Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AdvancedFollower

FS2004 - WHY so much support for it after two years of FSX?

Recommended Posts

Just wandering this..FSX has been out for over TWO Years now, & yet even just viewing the Avsim homepage, users are STILL clearly bringing out more repaints, aircraft, scenery & so on for FS2004 than FSX? ...Why is this? You'd have thought that after two years, any moans & groans people had with FSX compatibility, might have been addressed by now? Or is this not the case?Are people by & large still prefering to fly with FS2004?Thoughts..CheersHyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I built a new PC hoping it would give me enough fps to make FSX enjoyable. The reality is that it gives me about the same fps as my old PC did with FS9.So having spent around 1000UKP on a new PC I felt I hadn't made any progress. And when I compared some of the default FSX scenery to the highly customised FS9 scenery I felt that most of the time FS9's looked better.FS9 with my fast PC is a wonderful experience with fps locked at 50. I can thrown complex 3rd party airports with 100% Ai at FS9 and it still never drops below 35fps.It's the first time I've never embraced a new version of FS. Judging by how many addons are still available for FS9 I'm not alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll address only one area - AI aircraft, repaints, packages and flightplans.None of the freeware AI developers have moved to using FSX MakeMdl to compile their aircraft as FSX aircraft.Several are trying, but they have learned that they must pay a few thousand dollars for the modeling software because the freeware gMax does not meet the requirements of FSX.Including gMax free with FS2002 and FS2004 created an explosion of models, both aircraft and scenery objects, for those versions.Having to use an expensive payware product to achieve the same level of capability for FSX cuts 95% of the freeware developers out of the new version of FS.Only recently has FSDS come out with a FSX version. There are some very fundamental differences between designing with FSDS and with gMax. Differences which make AI model developers reluctant to switch from one to the other. Also, the depth of knowledge and help available for the unique requirements of AI is largely around gMax, and not FSDS.The payware AI programs are moving to FSX - having completely stopped FS2004 development.So if the models are FS2002 & FS2004, then the repaints will be FS2002 & 2004.Flightplans are pretty version transparent. In fact the vast majority of new flightplans are written using FSX airport codes rather than FS2004 codes. Quite a number of airports designators have changed - including many since after FSX was coded. But folks call them FS2004 flightplans just because of the comfort level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-----"Are people by & large still prefering to fly with FS2004?"-------------I am- for the same reason that I have no thought of buying a new car just because the old one is now 8+ years old. It still does everything I ask of it and to my eyes, looks much nicer than the current cars.Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, FS9 on a large scale. FSX installed (and bought unfortunately), but being fired up almost never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yes, FS9 on a large scale. FSX installed (and bought>unfortunately), but being fired up almost never.Same here. FSX only for 'low & slow' but, if I'm honest, I regret buying it.An important point for me is that my favourite FS aircraft (SD Yak40, PT TU-154, AFG Caravelle, PMDG B744, David Maltby BAC 1-11, Trident) all run fluidly with sceneries like Aerosoft EDDF/EGLL on cloudy days with ASV6.5. On my system FSX can't be run smoothly unless I've got all the sliders at minimum - so it looks bland. And there's no PT TU-154m for FSX.I will say though that FSX looks great with the right addons/system - so best regards to all FSXers out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Several are trying, but they have learned that they must pay a>few thousand dollars for the modeling software because the>freeware gMax does not meet the requirements of FSX.Reggie, that simply is not true. While it is true that FSX-RTM version did not include the tools for GMax, the SP1a update to the FSX SDK included all the tools needed for true FSX GMax support.Using that as a "reason" then is factually incorrect. If the freeware AI folks are avoiding FSX because of this incorrect information, they need to make themselves better informed. FSX GMax support has been available for well over a year and a half now!Although I do have Max8 available here, I still use GMax as my primary development tool simply because I have to generate models for both FS9 and FSX, and most of my models were built with GMax. Porting a .gmax file to a .max file is costly in terms of time and effort, since animations are lost, and even texture mapping is often compromised. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer FS9; I have a large investment in excellent scenery and aircraft, a good r/w weather program, good landclass, and good performance. FSX doesn't offer any significant improvements in any of the areas that interest me. Why should I change?DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i flip between both - mainly FSX for General Aviation - FS9 for jets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>None of the freeware AI developers have moved to using FSX>MakeMdl to compile their aircraft as FSX aircraft.>>Several are trying, but they have learned that they must pay a>few thousand dollars for the modeling software because the>freeware gMax does not meet the requirements of FSX.>Reggie the free gmax program can be used to design 100% FSX SP2 models.The reason we don't see more FS2002/04 AI mdl's moved to FSX mdl's is simple: The models "work" fine in FSX, so why take the time to update them? I suspect that is a major reason behind it.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use both sims but not many people can run fsx the way they want too. so they stick to fs9 for now. and a lot of aircraft and scenery for fs9 have not been converted to fsx. since some take a huge amount of work and time to get it working right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not to mention that FSX has actually "2 versions". One is before Acceleration, and the second is after. Many scenery titles and aircraft were made before Acceleration (or SP2), thus making them incompatible with the update. They had to be updated. I don't know in detail, but have most of them got updated?! Now and then I read a post something being incompatible with Acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried for weeks to run FSX smoothly... I upgraded my RAM to 4gb, my CPU to Quad, my video board to a GF9800GTX+, installed Vista 64, etc and I couldn't get FSX without stutters in turns... every few seconds I get some stutters.Then I installed FS9 again and it ran so smooth locked at 60FPS that I started to install all addons again and get the most important thing to me: a fluid flight experience.Time to time I'll continue testing FSX, playing some missions, but FSX looks like FS2000, a version to skip and wait the next one.Ulisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Time to time I'll continue testing FSX, playing some missions,>but FSX looks like FS2000, a version to skip and wait the next>one.Yes.............FS2000 brought us virtual cockpits, new animations, Jeppeson data bases, and real world topography that did away with FS98's flat table world. FS2000 also brought us a lot of new airports too........thanks to more accurate elevations. Come to think of it, I think it was FS2000 that replaced the ice cube clouds of FS98 & prior versions too. But I could be wrong on that. I had gaven up on FS98 in favor of different sims. :D In the same vain, FSX is quite innovative. I like it a lot, but retain FS2004 for specific scenery and aircraft.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites