jyocum2006 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7200 times:
What do you think about the two? I currently have FS 2004 and was wondering what do you think I should do. I recently have gotten hold of FSX and was wondering if was worth installing??????
FS 2004 really is pretty good as well.
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6782 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7187 times:
It has been discussed a lot. But to make a long story short. First you need a top end computer to run FSX the same way one could run FS9. FS9 has more add ons and MUCH more freeware and its much easier on the computer of course. FSX is a round world not flat like FS9 so you can do polar routes etc.. FSX seems to be getting the best new payware add ons. Planes in FSX add on and even some default are more realistic.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
FarOutInFernley From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 2 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7103 times:
My recent fsx experience goes like this...I had a 5 yo dual core that ran at 2.00ghz with 4 gb of ram and a 1gb 9800GT vid card. This setup ran FSX low to medium settings. Thankfully it died a couple weeks ago and the wife was kind enough to let me loose at best buy.
I now have a quad core that runs at 2.93ghz and 6gb of ddr3 ram and that same 9800GT video card and i can run FSX flat out with FEX, GEX, UTXUSA, UTXEUROPE, and a few other addons. Im extremely happy with the computer and the way it runs the sim...when im up in the flight levels and have the frame rate unlocked..i see fps in the low 100's. I know that dont mean diddly squat, but it was nice to see a fps counter read 100+
richm From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 796 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7093 times:
Please be sure to search before posting a new thread in future. As already mentioned, this topic has been posted quite a few times. However, this one may stay on this occasion given that it has generated some rather insightful replies. I also acknowledge that it's one of your first topics.
I don't use FS anymore because it's not compatible with my OS sadly. (Linux) That said, I've previously used both FS2004 and FSX. Personally, I prefer FSX (slightly) for the simple reason that the default graphics are superior imo. It also has a more modern feel to it overall. However, it's worth noting that FS2004 (Also known as FS9) has many addons available for it. Many say that it can be enhanced to provide the same/or better level of graphical detail as found in FSX.
Many third party developers have released products which only support FSX. Equally though, others are still also supporting FS2004. (for new products)
Some say that FSX is a resource hog and that it requires a very good PC for satisfactory results. I believe that this was very true 4 years ago. Today though, most modern mid-range PCs should be able to run it on mid to high settings. That said though, I think FSX is somewhat less stable than FS2004. For me personally, it crashed a lot more in comparison.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7007 times:
Quoting edichc (Reply 1): Basically unless you have a top-end spec PC forget FSX.
Not necessarily. I have a computer which is overkill for even the latest and greatest games out right now which obviously are vastly more advanced and complex than FSX, but FSX still runs like crap. It just so happens to be that the exact model and brand of video cards I have (a pair of Saphire ATI HD4870s in Crossfire) dont jive well with FSX, which in the end is only really FS9 with some lipstick on for the most part. IMO FSX was released at the worse time possible (during the advent of multiple GPU and CPU solutions) and they rushed the development too much.
At any rate, I have FS9 modded out the wazzoo (100gbs worth o' mods) it looks as good if not better than FSX. And I can go up to almost 400FPS in sparse areas. I've installed and reinstalled FSX a myriad of times hoping a new driver release improves the situation but pretty much I've reached the conclusion that I have to cough up $500 for a new video card, which I plan on doing eventually, but not for FSX's sake.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4305 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6992 times:
FSX is a giant step from FS9, when it comes to grafics. When I just compare the autogen trees in a forest:
FS9 has up to 300 trees per tile= sqkm, which are 8 triangles each using 256x256 bit textures.
FSX has up to 4500 trees per tile, with 16 triangles each using 1024x1024 bit textures.
It is easy to calculate that the demand on the shaders in the GPU is 15x2x16=480 times higher for FSX. But once you have flown over a forest in FSX, you will never consider what FS9 displays a forest, it is a cartoon of a forest.
Similar equations can be made at various details. FSX is not one generation more advanced, but they took at least 3 steps in one - that is the main problem with FSX.
If you have an actual system, with an i7 CPU and an ATI 5770 min or a Geforce 280 min, performance is no longer an issue with FSX unless you cannot make up your mind what to consider important for you and what less.
FSX may have the POTENTIAL to display great graphics, but the reality is that for many of us the hardware does not match up to the job. Unless you have failed to notice, there is the legacy of a global recession hitting the finances of many a household so a shiny new PC with state of the art processors and video cards are not going to rate highly on the list of priority purchases.
Given this and the announcement of Microsoft Flight, I can see FSX becoming the least durable of the MFS range. I can also see that this will be a big blow to 3rd party developers who are now focussing on FSX only compatible products.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6972 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8): If you have an actual system, with an i7 CPU and an ATI 5770 min or a Geforce 280 min, performance is no longer an issue with FSX unless you cannot make up your mind what to consider important for you and what less.
I've got an i7 720QM paired with a 1GB Nvidia 330M, and while FSX runs with sliders at about mid-point (except for AI traffic) you can pretty much forget about add-ons like full airline AI, detailed sceneries, etc. That is unless you like stop-motion animation.
The computer absolutely SLAUGHTERS FS9 though, with well over 100GB of add-ons, full airline AI running at 100%, all sliders maxed, etc.
I just hope Microsoft's new "Microsoft Flight" offering doesn't yet again result in a program that you need to have a bleeding-edge machine to run.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan