Tom you didn't mention your pc specs.  Depending on your hardware, it might be best if you start off with FSX.  It also depends on how you plan to use the sim.  GA, Airliners, FPS and what kind of eye candy you require. 

 

Your two line post, came across as a troll.  Another thread just below this one went south because of the old horse thingy "FSX vs FS9".

 

RJ

Maybe it is time to come to the FSX forum and ask your question again.. :rolleyes:

Maybe it is time to come to the FSX forum and ask your question again.. :rolleyes:

 

He almost did this evening: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/404851-is-ms-fsx-the-best-avsim-software-for-a-beginner/

 

 

Joking aside, the so called "dead horse" needs to be cremated so that I can only be sprinkled and not beaten any further.

Tom you didn't mention your pc specs.  Depending on your hardware, it might be best if you start off with FSX.  It also depends on how you plan to use the sim.  GA, Airliners, FPS and what kind of eye candy you require. 

 

Maybe we can get back on track. 

 

I don't have any particular plans right now on how to use the software at this time other than generally flying.  I know there are add-ons available; but I have little idea what they are, or the extent of what they do.    I'd like to get software that has good flexibility for expansion, for if and when I decide to do that.

 

My system specs are:

 

CPU: Intel i7 2600K  generally running stock speed, but overclockable

MOTHERBOARD:  Asus Z68.  Supports overclocking

RAM: 16 GB

GRAPHICS: Integrated, but I'm expecting to spend about $200 on an ATI videocard.

MONITORS: Two.  Both IPS panel.   1980X1200 AND 1980X1080.   Might put a third IPS monitor on it. 

HD OS/PROGRAMS:  OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSD.   A lot of room left on it.

HD DATA: 7200rpm 3 TB

 

I put it together myself.

No-good-FPS-for-me.

 

Simple as that. With my machine I'm still struggle with payware aircraft+scenery+airport addons when at ground (20FPS or less).

I might try to tweak again later. When PMDG 777 is out.

Flying out of KSEA with FLY TAMPA scenery. 40+ woai on ground, a dozen plus in air, using complex aircraft like the iFly 737, GePro, some mesh, Active Sky, REX, overcast - as always at KSEA ; ) - raining, wipers on, tearing down 34R with FPS locked at 30 and not dipping - can go higher but why bother - and super smooth, why change?

That!  We can also do the same with smooth fps at KJFK, KLAS, KLAX, etc B)

Sorry for my grumpyness - this week is finals week - or rather it is the week before finals week, so it's close enough as makes no difference.

 

As regards your system: As it now stands with integrated graphics, you should start out with FS9 and recognize that even then, you will not be able to add much if anything to it and get acceptable FPS. If you are going to add a GOOD graphics card, then you should start with FSX.

 

I use FS9 because I am a starving college student who squandered all his pocket money on FS9 back in the day only to end up running it from a laptop today. I own FSX, but I can't afford any of the addons...

 

As regards addons - and this you REALLY need to consider before you make your decision - the addons needed to get FS9 to look its best will run cheaper on the whole than those needed for FSX. FS9 with all the addons looks a TON better than FSX (and I believe I can say that with authority. I own FS9 and FSX both and have them both installed. Unfortunately on my laptop, FSX is stuttery (even though I get decent FPS) and looks no good. FS9 is loaded down with addons and is smooth and gets good FPS and looks really nice - FAR better than stock FSX.

But, if you've got thousands and thousands to spend on addons, then get FSX. That sim can look simply amazing with all the right stuff...

 

So, in the end, it comes down to your budget more than any question of performance or taste.

As regards addons - and this you REALLY need to consider before you make your decision - the addons needed to get FS9 to look its best will run cheaper on the whole than those needed for FSX.  FS9 with all the addons looks a TON better than FSX... But, if you've got thousands and thousands to spend on addons, then get FSX.in the end,...it comes down to your budget more than any question of performance or taste.

 

 

I didn't know add-ons were so important.   I thought I was only making a decision between a $27 piece of software (FSX) and something that must be even cheaper (FS9.)   I would certainly prefer the less expensive option if there is substantially more software required.  

Why are you still using FS2004?

 

 

Why haven't you switched to FSX?

 

You have a good sense of humor

I didn't know add-ons were so important.   I thought I was only making a decision between a $27 piece of software (FSX) and something that must be even cheaper (FS9.)   I would certainly prefer the less expensive option if there is substantially more software required.

Well, strictly speaking, the addons are NOT and NEVER WILL BE required. The discussion about addons is really nothing more than an assumption - a guess, if you will. If you don't want to buy addons, then you never will need to. Simple as that.

 

However, you did post in the forums of a hobby site! If you continue to be active here, I'd wager ten to one - heck, maybe even a hundred to one - (if I believed in betting, which I personally don't) that you will start adding to your flight simulator and trying to emulate the screenshots you see others post - and that you will begin to do this sooner, rather than later. Of couse, you could also decide to find somewhere else or maybe even leave the online community of Flight Simulator enthusiasts altogether... just remember, once you start adding things to FS, there is no end.

