How many is still using FS2004, and why?

[Wobbie 937]

Sorry, I did leave it out in error.. That's from typing on a phone. 

[n4gix 4,947]

16 hours ago, Wobbie said:

Sorry, I did leave it out in error.. That's from typing on a phone. 

I've added the missing "not" to the post Robin...

[sivart2000 95]

I went from FS9 to P3D V4. I love P3D, built a new computer to run it, but lately I've been considering throwing in a 1TB HDD, dual booting XP or 7, and putting all my FS9 on it. 

Firstly, because I sorely miss the PMDG MD-11! I think some developer is missing a great opportunity here. I bet if a new or ported over version was released for P3D V4, it would be a huge hit! Anyone else longing to fly this beast in your P3D?

Secondly, the Level D 767. I think everything stated above applies to this bird as well.

And lastly, I don't know for sure but I'm assuming FS9 on a 5.0ghz i7 9700k, RTX 2080 and 16 gig of 3600mhz RAM would allow for some sick smoothness at beyond maximum settings.

But really for me, its mostly about the MD-11.

 

[Wobbie 937]

Why dual boot? 

FS9 works smother and slightly faster in Windows 10, no issues at all

[sivart2000 95]

I had it installed on my previous computer with windows 10. Had issues with full screen mode and it did something weird with my cursor. Also, some add on compatibility issues. I've run dual boot before and trimmed the OS down to bare minimums to just run FS9 and had better luck than with windows 10.

[gypsymoth 0]

I've made a lot of WW2 airfields for my FS2004 that cannot be used in FSX.

[Oli 1]

Hi,

I still use FS9 alongside FSX-SE. Two main reasons, first are the Dreamfleet 737 and RFP747. I love those and they are not available on FSX

I use 3D panels only aircrafts in FSX thanks to Chaseplane and this is quite great. But, with the aircrafts that do not have a great 3D panel (MD11, 767LDS...), I prefer using them on FS9 with a 2D cockpit. I do not mind the lower graphic quality (IFR flights with airliners) and I prefer the way 2D cockpits are managed with in FS9 (especially when it comes to looking down on landings).

Also, I really like FS9, I do not know why, but each time I go back to it I really enjoy the experience. 

Happy flying,

Olivier

 

[JAT 185]

Have been with FS9 since it came out.Two reasons i am still with FS9. One, is Level-D 767.It runs sooooo smooth. I also have other payware aircraft for FS9.

The second reason is that my pc is over 15 yrs and it is maxed out.I have Windows 7 now but started with XP, and if i wanted to move up on the Windows, i would need a new pc.

nebojsa

[Dedl 34]

... the problemfree installation of FS2004 without tweaking and the tons and tons of fantastic addons - both free- and payware - that will gladly give me at least another 15 years time to explore and enjoy.

Dedl

Edited April 25, 2020 by Dedl

[Dave Morgan 68]

Fast load times. Great freeware. Easy installation. A fully functional C-130. Offline everything (except multiplayer). Massive investment of time, money, effort and emotion. It's stable and it works so why subscribe to the play-and-discard upgrade ethos?

The only issue I have under Win 10 is having to limit the framerate to less than about 150 fps to prevent the sound files from buzzing through being truncated. It amuses me that MS never expected more than 3 digit framerate so the Shift+Z FPS counter just picks the next ASCII character, so far up to about Frames/sec = E50

And after eleven years, I'm still only a quarter of the way through my RTW trip.

It may outlast me.

D

Edited April 25, 2020 by Dave Morgan
a bit more waffle

[JAT 185]

150fps. I WISH. I am happy to get 20fps on my pc

nebojsa

[Dave Morgan 68]

5 hours ago, JAT said:

150fps. I WISH. I am happy to get 20fps on my pc

nebojsa

There was a time when 150 was beyond my wildest dreams.

I confess to practising some passive deceit here. I get absurd framerates out over the ocean, looking straight up at the stock C172 from about 8000' below it, so the PC only has to draw clear blue sky. I was curious about how fast the PC was capable of running FS9.

I only really have to reduce the framerate when flying cross country.

The most demanding scenario I can create is at UK2000 Extreme EGLL with some gentle weather and around 450 AI, where it drops to 35-40 fps. I dropped a fourth screenie into a reply in this thread in the screenshots forum.

I probably wouldn't love FS9 nearly as much without that plane...

Edited April 26, 2020 by Dave Morgan

[Aces6 1]

I have both FS9 And FSX acceleration installed Im find FS9 easy to utilizes simple and clean look any video going into the new sim show the negative barrier of entry. Yes I should LEARN so on so on but i dont look to this product as a tool only mean immersion the lack open consumer nature kills it for me with P3D and xplane is a bit bland in its presentation. In dont do this study level fixation that is push into these product but im not going into a long winded rant. FS9 is stable but its long show it age hope Microsoft rain in The New Sim development and create a salable gaming product.

[PebbleBeach 118]

On 10/12/2019 at 2:53 PM, Wobbie said:

Why dual boot? 

FS9 works smother and slightly faster in Windows 10, no issues at all

Not all together true. 😉

Mitch

[PebbleBeach 118]

On 4/26/2020 at 8:34 AM, JAT said:

150fps. I WISH. I am happy to get 20fps on my pc

nebojsa

Time to update the Commodore 64 perhaps? 😃

Mitch