I have fsx but i wass wondering is it still worth it to buy fs2004. Maybe its good, give me your opinion!!!!

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:


If you are having hardware problems running FSX to your satisfaction, then FS 2004 is an excellent alternative, and with a few payware+freeware bits and bobs can be made to look as good as FSX, with all of your FS 2004 sliders wound up to the max, and a smooth flight!... ...!

Try it...you'll like it... ...!

Paul...FS 2004 (and FSX)... ...!

I can play fsx witg about 10 to 20 fps witg everything on high so that is ok. I like all the posky aircraft but not every plane works in fsx. Is the scenery also good?

Thanks. I am still thinking if i am going to buy it but thanks for the comments

CrashII wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 9:44am:


What he says!.... ... ...!

Paul...I recognise that Dog anywhere!... ... ... ...!

I think its mostly to do with individual happiness and satisfaction... ... ...

Paul....FS 2004 + FS Navigator... ...and happily satisfied... ...!

CrashII wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 10:19am:


Sorry but I have to disagree. In case you didn't notice, I know FS9 very well because I flew it for MANY years, just like you. And unlike you apparently, I have also flown FSX for many years and I know its addons too, both freewares and paywares.

Also please do not modify what I said. I haven't said that FS9 is "only good for high altitude IFR". I said that IFR flight to major airports is the only domain where the FS9 experience can be superior to the FSX experience.

When it comes to VFR flying, sure FS9 alreayd offers quite a nice experience, but the experience offered by the scenery possibilities in FSX is way greater, thanks to better ground textures and better autogen. And the photosceneries make it even more true.  The smoother FPS offered by FS9 over major airports is its one and only advantages on FSX.

When it comes to military flights, the problematic is the same. The better world rendering, the better plane rendering, the additionnal features (moving carriers, shared cockpits etc...) make the FSX experience much better than anything you can get in FS9.

The smaller number of available freeware addons for FSX is not a problem anymore. It was a problem in the first years perhaps, but nowadays nobody is complaining about the size of their hangar or scenery library

Once again, I do not see for the above mentionned points how FS9 could offer a better experience than FSX. That doesn't mean FS9 is bad. The question was "is it worth it", the answer is "it depends what you intend to do". Since Raoul stated that liners might not be his main focus, then my answer is "no, FS9 will not bring you anything that FSX is not already providing".

btw,i noticed you are from the netherlands,thats my birthcountry.

I really like FS9. In fact, a lot of the programs and aircraft that have been developed for FSX, are now being retrofitted to work in FS9. Programs like AFX, REX, Heli-Traffic 2009 are all retrofitted. Carenado, A2A, Flight1, etc, all have a bunch of nice aircraft for FS9 along with all of the freeware aircraft available. Of course, you can use AFCAD, TTools, WoAI, UGA, and other programs without jumping through the FSX "hoops" also. So, basically, you have all of the same weather engines, graphics (to certain degree), nice aircraft and traffic as FSX - and the performance is muuuch better.

I use FSX as my primary sim, but there are still some aircraft that perform much better in FS9, mostly warbirds and some specialty aircraft. The one thing that I don't like about FS9, is that I can't use my throttle quadrant to control the mixture - I have to click/roll on it with the mouse. The throttle and prop levers work fine, but the mixture lever doesn't, which after you get used to "flying" with a full quadrant, it becomes a bit of nuisance reverting back to using a mouse for that singe control. All in all, I think FS9 is definately worth the time and effort to have and enjoy. Hope this helps...

Dave

Oh, yeah, I'm running both on Windows 7 Home Premium. No probs. Disc #4 needed to run FS9

Dave

I've only had FS2004 for about 13 months, but one of the best airliners I've come across is the Tinmouse 737-200.

Search for TINMOUSE_II_V1_25.ZIP on flightsim.com

I have a few other links, I'll just have to dig them out.

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 3:55pm:


Hi,

Sorry, but can you explain what the extra map you made for FS.X is about 

I have a new system with Windows 7 and I loaded FS.X in and it works fine. I've not had to change anything other than I loaded it it a non default location.

I've read something about that. it said: you have to make a folder that's called fsx and you have to install fsx in that folder, otherwise it won't work. Only for Windows 7.
so i was wondering if that is the same with fs2004?

Fozzer wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 1:39pm:

I'm still on good ol' WinXP* but I understand the reason behind this is to avoid problems with the security features of Win7. This only affects FS when trying to edit files; adding repaints etc.

*My own MS sims are installed outside the Program Files directory. The path is short & sweet C:\FS9 & C:\FSX.

