It is March, 2011...and I am still batting for FS2004. I have read several posts that people have written asking if they should switch to FSX or not. I have also read many of the answers to these posts. If you have not switched by now, you are probably like me. It is important to understand that many FSX and FS2004 users are not “simmers”…they are “gamers”. There is a difference. A gamer plays a game for the enjoyment purpose rather than the simulation experience. A gamer starts his plane on the runway, takes off, and does loops until he is sick of playing then turns it off, which is great for him/her if that’s what they want to do. A simmer, on the other hand, starts with the plane parked at a gate or ramp, uses real weather, real checklists, real charts, and most likely is flying an upgraded plane in which every system is fully simulated. It is not uncommon for a simmer to spend an hour on the ground before even making it to the runway. I bring up the difference so you (the user) can understand that there are two completely different philosophies with this program. Are you a gamer or a simmer? This software is great for either category...just know which one you are. If you are a gamer- either FS9 or FSX will work provided that your computer is adequate for it. If you are a simmer…read on. I can only tell you my level of experience and offer my advice. Some may disagree with me, but unless they have 15 years of “simming” and 9 years of actual flying like I do then they are likely wrong. I have Owned every MSFS since 1995- great software that continues to impress us serious simmers. I Have had FS2004 since 2004 and have nearly every "quality" upgrade available, over 140 (or $2,500) individual add-ons. My System: Windows 7 Pro 64-bit Q9650 3.0 Core 2 Quad Single Radeon HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 GPU 8Gb DDR3 RAM In FS2004, I have everything set as high as it can go. Traffic, weather, autogen….everything all the way up. On final to ORD in the 2010 Maddog Pro at it’s peak traffic time Im hitting 30+ FPS in FS2004 with everything cranked. With Ground Environment, Flight Environment, REX Extreme, Ultimate Traffic, and an awesome FS Dream Team KORD, the experience is truly very realistic- and that frame rate is certainly welcome given those settings. Wish I could say the same for FSX. I Bought the deluxe version (w/ acceleration pack) after procrastinating since it’s release and installed five upgrades immediately: Ultimate Terrain X Ultimate Traffic II Ground Environment X Imagine Sim KATL X 1 tile of Megascenery Earth I stopped right there. I’m not going to spend another dime. When I went from 30+ FPS in FS2004 on final to a very detailed KORD in a very detailed aircraft with everything cranked to less than 10 fps in FSX without max settings, it was obvious. I just wasted about $150 on FSX and the upgrades. Remember- I am a simmer....what matters to me is different than what matters to gamers. Those FPS are simply intolerable. I tried to make it work, honestly. I tweaked the cfg file, overclocked my CPU, and slashed the settings that didnt matter to me...still not good enough. Us serious simmers demand at least 18 fps at all times and even that’s low. We want the best. We don’t want to settle with 50% ai traffic, half the autogen, and crappy textures in order to get 9 fps. We want the best and the highest FPS right along with it. Sure, FSX has its pros. Animated animals, cars, and jetways along with wet runways are just a few. But if you are a "simmer", you probably dont care about those things. You care more about the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars you have invested in this hobby. This post is aimed at the long-time simmer who has yet to make the switch. Unless you have the best CPU, Main Board, RAM, and GPU (In that order!)...on top of the willingness to kick the majority of your add-ons to the curb- stick with FS2004.

Yes. We've all heard this before! :( :( FS2004 has, sadly, finally been left off of the reinstall list after this newer system build. A few months ago I was singing the same song, though.On the other hand, I am a "real simmer" (13 years counting). Thing is, I enjoy building computers thoroughly, too. --My hobbies are flying, simming, and computer building in that order-- This is lucky for me because all of those things are closely related. To run FSX to satisfaction one must be willing to work for it in more than one way and this includes tinkering with the PC. I'm sure you know that, though.That being said, give yourself a mild overclock. Maybe you'll be surprised. I sure was with this I7 build.Edit: One thing I'll add is, I DO miss heavy traffic. :(

