Hi folks,I'm thinking about moving from fsx to 2004. Any thoughts from you guys?Dave...

Why are you thinking of moving to FS9? Poor performance in FSX maybe?What types of flight do you perform? IFR or VFR? If IFR then definitely. How the world looks from FL350 is not that different in both sims but the frame rate boost at complex airports is huge. But VFR flights will probably look better in FSX even with all the enhancement products FS9 has.

Is the AI in FSX similar to FS9? Since I've seen people don't like the AI in FSX at all.

Hi folks,I'm thinking about moving from fsx to 2004. Any thoughts from you guys?Dave...

Hi Dave,I recommend FS2004. I have a similar system to you but with less memory and I use the Level D 767 or PSS aircraft (777 etc). I love the FSX clouds but I bought ASV6.5 and even with low textures I still get low FPS on FS2004.I really think a Sandy Bridge CPU with good video card (460X Nvidia) is required to run FSX acceptably.A lot of scenery I buy is both FSX and FS2004. Some companies don't do it though, so just use the FS2004 scenery in FSX.For flying IFR like I do with line buses (eg London-New York) I think FS9 is sufficient. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it, although graphics is better in FSX, you need quite a lot of horsepower to move it!!!Daniel

I do fly VFR.Is there a masive difference between 2004 and FSX flying VFR even with the Ultimate Terrain X: Europe or Real Scenery Northern England.The main problem is that I run out of memory when my flights is a long one. I have 4 Gig of memory. Will i still have this problem?.Dave...

I do fly VFR.Is there a masive difference between 2004 and FSX flying VFR even with the Ultimate Terrain X: Europe or Real Scenery Northern England.The main problem is that I run out of memory when my flights is a long one. I have 4 Gig of memory. Will i still have this problem?.Dave...

Dave, if flying VFR, FS9 will look utterly crappy compared to FSX. FSX is highres texture, especially visible when at 5000ft. And detail is incredible, even with default scenery, not to mention UTX.Packages like Real Scenery will so much enhance FSX, that it will almost look like real world. FS9 can't do that.Concerning memory, is your operating system 32bit or 64bit?

operating system 32bit ...

operating system 32bit ...

Have a look at this bargain http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=BU-063-OE If you are light on cash you could probably sell your MB,Core 2 and Memory on ebay and get around £200 to put towards the upgrade. Much better then taking a step back to FS9

Not sure why people have to be so rigid.If you find FSX acceptable then stick with it, but why not pick up a copy of FS9 as well? enjoy them both. I have both on my PC however FSX just does not run well on my setup so i don't use it (I am 95% airliner flying), its not just because I have some blind loyalty to only FS9, If FSX could run airliner flight acceptably i would probably use it, mind you a lot of my aircraft in 9 have all sorts of third party gauges added to them and I would miss them in X as they add so much more to my enjoyment of flights (TCAS,PUSHBACK,etc etc etc.FS9 is a real bargain now as well.cheers Andy

I do fly VFR.Is there a masive difference between 2004 and FSX flying VFR even with the Ultimate Terrain X: Europe or Real Scenery Northern England.The main problem is that I run out of memory when my flights is a long one. I have 4 Gig of memory. Will i still have this problem?.Dave...

Hi Dave,Even with the various addons you can get for FS9 it won't look as good as FSX simply because the number of objects FSX can render is far greater. But that requires memory as you have discovered. If you have XP it can't handle more than 3Gb memory. I'm not sure if W7 32-bit is any better but if it is then that's an option to consider.It depends on how much you want to spend. If you switch to FS9 your current system will be fine but you'll need to spend money on packages like Ground Environment Pro, Ultimate Terrain and FS Global to get it looking good. Maybe various VFR scenery too. But having spent that FS9 will perform fine for as long as you want. Ultimately though it won't look as good as FSX but the difference may not be that huge. I don't fly VFR so I'm not be best to ask on that.But if you've had your PC for a few years then a new system will bring the best out of FSX, That though will cost more than the software for FS9. It all depends on how much you want to spend.

Not sure why people have to be so rigid.If you find FSX acceptable then stick with it, but why not pick up a copy of FS9 as well? enjoy them both. I have both on my PC however FSX just does not run well on my setup so i don't use it (I am 95% airliner flying), its not just because I have some blind loyalty to only FS9, If FSX could run airliner flight acceptably i would probably use it, mind you a lot of my aircraft in 9 have all sorts of third party gauges added to them and I would miss them in X as they add so much more to my enjoyment of flights (TCAS,PUSHBACK,etc etc etc.FS9 is a real bargain now as well.cheers Andy

Would love to resurrect PSS and get an FSX version 777..... I have the Level D in FSX, but FPS is hit esp. at big airports/cities.Daniel

operating system 32bit ...

In that case your only concern, if you are satisfied with FSX performance (FPS/smoothness) in general, should be getting a 64bit OS. FS9 can also cause memory problems on 32bit OS.

In that case your only concern, if you are satisfied with FSX performance (FPS/smoothness) in general, should be getting a 64bit OS. FS9 can also cause memory problems on 32bit OS.

Word Not Allowed,Even with XP? I really haven't had memory problems (until I got ASV6.5 weather which really slows the system down) on XP. Are you saying a 64 bit OS, XP Pro or Win 7.0, is the way to go? How much memory?This has interested me. FS9 cannot use more than 2GB right? What about FSX? How much can that use?Daniel

Word Not Allowed,Even with XP? I really haven't had memory problems (until I got ASV6.5 weather which really slows the system down) on XP. Are you saying a 64 bit OS, XP Pro or Win 7.0, is the way to go? How much memory?This has interested me. FS9 cannot use more than 2GB right? What about FSX? How much can that use?Daniel

Default,no,it can't. But just a few tweaks than it is possible,have a look at this link.http://www.simforums.com/forums/topic24500_post138287.html#138287With 64bit windows,I believe FS9 and FSX will use as much as availabe from your computer memory.Correct me if I'm wrong though :(

Default,no,it can't. But just a few tweaks than it is possible,have a look at this link.http://www.simforums...287.html#138287With 64bit windows,I believe FS9 and FSX will use as much as availabe from your computer memory.Correct me if I'm wrong though :(

The point is that you have to set Large Adress Aware = 0 to 1. This makes it possible for FS2004 to use more than 2GB, utilizing 3GB on 32bit Windows and 4GB on 64bit Windows. There is an autom,ated tool that can do this for you on whatever exe you wish. It is here: http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php I recommend using it on FS9 always. It cured all my OOM problems.To get on topic again: for VFR flight you'd better stick with FSX. I have found that FSX simply looks vastly better than FS9, doesn't matter in what way. I'd go as far as saying that FSX always looks better, not even depending on what type of flight you do. Also for IFR at FL350, I prefer FSX because the draw distance simply is much better. Of course, at such altitudes, you may not even care about scenery, so FS9 will work too. For VFR however, FSX is simply the best. The low and slow flight simply leaves me craving for highly detailed sceneries, and only FSX can give me that sufficiently. FTX PNW + Flight1 BN2 Islander = *drool*