December 18, 201114 yr Lol, assuming you meant to say cartoony, I think FS9 is more cartoony with its lower res ground textures and water textures.I've used FS9 since 2005 and FSX exclusively since around 2009 and now prefer FSX due mainly to the graphics. Plus I only fly airliners, mostly PMDG, LDS, and Coolsky, and get comparable performance to flying heavy iron in FS9, so performancw in FSX isn't an issue for me like it is for some.I do miss the snow effects from FS9 but thats the only thing I miss from that sim.I'm assuming you meant "performance". You must have a high-end computer and a wallet that can handle FSX. I am also assuming that you don't record footage from fsx and make videos and post them on youtube. As a youtuber...fs2004 is much more convenient for filming, a much less pain in the &@($*.I also think fs2004 looks much better than fsx, esp. with recording...it's just my taste. I don't really need high resolution or anything like that. When you fly, are you going to be looking down from your plane to see the tiny tiny details of a building? Didn't think so.
Create an account or sign in to comment