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

[Guest jlm]

I use fs9 for serious learning, systems, FMS, the works. I have a representative environment with good fps levels for the most complex aircraft add-ons available.I use FSX for general aviation VFR, Cheyenne, Senaca etc. with stunning visuals - but only in australia for the moment - that should give you a clue on why I took to FSX.I think embracing both fs worlds offer the perfect solution, IFR v VFR if you like.jlm

[JimmiG 244]

-Because FSX RTM was basically unplayable because of the bugs and performance problems. This steered people away from FSX. Only after two service packs can the sim be considered half-finished.-Because I'm expected to pay for upgrades of my current FS9 addons to make them work in FSX. Some aren't even ported at all and there's not always an equivalent addon for FSX.-Because even two years after it was initially released, FSX runs at slideshow-framerates and/or suffers from blurries on everything except very high-end CPUs (the GPU doesn't matter as much because FSX is based on an engine developed in 1999 and meant for software rendering). I only recently got a machine that can run FSX at playable (read: more than single-digit) framerates while FS9 runs like a dream even on my previous single-core system.