Zach & Hiflyer- good comments- thanks to both of you.One thing I missed is a reference to the remarkable impact of displaying FS - (in either 9 0r X) over multiple monitors to achieve a very wide field of view.Almost all of us now view television on screens up to 60 inches- yet we FS simmers piddle along with what are touted as wide mons of 20-24 inches!Until you have flown with a sim screen that covers your full peripheral vision, it is hard to visualize the increase in realism. The little thumbnail screenie shown here is actually 45" wide for me- that's all I see.It's like having FS on your own IMAX! There are a number of technologies to do this- all well worth while. One can only hope that Flight will be designed with multi views in mind.ARFokker 100 turning on to Juneau approach.

I own the i7 980x with all the bells and ,blah,blah ,you know what I mean. Ok, my point is fsx does run nice in default areas and in some payware that is very unpopulated @ max settings.It just bloggles my mind when I see these fsx screenshots with no shadows and other features shut off.Or on youtube ,fsx videos that have to be made by slowing down the sim rate just to display a descent frame rate to make a sim video look smooth.On the other hand Great addons for fs9 that are still being released to this date that run at a realistic frame rate on most systems . Like you I can not give up on so many addons for fs2004 that I have spent my money on .Everytime, when I have reinstall FSX it ends up removed from my system days later.I have so many addon on airports for fs9 it would take months just to make a round trip to them all.Fs9 will probably always have a place on my hard drive.By the way check out avsimrus.com for some excellent free fs2004 addon airports. :(

It is March, 2011...and I am still batting for FS2004. I have read several posts that people have written asking if they should switch to FSX or not. I have also read many of the answers to these posts. If you have not switched by now, you are probably like me. It is important to understand that many FSX and FS2004 users are not “simmers”…they are “gamers”. There is a difference. A gamer plays a game for the enjoyment purpose rather than the simulation experience. A gamer starts his plane on the runway, takes off, and does loops until he is sick of playing then turns it off, which is great for him/her if that’s what they want to do. A simmer, on the other hand, starts with the plane parked at a gate or ramp, uses real weather, real checklists, real charts, and most likely is flying an upgraded plane in which every system is fully simulated. It is not uncommon for a simmer to spend an hour on the ground before even making it to the runway. I bring up the difference so you (the user) can understand that there are two completely different philosophies with this program. Are you a gamer or a simmer? This software is great for either category...just know which one you are. If you are a gamer- either FS9 or FSX will work provided that your computer is adequate for it. If you are a simmer…read on. I can only tell you my level of experience and offer my advice. Some may disagree with me, but unless they have 15 years of “simming” and 9 years of actual flying like I do then they are likely wrong. I have Owned every MSFS since 1995- great software that continues to impress us serious simmers. I Have had FS2004 since 2004 and have nearly every "quality" upgrade available, over 140 (or $2,500) individual add-ons. My System: Windows 7 Pro 64-bit Q9650 3.0 Core 2 Quad Single Radeon HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 GPU 8Gb DDR3 RAM In FS2004, I have everything set as high as it can go. Traffic, weather, autogen….everything all the way up. On final to ORD in the 2010 Maddog Pro at it’s peak traffic time Im hitting 30+ FPS in FS2004 with everything cranked. With Ground Environment, Flight Environment, REX Extreme, Ultimate Traffic, and an awesome FS Dream Team KORD, the experience is truly very realistic- and that frame rate is certainly welcome given those settings. Wish I could say the same for FSX. I Bought the deluxe version (w/ acceleration pack) after procrastinating since it’s release and installed five upgrades immediately: Ultimate Terrain X Ultimate Traffic II Ground Environment X Imagine Sim KATL X 1 tile of Megascenery Earth I stopped right there. I’m not going to spend another dime. When I went from 30+ FPS in FS2004 on final to a very detailed KORD in a very detailed aircraft with everything cranked to less than 10 fps in FSX without max settings, it was obvious. I just wasted about $150 on FSX and the upgrades. Remember- I am a simmer....what matters to me is different than what matters to gamers. Those FPS are simply intolerable. I tried to make it work, honestly. I tweaked the cfg file, overclocked my CPU, and slashed the settings that didnt matter to me...still not good enough. Us serious simmers demand at least 18 fps at all times and even that’s low. We want the best. We don’t want to settle with 50% ai traffic, half the autogen, and crappy textures in order to get 9 fps. We want the best and the highest FPS right along with it. Sure, FSX has its pros. Animated animals, cars, and jetways along with wet runways are just a few. But if you are a "simmer", you probably dont care about those things. You care more about the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars you have invested in this hobby. This post is aimed at the long-time simmer who has yet to make the switch. Unless you have the best CPU, Main Board, RAM, and GPU (In that order!)...on top of the willingness to kick the majority of your add-ons to the curb- stick with FS2004.

