport scenery and utilities.On the other hand, I would hate to be without the scenery in FSX, particularly ground traffic, along with another few birds of a feather that are not available at all for and from FS9.I never have understood why it has to either or. Why not both?Respectfully:RTH
November 19, 201015 yr I never have understood why it has to either or. Why not both?Respectfully:RTHAbsolutely. They both have their plus points, as indeed do other flight sims, and if you like flight sims, then why be partisan about them and rob yourself of their relative merits? Apart from the room it takes up on your hard drive, there is no need to limit yourself to just one.Al Alan Bradbury Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here
Create an account or sign in to comment