For someone with virtually no experience in flight simulators, who wants to try it out recreationally:

 

 

is MS FSX the best AVSIM software for a beginner?

 

 

Is so, why?  

 

 

If not, why not--and which software is better?

 

 

Yes. FSX is easier to set up then X-Plane. I would recommend a starter pack from Just Flight.

http://www.justflight.com/product/flight-sim-starter-pack-light-aircraft-edition

http://www.justflight.com/product/flight-sim-starter-pack-military-edition

http://www.justflight.com/product/flight-sim-starter-pack-vintage-airliner-edition

http://www.justflight.com/product/flight-sim-starter-pack-airliner-edition

I would suggest just starting out with FSX Gold and taking it low and slow. Check out some of the guidelines and tutorials that are available on-line at various sites. KEEP in mind that every mistake you make is a leason learned and the next step forward in progress. It was a number of years ago that I first tried MSFS (FS9) when my kids were small. Now I am retired and back into it but still keeping it low and slow. It has been about 6 months and I started with the single engine options and learned some basic flying skills before moving on. At times it was two steps forward and one back BUT again lessons learned. Good luck and I hope you get a GREAT learning experience and enjoyment from it.

Both FSX and FS9, and even Xplane and Prepar3d can be used for beginners. They can also be complex. If you just started the basic flying such as radio navigation, all platforms mentioned will take you there. But if by basic means building your sim from plain to realistic, FS9 should be a stepping stone before you move to FSX, as well as if you're building your hardware from basic to a level that accepted by demanding FSX spec requirements. But i dont see how the two sims differ in delivering "basic" experience for You.

But if by basic means building your sim from plain to realistic, FS9 should be a stepping stone before you move to FSX

 

I would like something economical and easy to get started with, but a package with the capability to grow and become more realistic would be a big plus.     Are you suggesting FS9 would be better to start with than FSX?     And if so, why; since FS9 is an earlier version of FSX?

    Are you suggesting FS9 would be better to start with than FSX?

 

 

No, don't start with FS9. FSX isn't hard to get starded at all, just hit me with any questions if you have any!

 

You won't want FS9 because of the lack of new market, and, if you started with FS9, sooner or later, you WILL switch to FSX, so you don't want to waste any money on old FS9 addons to update to FSX.

It depends on what kind of hardware you have to run it on.

 

FSX is graphically more detailed than FS9, but requires a 3GHz+ CPU and a current generation, good quality video card to run smoothly..

 

If you do not have that kind of hardware, you are going to be happier with FS9 which is less detailed and less power hungry.

 

Either one will do the job of getting you started with flight simulation.

It depends on what kind of hardware you have to run it on.

 

FSX is graphically more detailed than FS9, but requires a 3GHz+ CPU and a current generation, good quality video card to run smoothly..

 

If you do not have that kind of hardware, you are going to be happier with FS9 which is less detailed and less power hungry.

 

Either one will do the job of getting you started with flight simulation.

Which is why I would start with fs9. Unless he has a fairly powerful system, he will most likely encounter poor performance with fsx or such low detail in order to make it run decent that he won't be interested ( which is why I am just now moving to fsx). FS9 is still very capable and has plenty of third party software to make it interesting. FS9 will probably remain my primary sim when my new system arrives on Monday.

 

FSX looks great, but I'll take the better performance of the older sim that can look nearly or just as good as the newer one. That's just my two cents.

It depends on what kind of hardware you have to run it on.  FSX requires a 3GHz+ CPU and a current generation, good quality video card to run smoothly.

 

I think I got that covered.  My System Specs Are:

 

CPU: Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K quad core CPU running at 3.4GHz with stock TurboBoost to 3.8GHz and overclock ready with an aftermarket oversized air cooler in a gaming case with plenty of ventilation.

RAM: 16GB

VIDEO: I don't have a separate GPU at this time, but I'm prepared to spend about $200 for an ATI one.

HD: SSD with room for the programs

You'll need a separate video card and nVidia is the better choice of the two, as it seem to perform better with the game.

 

Try the lessons, fly a few of the missions, see if it's something that you might enjoy. It can be habit forming, if you're not careful.

I think I got that covered.  My System Specs Are:

 

CPU: Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K quad core CPU running at 3.4GHz with stock TurboBoost to 3.8GHz and overclock ready with an aftermarket oversized air cooler in a gaming case with plenty of ventilation.

RAM: 16GB

VIDEO: I don't have a separate GPU at this time, but I'm prepared to spend about $200 for an ATI one.

HD: SSD with room for the programs

 

Your system is capable in running FSX even with default clock speed.

With your system specs you should leave out FS9 and start with FSX (or Prepar3D).

 

As mentioned before, take it slow, explore the sim, there are even a couple of good default airplanes in it (Maule, Goose, the Cessnas).

 

Don't invest too much too early in additional hardware (that nvidia graphics card and, maybe, a second monitor could actually do).

 

Use that exploring approach for addons, too: Rather study one addon aircraft thoroughly than start collecting a whole bunch of them. Same should happen with addon scenery (regions, airports), utilities and the like.

 

Take your time and keep your wallet close to you for another reason, too: FSX and a huge number of addons have become aged by now. That's not bad, rather the opposite: They got updated, patched and enhanced and show their full capabilities (including those stability issues). The good one about it is, that there are varying sets and subsets of them in a sale all over the year (just take a look at that recent Easter sale with a huge number of developers, publishers and retailers participating). If you're patient you can pick great addons at lower prices one after the other.

 

Just my 2 cents, of course.

Stick with an NVIDIA card. They are just better for fsx.

With respect to overclocking, be careful with using all 4 of the RAM banks. Given that the memory controller is on the i7, I found stability problems when overclocking. I switched to 8Gb, populating only two of the 4 banks with 4Gb modules. Unless of course you have two 8Gb modules...

 

Your system will run stock fsx nicely at default clock speed, once you get a dedicated GPU. Try for one of the nvidia 600 series in your budget, like a 650 or 650 Ti if you can afford it.

 

Be careful, once you get started with all that great freeware and payware as addons, there is no turning back. You will be hooked

 

A

 

 

Andrew Entwistle

Definitely go with an NVIDIA card, they seem to handle FS9 and FSX better than ATI.  What Aentwis said about RAM banks is true and not just of the Core I7 CPU.  Many older generation motherboards are more stable and faster with two modules of RAM rather than four modules,

 

Given the choice between starting with FSX or FS9, I would pick FSX.

This is really an easy choice: FSX

 

FSX is expandable as you develop skill and proficiency.

 

Don't believe the hype that FS9 can look just as good as FSX, it will never happen. All you need to do is download the ORBX PNW demo and see the picture quality for yourself.

 

Take the advice from the experienced users, buy a 600 series Nvidia card. If you need any help, there are many great members here to assist.