Hey there HiiFlyer,I have an Imac running bootcamp with windows7 32bit. I have a 3.02GHZ core2duo with 4 gigs ram, and an ATI 4670HD mobility 512MB video card which is a notebook card as the imac uses mostly notebook parts. I can run FSX with settings moderately high with complex add ons and get overall smooth performance. Anywhere between 17-30 FPS. For example: the PMDG J4100 which is heavy on the frames, but using PMDG's configurator at medium settings in the aircraft, it runs nicely. Or the CS757 which again is acceptable to me. I am anal when it comes to smooth performance. I have the alternate Frame Rate Limiter (not the external, but the one that places 2 files inside the root FSX folder)installed that was made for FSX and also use it in FS9 with amazing results locked at 30FPS. The sim setting I have on unlimited of course. FSX runs at a lower frame rate smoothly than FS9 does as most will agree with me. Also there are tweaks available as well that completely turned things around for me and allow me to enjoy FSX, which I could not really do before. I still use FS9 as there are a few add ons that I enjoy that I can't get or don't work properly in FSX for me anyway and FS9 runs smoother for sure. You might want to look into a few things before throwing in the towel on FSX. I will always have FS9 there too. The scenery in FSX with moving traffic on the roads and nice looking autogen keeps me interested in FSX. I am a serious simmer as well. I start dark and cold, to preflight, to all the other events that take place before a short or longer flight. Actually, my short flights are definitely not short when you add all that in. LOL! It's late, and I'm pretty tired, so I know I was not as descriptive as I should be with the tweaks and stuff. Sorry about that. If you are interested, I'd be more than happy to post where I got them, or I'm sure others will post as well. Let me know. In the end however, I do agree with you that FS9 is very smooth and FSX needs one heck of a machine to run liquid smooth. Maybe one day I can afford to build a super flightsim rig, but until then I am happy what I have now. Have a good night.Warm regards, Jeff

Hi Jeff,Would appreciate any info/link on the 2 files you placed in root folder to limit frames, or best approach for frame limiting to enhance smooth FPS; running FS9.Regards,Roy

No, nothing wrong still convincing oneself to stay with FS2004. I have. But I finally moved into FSX over the holidays with my new "cockpit". Notice I did not say switched to FSX. That's because I now have FS9 on it's own velocerapter drive and have FSX on a separate SSD drive. Both are humming along nicely. I probably won't dive into FSX like I did with it's younger brother as, like you, I have tons of add-ons and freeware still to explore. Plus my gut tells me MS Flight will come out by years end so I have pretty much put the brakes on FSX stuff - few exceptions though as some companies offer their goodies at 50% off it is hard to say no to that. (do they know something we don't?)So I am having fun with both. FS9 mainly now for commercial stuff, FSX for the little guys... VFR type flying. This setup is working fine. Have both - fly both - luv both!

I have both FS9 and FSX installed, but I rarely fire up FSX. I refuse to have a jittery, choppy sim that just "looks good" but performs like trash. Sorry, but FS9 with the right addons can be just as beautiful as FSX and still offer the smooth performance that I need. I've tried all those tweaks and what not, but they are all claptrap IMO. I've never failed to achieve anything that's worthy of mentioning. Oh and don't tell me its my PC, this thing can churn out far newer games with far, far better graphics that were launched less than a month ago and still perform admirably. I am looking forward to seeing how Flight will be, I suppose time will tell.