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 3:40pm:

No! Install FS9 or FSX anywhere but the C:\Programs Files folder. I suggest C:\FS9 or C:\FSX

Quote:

That's the security problem I was talking about. Vista & Win7 treat all files in the Program Files directory as protected files. That includes your FS CFG files.

andy190 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

OK, thanks Andy. As I pointed out, I haven't got Vista or Win7. I'm only repeating what I've read many times on this & other forums over the years.

It might not be necessary but some respected developers recommend installing FS9 & FSX to the locations I suggested. It shortens the paths & should make them more efficient. It certainly won't do any harm.

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 4:34pm:

You can install it to any location you like. I strongly suggest installing to a folder outside the Program Files(x86) directory.*

*This is the default directory for 32-bit software (like FS9 & FSX) on 64-bit systems. 64-bit programs are installed to the Program Files directory. http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/programs-files-...

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 5:00pm:

If it works for you then leave well alone.

The main problem in Windows7, just like in Vista, is called the "UAC".

UAC stands for User Account Control. It's a system which was made to prevent non-expert users from performing actions that could be dangerous for the computer. For example, deleting system files etc... Unfortunately, in the end this system is just useless and its only function is to prevent you from using your computer as you want, even if your user is an administrator.

The solution consists in disabling the UAC. Then you don't get problems anymore.
I have Windows7 64 bits. I have disabled the UAC. I just went into my "Program Files(x86)" folder, chose one folder inside, found a text file and modified it with notepad. It worked, and the system didn't ask anything.

The only risk is that after disabling the UAC, you will be completely free to do anything, including fatal mistakes. But as long as you keep cautious, you will be just fine.

Then you just need to install FS in a folder of your choice, instead of the default folder.
For example, in my computer I have three drives. My FSX is installed in "D:\Flight Simulator X\"

Indeed ! 

C:\FS9\
It's simple and easy to look for when you'll have to install addons.
But in reality, you're free to choose your folder.

Raoul98 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2012 at 11:39am:


Raoul...

..after 43 Posts and 742 views, my advice would be to insert your FS 2004 disk into the CD/DVD drawer, and just follow the instructions as the installation progresses, in exactly the same way as you did for your previous FSX installation... ...!

Paul...Windows 7...and...FS 2004... ...!

oh and i didn't mean to be so very irritating. but i am not so very smart with PC sorry!!!

I will when i get fs2004. Oh and i will watch my pc for any flames!

alrot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:


Alex... ...!

I suspect that Raoul will be starting off in the simple Cessna 172 Trainer first...

Big Boeing Passenger Jets come much later..Very much later...! ...!

Paul...I'm still in my Cessna 150 Aerobat, even after 14 years!... ...!

I am still running FS2004, after running FSX, X Plane, Beta testing Flight and a whole bunch more.  With all my stuff, I liked FS2004 better.
Cheers

I have abstained from answering because it should be clear to everyone who ever read one of my posts I'm a staunch FS9 supporter...

...yet not a stupid man (at least I don't think I am)...

After all this time I've come to believe this kind of discussion to be barren of any usefulness, since some people never really listen, yet I've decided to simply pitch my ball in. It you catch it or not, it's your problem. What follows is merely my point of view. If you do not share it, do as you like and forget these lines written in a sleepless night to while the time away.

Is FS9 still worth it? Is FSX worth more?

I think it's moot.

See, we've flown in and beyond the four corners of the world (which, being or roughly spherical, doesn't have corners to begin with, thing that makes me wonder exactly WHERE have we flown and when... and especially at the degree of alcohol or drug consumption on our part when thinking we were overflying a corner of the world) in FS9, and it has its downsides... the world simulated by FS9 is not a sphere but a... sort of squeezed-at-the poles cylinder... kind of two cones joined at the base, in a way... and its graphics are dated... and the sky has a 100.000 feet glass ceiling limit...

...while FSX has a spherical geography... thing this relevant only if you use to pass lots of time on the poles or their immediate whereabouts, though... but then, the better graphics (a point of FSX) are dumped right down the bog, since there isn't anything really worth seeing at those latitudes... and those thing that ARE... are unimpressively similar between the two sim versions.

In FSX the glass 100.000 feet ceiling is absent... alright... so? Is it so ground-breaking exactly why? Since the dynamics of the FS franchise's software as a whole do not allow for sub-orbital flight, why is it so important?

The graphics are better... all right, but the price you MUST pay for better graphics is... it is just not worthy to return on those arguments WE ALL know by heart by now.

A thing I've noticed... most of the people advocating about FSX better graphics ALWAYS, and I stress , bring about the better graphics inside the DEFAULT PLANES.

Planes that the advanced user gets up in the simulated sky just to jeer about their pitiful dynamics once or twice when the sim is ... and then forgets about them. Confining them from that moment onwards to the duty of AI, and those who install custom AI MUST resign to keep as HD ballast even if they never use them, because if they try to get rid of their unwanted presence the sim starts acting weird.

