Choose one of the FS.. and comment please.. WHY???~!!!!! WHY@!!!!??  

Everybody knows that FS2004 is the best. 

As much "the cross" might be better than FS9, whatever its betterments are, they are WAY too pricey in terms of CPU power, memory request and videocard imperative, and too little to justify the request of that much power.

FS2004 is for the moment, and until FS11 will come supposedly, the only sim of the FS kind that is worth the time spent to install and use.

Forget "the cross". There are a lot more crosses we have to lug around without having to shoulder this one too (and I'm not even going to express my opinion about that other "cross" that is sVista... my God in Heaven... who hasn't tried it cannot understand. ).

Just recently removed Fs2002. Started I think, with FS4!
I have both FSX and FS9 on separate HD's, that seems to be part of the answere for better FPS set at unlimited?
Flying a trike for VFR, FSX is a real treat at fps of 7-22. Scenery detail is just great and is set to medium low. But as we all agree, you have to be wealthy to enjoy this version.
FS9 you can do real flying and there are some very good developers out there with an eye for detail in scenery. I am getting FPS of 22-77 set at unlimited. USB2 HD, external.
When first launched I disliked FS9 as being too jazzed up! But there you go, FS10 just another technical advance.

Quote:
In two years we will have FS11 and it will probably be better since microsoft will have to realize that not all people have high powered computers. Besides, FS11 will be better than both FSX and FS9.

To Murjax and Ashaman; waiting for FS11? You really think Microsoft will make a lesser product than FSX? Forget it. In two or three years time most PC's will be able to run FSX right out of the box. FS11 will require even more computing power. Don't forget that FS9 was a demanding simulator when it was released in 2003 (maybe a little less demanding than FSX but even so).

To FSFLYER2: Running FS2004 at unlimited framerates has no use. Set it to 24. It runs smoother that way. Anything higher than 24 FPS you can't see anyway.

Crash

I put FS9 out of Fanboyism.

In reality though, A Combat Flight Sim such as LOMAC or Falcon 4.0: Allied Force would beat down FS9 with a barrage of Missiles and 20mm* cannon rounds 


*Change out to 30mm if we're talking about the amazing GAU-8A Avenger Cannon & The A-10A Warthog

that's right!  by the way, there's must be someone out there betrayed us by choosing fsx haa?

I betrayed, and voted for FSX.  FSX has a much better sense of actually flying than FS9 does, from what you see, to how everything flies.

FSX seems excellent, however the add-on scenery and aircraft from FS9 don't necessarily work on it.  Some items can be converted but most not.  Otherwise FSX seems an improvement (that being said, there is the advantage that FS9 has many of the bugs worked out of it).

Mobius wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 4:54pm:


that probably because you can afford to upgrade your pc to max. i can't. by the way, its not baised poll really cuz, ppl from fsx still interested to view and read what's happenin in fs2004, they still fall in love with it.. ha! 

Dispatchcode wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:


I suspect that Isak922 has been offered a large sum of money, (and a big kiss), from Uncle Bill Gates for voting for FSX... ...!

.... ...!

Paul... ... ...!

(Goodness knows where LOMAC and Falcon 4.0 fits in with our Civilian Flight Simulators!)... ...!

Well i like fs9 because my pc can run it.I think this is the main reason. FSX its cool with wonderfull graphs and all that, but hey! we mortals can't spend $1000 or more in a machine everytime an fs cames out, and i think there are really good adss to make fs9 relly good.But like someone already said, make this question again, in one or two years from now.
But is interesting to see this opinions-GOOD JOB on posting them.
CHEERS