So I am having fun with both. FS9 mainly now for commercial stuff, FSX for the little guys... VFR type flying. This setup is working fine. Have both - fly both - luv both!

I'm the same way, I'm mostly into the Airliners etc. But after upgrading my PC I've recently gotten more into GA planes with some of the Carenado stuff, and FSX is perfectly suited for that.In FSX I tend to fly into the smaller airports in areas without a lot of buuildings etc, the natural scenery looks better in FSX than FS9, and without all those building and othercity and large airport details you have when flying the Airliners dragging down the frames. FSX performs acceptably and looks quite nice. So although I'm still mostlyFS9, I have also made a place for FSX.Regards.Ernie.

I have both FS9 and FSX installed, but I rarely fire up FSX. I refuse to have a jittery, choppy sim that just "looks good" but performs like trash. Sorry, but FS9 with the right addons can be just as beautiful as FSX and still offer the smooth performance that I need. I've tried all those tweaks and what not, but they are all claptrap IMO. I've never failed to achieve anything that's worthy of mentioning. Oh and don't tell me its my PC, this thing can churn out far newer games with far, far better graphics that were launched less than a month ago and still perform admirably. I am looking forward to seeing how Flight will be, I suppose time will tell.

Okay. These other "games"(there are other programs besides FS?) are less CPU intensive. C'mon!!!I'm done with this topic, as the urge to respond to comments like this one irritates me. :( My final thought will be this: FS2004 had it's growing pains as well, and can only recently be as heavily modified without huge impact on frames. Jeez!

Sorry, but FS9 with the right addons can be just as beautiful as FSX and still offer the smooth performance that I need.

Which add-ons? Are you saying that there are airplanes, sceneries, or airports that look just as good in FS9?Please make a list. This will be extremely helpful.

Hi,Ground Environment Pro for ground textures.Mesh and Landclass from FS Genesis.REX for environmental textures.Active Sky Evolution for weather.The Ultimate Terrain series for road, water and scenery placements.WOAI and MAIW for AI flight packages.Radar Contact for ATC.Edit Voice Pack for updated ATC terminology and airlines.FSUIPC and Wide FS for advanced settings and networking options.Plenty of planes and scenery both free and pay out there.

@Roy,I am out of my studio and it's been hectic the past couple of days. I will look when I get in this evening and give you the link you need. I found this in the FSX forum. If you can't wait until later, you could try a search for "alternative frame rate limiter". Talk to you then. :)Warm regards, Jeff

Sorry, but FS9 with the right addons can be just as beautiful as FSX and still offer the smooth performance that I need.

On top of that, FS2004 still got more uploads almost everyday here on AVSIM. Today the count is 12 uploads for FSX, and 36 for FS2004. :(

This topic sure gets beat to death.I owned FSX at one time, but stopped playing the tweaking game when I realized that it was pointless on my system, and I was spending more time tweaking than flying. Until I can afford a major all around upgrade, im best served by FS9. But to those of you who can play it and enjoy it, awesome. I wish i could, but I cant tweak it to get out of it what I can get from FS9. What I dont get is why the 'choice' seems to bug some people. If development stopped for FS9 today, I would be content with what is available, and would likely never get to try it all.By most games standards, FS2004 should have died a long time ago. But it is a fantastic PC game, and will likely live on for years to come. Way too much free stuff available to not make it a worthwhile purchase. Then add in the payware, FS9 is a monster. FSX will always suffer for its being such a resource hog. I think honestly, that if Microsoft Flight, and whatever Aerosoft is coming up with, are friendlier to the average gamer with the average PC, FSX may drop out of sight before FS9 does. Also, if these new sims take off(pun intended), a lot of developers may make the move over to them, and that could lead to FSX not having near the amount of stuff available, free or payware.