Another thing I've noticed is that FSX highlights the absence of things that in FS9 we

NEVER

felt the need of.

Reflecting glass in the VC...

...since there's no simulation of frost, nor active heating, nor simulation of damage for low temps brittleness, its' only eye candy and on lower end rigs only slow things down...

...the wings cast shadows on the plane...

...since I'm inside trying to avoid to crash the damn thing, could not care less... not to say it slows things down even on some medium-high end rigs...

...better designed VC...

...but only in the defaults, since add-ons, sometimes even not payware, are always on another plane of existence... for references see above.

So.

Why is it FSX better? by the point of view of someone who simply wants a decent simulation of an aircraft?

...

...dynamics are the same... with external advanced weather program controllers (a MUST, if you are an advanced user) the weather behaves the same...

...

The programs in themselves then add another layer. FSX was objectively coded in a hurry and without giving any attention to the beta testers points of view, all in the Sacred Name of the Deadline. This makes FSX a lot... no, even WAY less stable than FS9...

Case in point, I have the same installation of FS9 ever since 2004, inherited over three (3) different rigs with little problems, while the kid's FSX installation, in absolute spite of all the attentions to it and the absolute rule of no add-ons if not installed by me, went through the third reinstallation in less than a year last month...

...

The difference, in the end, exists only for the NOT advanced users, I reckon. Those who enter in a plane (most of the times default), make it take off (most of the times badly and without following the correct procedures), and then pass the time cycling the outside views gawking at this graphic particular or that... that the old and obsolete FS9 didn't have.

For someone like me, who's still diabolically angry at M$ to never have put hands on some too long a list to be written here realism variables (not to talk about the dogged refusal to make clouds that actually project shadows), preferring to develop badly coded graphics instead, only to keep FS stupid and unrealistic so not to spoil the party of those not gifted under the point of view of piloting skills who like to gawk at meaningless shiny 3D graphics while deluding themselves they can make a plane fly along the way...

...a slice of the market this last towards which M$ has absolute and total respect, while we sim-pilots they treat like sub-human scum that should have never been created in the first place...

For someone like me, who likes his planes to behave like planes and not like train engines that just happen to be shaped like a plane running on invisible tracks in the sky...

...I mean... default planes... really... please...

For someone like me who feels that even FS9 is a poor sim because gives too much importance to graphics over realism...

...and yet, at the same time, if forced to make a choice, someone like me would prefer a lighter, more stable platform to make his simulated planes fly... and this, definitely, IS FSX.

There's some people that are mesmerized by the better graphics of FSX in themselves alone... but oddly enough the almost totality of those people, when faced by simulators with EVEN BETTER GRAPHICS like, say, X-plane 10 have a quiet nervous breakdown since they can't really get their minds around the fact FSX is not all that great anymore and build mental fortresses to defend their dear choice... when they do not decide to do virtual harakiri throwing themselves to absolute trash in the making like Flight, forever defining themselves as mere gamers and NOT virtual pilots.

For the archive... speaking of x-plane I prefer the 9, as it is only slightly less graphic shiny than the 10 and quite a bit lighter on the system... then again, I always gave higher priority to the usefulness and ease of use than the good looks, when considering a tool...

As I said above, moot.

My point of view. If you do not share it, simply continue your life disregarding it. I am not trying to make you change your mind. I am simply... allowing my thoughts to flow into my fingers and then the keyboard (computer-ese for thinking out loud).


PS
For those who may have not gleaned it from the above writ, I divide the users of the FS franchise between the sim-pilots and the gamers. The firsts are interested in the simulation first treating the graphics as a side dish (good to have it if the main course is good too), while the seconds live for the graphics and treat the simulation like an afterthought (if there isn't any of it... who cares).

I hold no respect for the seconds, since they are unwittingly guilty to have ruined the fun for the firsts, given that M$ treat them like the favorite offspring and would rather satisfy their shallow wishes over the requests of the firsts (for references see: Flight).

Lets just say this to sum it up:
If you got a really good system, get FSX
If you got an 'ok' system (or are using a laptop like me) get FS2004
If you got the cash, why not get both?
If you got the hard-drive space, why not install both?
I have both installed, because my system is average, FS2004 actually looks better and runs better than FSX. HOWEVER, I run both because some planes I want to fly are in FSX, some are in FS2004.

Tailwinds,

Adam....multi-tasking!

I have both Sims on my Hard Drive... ...!

..and every morning, I have this constant battle with myself as to which Sim I need to fire up for today's exciting flight into the unknown....

...sometimes FS 2004 wins... ...

...sometimes FSX wins... ...

..and sometimes I just go back to bed, and forget the whole she-bang!.... ...!

Paul... ... ...!