FSX Vs. FS2004

[krishcanag 0]

HelloI am looking at buying stuff to build my first PC but still not sure about which game to mainly play, FS9 or FSX? Now generally it seems if you are FSX then go with vista and maybe quad core or if you are mainly FS9 then go with XP and dual core but with high default clock like the E8500 running at 3.13GHz.Is first of all, the above correct?Second, what is the difference that people will actually see between the 2 games, can someone post screen pictures of both so I can do a direct comparision of picture detail and of course stutter can other be found out when I play both myself on my PC.regardskrishan

[greggerm 312]

I'll lead off with some questions:First off, What is your primary type of sim flying?* Low and slow in singles and twins?* Up high in jet airliners?* Big city flying?* Mountains and backcountry bush flying?FS9 is better suited to airliner flying right now simply because it has a very large library of complex airliners available, many of which are not available in FSX yet. FSX is better suited towards lower and slower flights due to it's vastly improved scenery engines and appearance. Although some may call it eye candy, one of the big reasons to fly down under the clouds is just that - the beautiful scenery!Obviously BOTH sims can do EITHER task, but if you have a very heavy bias towards one or the other, plan accordingly. Secondly, do you have FS9 now, and are you prepared to reinvest?Most scenery items from FS9 do not translate into FSX, and a large number of FS9 payware aircraft do not convert into FSX. If you are heavily invested in FS9, understand you might not be able to use all those investments in FSX. Why not both?If you already have FS9 and are interested in FSX, you can install both on one computer. Many people here do that so they can enjoy their older addons, AND experience what FSX brings to the table. Good LuckOn any modern computer, Vista vs. XP will provide minimal observable differences, be it with FS9 or FSX. Make that a separate, non-FS related decision.Get a processor at or above 3Ghz - FS9 will absolutely fly, and FSX will have enough headroom to be very much enjoyable. Multicore processors with FSX might assist on texture loading, but popular consensus still says one should look to a faster dual core chip vs. a slightly less fast quad core when used with any current MSFS edition. Keep in mind a good graphics card will still make a difference, even though the sim is primarily CPU limited these days. I don't have both installed, so I can't give you a comparison screenshot, but you will find FSX to be a nice enhancement to your simming experience, should you go that route. Good luck!-Greg

[Virtualwombat 4]

I think Greg nailed it. I'd go further and suggest most people are still on XP whether they run FS9 or FSX. The DX10 'preview' for FSX is generally regarded as non-viable for day-to-day use, so Vista has no advantage for FSX, unless you are considering more than 4 GB of RAM, in which case you would be best getting Vista 64.Cheers,Noel.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Krishan,I will offer my opinion as well. I have been running FS9 since it came out on my old computer (p4 2.53). I had a new system built in April consisting of:E8400 @ 3.0 ghzAsus Maximus Formula MoBo2 gigs of Corsair PC8500 RAM at 1066ghzEVGA 8800 GTS 512 vid card500 GB WD HD (Main drive)320 GB WD HD (Backup drive)Antech Nine Hundred case with 4 fans for nowWindows XPHardware based firewallNOD32 VirusI was going to stick with FS9, but instead opted to try FSX. Now this new computer is only for simming. I dont run any other games or have anu other software installed except for stuff pertaining to FSX. I also had the system meaning windows, drivers, addons, and FSX setup from a 3rd party called fs-gs. The results for me at least, and some others, is perfect. I haven't even loaded up FS9 on my old system since. At first I was bummed that some addons I had for FS9 either weren't compatible or available for FSX, but since then a lot more stuff has become available and there is more to come. I have since been pretty satisfied with the 3rd party offerings and only miss one or two sceneries from FS9 that are not yet available for FSX.One other thing to point out as well. A lot of people will say that FSX is only good for low and slow and that FS9 is better for flying heavies and such. For me the opposite is true, FSX is perfect for both. I fly the LDS 767 and am going to get the Coolsky MD-80 Pro, both of which offer very good performance as far as FPS and such. I am able to fly these into dense airports loaded with AI, with no problem and enjoy the excelent textures and "eye candy" that FSX affords. For me there is no need to get those benefits only from flying low and slow. Granted when going into Heathrow or LAX the frames will dip into the high teens, but it is still very fluid and flyable with no stutters or blurries. Sometimes when I see FS9 screens posted I almost can't believe that there are still some that enjoy FS9's look. Once you experience a well setup FSX, there is no way to go back to FS9.Another thing to consider is this. Some developers are not going to even develope stuff for FS9 anymore. This is good and bad. The good part is that you could load up on FS9 stuff for cheap because some places are blowing out FS9 stuff just to get rid of it, MegaScenery come to mind. The bad part is, some new stuff you might like is coming out only for FSX and not for FS9.As far as addons you may want to check out some of the FSX stuff like the Ulitmate Terrain X series, the Ground Environment X series for USA and the Europe textures that are in developement, Flight Environment X for sky, water, and high definition clouds, plus a myriad of aircraft and airports. Go to some of these developers website and check the screen shots of the FSX product and compare to the same product they offer for FS9.Plus FSX may offer you an experience of being in a "living world" since there are cars driving on the streets and freeways, birds flying around in some areas. Things of that nature add a lot to the experience for me. The other night I was flying around in the Phoenix area using the MegaScenery X ground textures and it was really cool seeing the cars driving with the headlights on at dusk going down the freeway.In short, if you build a new system I wouldn't recommend getting a processor with less than 3.0 ghz per core and a vid card with less than 512 mb memory. Also for me Windows XP is perfect since the DX10 preview was kind of a let down for many.If your interested in seeing any screen shots, PM me and I will send them to you. Its a lot easier for me to email them than post them since I would have to resize them for posting and may loose a little luster with the compression.Take care and good luck.Sean

