Clrd2go From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8756 times:
I'm staying with 2004 because our system won't handle it (I don't think) right now and to be honest, I'm thoroughly enjoying 2004 the way I have it set up on my system. I don't have the time, or patience right now to deal with having to install, tweak and play around with FS9 to get it set up particularly
with the aircraft I want to fly..primarily Airbus stuff. So, I'll stick with FS9 until such time as I get a new system (pending approval from the CFO (my wife)) which will be a while.
This is the first time since the old FS4 that I haven't rushed out to buy the latest version upon its release. But..I'm not unhappy with FS9.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6032 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8740 times:
I'm staying with FS9 for as long as people are still putting out addons. I've managed to get it running with all sliders to the right, with plenty of working AI traffic and gorgeous scenries. Why the heck should I throw it all away, just because MS has rushed the release of FSX?
In fact, tomorrow I'm heading out to get at least one more FS9 addond, though I'm still debating with myself if I should get the LDS767 or the PMDG B744.
Gerry From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8613 times:
I would suggest that you get both if you can. I probably divide my time equally between them on FS2004 and for different reason, enjoy them both.
Am I right in thinking that FSX is a boon for the GA aircraft but that the heavy metal we waited so long for with PMDG and Level D will be a long way down the track with the new Flightsim? Would you really get FSX just to fly a Cessna 172 when you can can stick with FS2004 and have the scenery, clouds and LDS and PMDG ( that you paid a lot of money for) to play with at decent framerates?
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8600 times:
I'm sticking with FS9, because i have so much scenery and AI installed, that it would take way too long to re-install it. And i have trouble with frame rates in places with it all on FS9, so i'm not even going to bother with FSX, at least not until i get a better computer.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8543 times:
I don't think my older computer will handle FSX, so I left FS9 on it. Actually, If I could just take the AI airport vehicles, auto traffic, and animals, along with the "moving head" of the virtual cockpit mode of FSX, I'd put those into FS9 and be happy.
Is it just me, or does no computer no matter how fast and advanced it is able to run FSX (with the highest settings for graphics)?
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2832 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8497 times:
Yah, I didn't even buy FS X. Im gonna stick with FS9 probably for a long while. I am relatively happy with the features and FPS I get in FS9, besides, I am now starting to buy payware in FS9, so lots of room for me to grow my FS9!
I'm also sticking with FS9. I've got a good setup, lots of AI/scenery installed and not much patience for tweaking with new sim that won't perform to my standards anyways. Maybe I'll get FSX when I have the money to invest in a new platform.
Malaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8473 times:
I just moved all my AI ac files to FSX and my traffic.bgl file and was able to get all my traffic back the exact way it was in FS2004. The only thing we have to wait for is a new AFCAD program to assign the parking spots. But I noticed something about the Afcads in FSX, they added a lot more parking spaces so pretty much all my planes can park.
FSX pretty much has all my normal stuff, the AI from FS2004 with all the planes and airlines.
just missing the parking spot editing, also stuff like Fly tampa/ simflyers/ uk2000, etc scenery I Got on my Fs2004 does not work well. ID have to wait for patches.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
QANTASFOREVER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8320 times:
I'm just annoyed that as opposed to returning to the drawing board, MS just keeps adding more and more stuff to FS - until it's gotten to the point (now) when most of us can't even run the latest flight simulator release on our machines. Why are other programs able to reproduce far superior graphics without the massive attack on frame rates?
ZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7110 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8288 times:
After watching my friend and his computer. I'm having second thoughts about buying FSX nat this point in time. His rates are OK (about 10 FPS) with settings on low (ie no buildings etc etc). So I will personally be stiucking with FS 2004 for a while yet
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7622 times:
Sorry to bring back a thread from the dead, but I reverted to FS9 (2004) about 2 weeks ago, and it is one of the best things I have ever done. I went from like 10 FPS (even at zero terrain, zero autogen, zero traffic, etc.) in FSX to 30FPS with everything set to max in FS9.
Jamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7594 times:
Thing you have to bear in mind is that FSX is extreamly CPU bound. I know a guy who went from the 7600GT 256MB > 8600GT 512MB and noticed 7~12 Fps increase. He after went from a 2.2Ghz Dual > 3Ghz and noticed 15-20fps boost!
In essence, you need a fairly good card but the main aspect is the CPU. So don't go buying 8800s!
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9100 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7592 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
my PC could handle the FSX, I installed it and played it a few times and I must say: I was REALLY disappointed!!!
Yes, the scenery got upgraded a lot and it looked nice! Frame rates were ok with scenery at its maxiumum.
BUT this should be mostly a FLIGHT simulator and not a SCENERY simulator or am I mistaken here?
The aircrafts from outside look nice with lots of details ...
And here comes the huge BUT:
What about the aircraft cockpit?! NOTHING got updated over FS2004! Same old boring autopilot with not even half the modes you could use! Still no FMS (not even a basic one with reduced functions)... And with the 2D cockpit I cannot see the runway when inside the cockpit, so I have to change to the 3D cockpit but there I cannot hit all the buttons I like to! So I have to swap back and forth all the time! Isnt that frigging annoying?! For me it is!
Oh and ATC: what the heck?! Are they for real? still the same as in FS2004!
So, the FSX is still on my PC, but I dont use it at all! FS2004 with the amazing PMDG 744 add on
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9533 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7585 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 21): I went from like 10 FPS (even at zero terrain, zero autogen, zero traffic, etc.) in FSX to 30FPS with everything set to max in FS9.
I had to upgrade my hardware when I moved from FS2002 to FS2004. I had to upgrade my old hardware again to run FSX. Now I'm running the PMDG 744X at higher settings than I did on FS2004 and getting ~50 FPS. The new hardware isn't even top of the line.
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 23): What about the aircraft cockpit?! NOTHING got updated over FS2004! Same old boring autopilot with not even half the modes you could use!
I don't think the default aircraft are ever going to be as good as decent add-ons. Ever since PSS and then PMDG and LDS came along, I accepted that FS is a framework to be customised with high quality add-ons. The only default aircraft I've used since then is the C-172 for quick circuits to test new scenery.
: Oddly enough, FSX is running better on my PC than FS9. I was using FS9 yesterday, and it was choppy and boring. I am definitely sticking with FSX. Hec
: For some reason - Since I bought a new graphics card. FS9 has been choppy - FSX obviously has improved (Approx 5FPS) So on this I only use FSX now. A
: Like most here i bought FSX and then reverted back to FS9 when i seen how much of a strain it was on the PC to play the damn thing! Now i have all my
: I again have FSX and still use FS9, though for me it is mostly that I have such a huge collection of addons. I have somwhere around 250-300 addon airc
: I dont except them to be as perfect at PSS or PMDG, just a more realistic autopilot with the available modes like LVL CHG, TRCK HOLD, FPA... An FMS w
: I wish you could get yelled at in FS, like the real world Love it when ATC yells at IFR students for doing S-turns on the localizer.