 

I remember when I first began flightsimming. I was about 10 and I received a cheap copy of Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 1 for my birthday. This was in 2002 - so even a cheap computer should have been able to run it perfectly! As it was, my computer struggled with it... so I found a hobby site - it is still my base of operations - sim-outhouse.com - and discovered that there was MUCH more the sim than the stock airplanes and such! It's been a long and wonderful ride since then, tinkering and talking and of course flying.

I didn't know add-ons were so important.   I thought I was only making a decision between a $27 piece of software (FSX) and something that must be even cheaper (FS9.)   I would certainly prefer the less expensive option if there is substantially more software required.  

 

They're not, and FSX looks so much better out of the box than FS9. And all the talk about requiring hardware that doesn't yet exist, it's BS. No wonder these threads always turns into flame wars when they immediately gets filled with claims that perhaps was true in 2006 but are almost complete lies today.

 

Your system will run FSX just fine if you get a good graphics card. (Some say nVidia is better for FSX but don't take my word for it.) Sure FS9 will run even better but then again so will any old game compared to new(er) ones, they just don't look as good.

 

That said, the price of the actual games is probably the smallest expense you'll ever have in this hobby so get both and see for yourself which one you want to go with.

Hello

 

Why haven't you switched to FSX?

 

Answer from me very simple.

 

I switched to FSX a long time ago, but use both fs2004 and fsv on the same computer.

 

I stick with fs2004 80% And FSX 20%

The fs2004 consept is for me a goldmine for freeware addons, instruments,panels,nav-aids, effects, and new aircrafts flying very good.

 

The FSX is for me a unfinishet product made for Windows Vista, and not the same quality when it comes to flight feeling of the product.

 

A lot of earlier super instruments and panels are not

compatible wit FSX. And the fs2004 2d-views settings are missing in FSX

FSX has a lot better graphipcs performance, but only this thing.

 

I stick to fs2004.

It has it all including a fair setup for multiplayer.

 

Lars Peter.

 

FS9 : lower performance PC required to run it. Many wonderful add-ons - aircraft, weather, scenery, ai etc - that will  still allow super smooth performance

 

 

Well of coarse graphics from 2003 will run well, as well as 5 year old addons.

 

As an example, I was running fs9 with all those above mentioned add-ons with a G620 cpu and 9800 gtx gpu getting smooth performance!

 

 

That system is being almost ALL wasted with FS9.

 

FSX: mega fast machine beyond my budget needed to perhaps get average performance at best in same scenario

 

 

WHY do people complain and COMPLAIN about the so called "expensive" hardware to run FSX. I garentee your system for FS9 isn't even that much LESS expensive, than if you were to even compare one to "run FSX" (other than the fact that your system is being wasted with FS9).

 

Because a common misconception with FS9 users is: "Oh, i'll get top of the line software and get Fs9 and get 200 fps guarenteed! It doesn't work like that, FS9 can't usalize such a powerful system with multiple cores, not as much as FSX.

 

So they go and buy just about the SAME system specs as a "FSX user" would do, and then they complain about the cost of getting a "fsx machine".

 

Hitting my head against a brick wall..

 

FS9 with all the addons looks a TON better than FSX (and I believe I can say that with authority. I own FS9 and FSX both and have them both installed.

 

Because you probably have such a meager computer that is looks crappy with FSX, and too boot you JUST said you can't afford any addons. So hmm, you may want to re-phrase that starment to say:

 

FS9 with addons looks better than Default Vanilla FSX on a meager computer.

 

 

 

The FSX is for me a unfinishet product made for Windows Vista, and not the same quality when it comes to flight feeling of the product.

 

Well fs2004 was for WINDOWS XP! So your "unfinishet" product really isn't "unfinishet".

 

 

 

And the fs2004 2d-views settings are missing in FSX

 

That's because virtual cockpits were the biggest improvment in FSX, so it's no wonder why they were "left out".

I used to be one of those "FS9-4-LIFE" people...until I tried FSX.  I mean actually tried FSX.  Not going into it as this is going to suck, but rather ok...let me give this a fair shake.  Most of the excuses used are the same excuses that were used in 2008.  Sliders to the left! Thousands of tweaks!!  No FPS!!!  Wrong, wrong, and wrong.  A modest system nowadays can run FSX quite well.  I have a whopping 2 (count them, Two) tweaks in my FSX config, and my FPS do not drop below 25.  FS9 is coming up on 10 years old pretty quickly now.  You all do what you want, but you really have no clue what you're missing out on.

Because you probably have such a meager computer that is looks crappy with FSX, and too boot you JUST said you can't afford any addons. So hmm, you may want to re-phrase that starment to say:

 

FS9 with addons looks better than Default Vanilla FSX on a meager computer.

I said what I said and I know why I said it.

FS9 with addons looks better than vanilla FSX maxed out.

 

I want to take issue with your assumption that my machine is too meager to fun FSX. I can run FSXA with all setting maxed out with average FPS of 40 on my machine - perfectly fluid enough to evaluate its relative merits vs. my copy of FS9.

This IS a little bit like comparing apples and oranges. HOWEVER, that is EXACTLY what I said it was! The purpose of my comment was to observe that FS9 with all the environmental addons is CHEAPER than equivalent addons than FSX and STILL looks good.

 

Does this make it clearer what I meant?