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Hello Krishan,FS 9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/192533.jpgFS X:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/192534.jpgBest regards.Luis

[eldar2112 10]

WOW! Those screenshots say it all! Perfect comparison Luis.Happy Trails,KailFlightSimmer since 1987C2D E6850 3.0GHz 1333FSBXFX Nforce 680i LT SLI2x XFX 8800GT 512MB SLI'd4GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 800MHzCreative SB Audigy2 ZSUltra Xfinity 600W SLI PSUSeagate 320GB SATA-3GB/S HD for O/SWD 160GB SATA 3GB/S HD for FSXWindows XP SP3 / FSX SP2 / FS9 SP1

[rhodges 6]

Good morning Krishan (or whatever time it may be in your part of the world):I think what everybody else has said pretty well covers the bases, but for what it is worth, I will give my opinion.I have both FS9 and FSX, and still use both. If I was purchasing for the first time, was only going to have one version, and was going to have a reasonably top of the line type system as I think you describe, I would go with FSX.There are more opinions on Vista than number of ways to sharpen a knife. If you are purchasing a new system, you may not have a choice depending upon your supplier. If building it yourself, options are wide open. Thus far, I have not felt that Vista would do anything for me that was worth it.I fly both FSX and FS9 anywhere, and with all types of aircraft. At least on my system (Specs. attached), All goes well in 90% + of the conditions with the following exceptions: If flying with sliders maxed out, a very complex aircraft, bad weather, and from complex airports (i.e. KJFK-LLBG), FSX is flyable, but not what one could say perfectly smooth (as long as you are on the ground at the airports). FS9 is flawless and smooth as silk under all conditions. Without a doubt, ground textures are superior in FSX, but particularly with a few good addon's, they are reasonably acceptable for FS9 as well (depending upon the eyes of the beholder). The attached screenshots by others should be enough to evaluate that. IMHO A number of Addons improve FSX significnatly as well.Frame rates are considerably higher in FS9 than FSX. However, FSX performs smoother at low frame rate conditions than does FS9 (although there are limits).About the only FS9 aircraft that I wasn't able to import from FS9 into FSX that I really prize is the Dreafleet 727.I do have a large group of addons in both versions, aircraft, scenery, and utilities.Best of luck with your decision:RTHASUS P5N-E-SLI MotherboardIntel E6600 Core2 Duo CPUZalman CNPS7700-CU RT CPU Fam4 GB KST DII800 MemoryWinXP ProNVIDIA VCG8800GTX 768MB Primary Video Graphics Card21

[Guest bstolle]

>FS9 is better suited to airliner flying right now simply because it has a very large library of complex airliners available, many of which are not available in FSX yet. But the few FSX versions which ARE available are much better than their old fs9 counterparts. E.g. Leveld 767 captainsim C-130 & B757.If you build a new systems bear in mind that fs9 doesn't take any advantage from a new GPU or a dual or quad core CPU.Furthermore excellent add-ons like the Hughes H-1 Racer will never be available for fs9.

[jfri 42]

What slider settings did you use for FSX?

[krishcanag 0]

Hi GregAT the moment big airlines is my preferred plane to fly, PMDG 747, Level-D 767, PIC 737.I am ok with buying FSX and a few add-on aircraft like one or two of the above.At the moment I do not have any other add-on except traffic 2005.There are some differences in views below which I will respond too.regardskrishan

[krishcanag 0]

Hi seanYou seem to have level-D 767 in FSX and you say it flies without issues, no stutters. that is good. I note you have a very expensive mobo, I was going to go on similar lines to your setup except get a asus P5Q-Pro or maybe safer with a gigabyte X38 or X48 mobo.I don't think will impact too much on performance.I think from what has been said, I would first load up FS9 and then look at buying and loading up FSX later, that way I could try both in time. I wanted to know how other with both have found the differences betwen themthankskrishan

[krishcanag 0]

thanks luisclearly shows the difference. Its all about having good hardware to run FSX I guess.

[krishcanag 0]

hi RTHIt seems that generally, the benifit of FSX is texture quality. Stutters seem to depend on everyone's own system, there doesn't seem to be a clear winner one way of the other.I do not know much about messing around with FS9.CFG, I tried it with what many said were good changes and found no real difference on my present low to medium compaq speed system running at 2.13GHz with a 7900GTX (upgraded).I am looking at a

[krishcanag 0]

>>If you build a new systems bear in mind that fs9 doesn't take>any advantage from a new GPU or a dual or quad core CPU.>I know that FS9 is single thread, supried FSX is also single thread, cannot MS make it better!! #### just like their OS's I guess.I believe getting the latest and best GPU will not make much difference to FS9, its CPU dependant more that anything else, but at what point of the GPU scale it stops adding value I don't know.krishan

[PhilTaylor 45]

>>>I know that FS9 is single thread, supried FSX is also single>thread, cannot MS make it better!! #### just like their OS's I>guess.>this is not true, FSX does take advantage of more than 1 core, both during loading and during flying. SP1 and SP2 added this support.