Best advice yet! Actually I think the OP already has FS9, but like Fozzer said, FSX is so cheap right now you might as well buy it and test yourself. You rig is more than capable, the only two things holding you back is the video card and you need to overclock your CPU to at least ~4.0ghz to really get the most out of FSX FPS wise. I have both sims installed on my rig and if I can find the time, I can try to post some comparisons for you of stock vs, stock.

 

The only real differences between the two visually are the ground textures being higher resolution in FSX and the water in FSX is different. Some like FSX water more than FS9 water and of course some like it less than FS9. Personally I like it more than FS9 water, but the biggest thing for me choosing FSX as my main sim over FS9 is the higher resolution ground textures. In FS9 even when its as sharp as it can get, it still looks a bit blurry to me, where as in FSX you can get ground resolutions down to 6cm for photo scenery. I run mine at 60cm which is plenty sharp for me. You can also run higher res cloud textures in FSX, but I prefer the normal size which is 1024.

 

You see that "1" in the green box at your 5 o'clock? That one is from me :Party: .

 

And not only my GPU is holding me, but also my current mobo isn't supporting overclocking. But I may give it a shot after, well... another $250?? Or perhaps, a screenshot might save my 250.

You see that "1" in the green box at your 5 o'clock? That one is from me :Party: .

 

And not only my GPU is holding me, but also my current mobo isn't supporting overclocking. But I may give it a shot after, well... another $250?? Or perhaps, a screenshot might save my 250.

 

It's too bad that you got an overclockable CPU but not the mobo to go with it.

 

I'll say this though, my rig is pretty ancient by todays standards, but I can run the sim with most of the stuff near high levels, no cars though, but with a lot of mip mapped AI, with things like the PMDG NGX and get really good FPS and no blurries and my rig is probably technically worse than your since I have 32bit OS, 2GB of RAM, etc., the only thing saving me is that I am running at almost 4ghz. Having only 2GB of ram can hurt me when changing from VC to spot view when I am at an airport like JFK with 50 to 100 other planes, but my FPS are usually always 25 or higher, but I run unlocked FPS when using complex scenarios. Fly less intense a/c I need to lock FPS at 30 or my FPS bounce all over the place from 35 to 90 to 60, etc. If I try flying the NGX with loads of AI, etc, and lock the FPS at 30 I will probably only see 20, but if I unlock they stay between 25 to 40 most of the time.

 

Just buy FSX for $25 bucks and try it out. If you like it then you can worry about spending money to get a new mobo and video card. Prices are falling fast on that stuff. I just bought a new 2700K and an Asus P8Z77-V Pro the other day for a tad over $350, combo deal. Video cards like the 560ti are getting pretty cheap, if you keep your eyes peeled, you will proabably be able to find one in the not to distant future for under $200.

Or perhaps, a screenshot might save my 250.

 

I dunno about that. But for shiggles this morning I decided to try the comparison exactly as you outlined. I've posted the results to my blog here.

 

(For those of you reluctant to visit off-site links, I think the pictures show FS9-right beating FSX-left hands down.)

 

I'd hasten to add that this is a grossly unfair comparison to FSX, since as soon as you turn the sliders back up and throw in some add-ons it *can* blow FS9 out of the water.

 

I'd second the recommendation to just buy FSX anyway and try it, while it's still available. The "all sliders left" is an extreme measure, and you will almost certainly be able to get it playable while also looking a lot nicer than that, even without overclocking and upgrading.

 

By the same token, I'd recommend anyone at all unsatisfied with FSX performance to give FS9 a try. Performance and stability are complete non-issues with it on modern machines, and I've proved it's definitely possible to enhance it significantly without spending another penny on it.

 

Honestly, with both versions available at bargain-bin prices, there's no reason we can't enjoy the relative benefits of both.

 

Dr V

I run both FS 2004 and FSX, and there are many times when I look at the fantastic scenery below me in my FS 2004, that I often say to myself; "I wish some of my Flight Sim Chums could see this!".

With my various add-ons, Scenery Mesh, REX textures, Photo-grass, Gerrish Gray Tree sets, VOZ 1.8 wonderful Scenery colours and the fabulous Koorbygen buildings, UT USA and Canada roads, rails, coasts, etc, ...and all my own LAGO FSE and EZ Scenery designs...

...it puts my poor-old FSX to shame!... :Big Grin: ...!

For the past 15 years, I have flown almost exclusively around the USA West Coast (California), and the scenery there is amazingly accurate with reference to Google Satellite Maps, especially when incorporated with my various add-ons, so FS 2004 is just like experiencing real flight scenery over the areas!

 

FS 2004 can be truly amazing, with a selection of the zillions of add-ons available for it....

..you just need to pick the nicest ones... :biggrin: ...!

For anyone struggling with their Hardware in FSX, FS 2004 is worth its weight in gold!

....trust me!... :Love: ...!

 

Paul...FS 2004 (and FSX).... :Bug: ...!