I thought maybe to try FSX. After a week of tearing my hair out I've given up.  The last straw was the appearance of an enormous three-storey, Victorian mansion at Chignik Fisheries, AK with the autogen set to none. 
I get better resolution, nicer panels and exteriors, better frame rates and fewer stutters in FS9 than in FSX. Also there is a huge amount of superb scenery and aircraft freeware and payware for it. 
Let us hope that the developers do not use the arrival of 'Flight' as an excuse to stop making payware for FS2004. In my opinion, and on my machine, FS2004 is the best.   

Jon

Quote:


Shouldn't be a problem as there is no third party involvement with MS Flight.

Fozzer wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

If you limit the graphic settings in FSX to match the graphic level of FS9, then you don't need fiddling in FSX either

Jon I'm sorry for you that you couldn't manage to make FSX smooth enough with the settings you were looking for. But at least you tried, which is nice. By the way, what is your hardware ?

Its not just the fiddlin' with the graphics setting in FSX; its all the years of reading the various Forums, noting the time, and heartache, and vicious arguments involved in installing various updates and lengthy alterations with the FSX.cfg Files to modify and correct various never-ending problems.... ...!

It was not a pleasant time, I remember, so I made a point of avoiding FSX and its community, and concentrating on enjoying my FS 2004, which has always performed flawlessly and smoothly for me, on maximum settings....and still does!
I still have FSX on my Hard Drive since it was first released, but it never gives me the daily, welcoming thrill, that my trusty FS 2004 does...That's what I call Magic!!

Paul....FS 2004...FS Nav...and a big grin!... ...!

2005 Dell Dimension 5000.
Pentium P4. Dual Core 2.8GHz. nVidia PCIe GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Video RAM. 2.5GB System RAM. 320 Watt PSU. 2X SATA HDD's....runs a treat!

A drag queen, seriously ?   

Sorry to answer this obvious provocation, but some people have problems with their perceptions... But I understand, and I'll go on with a bit of sarcasm if I may Indeed, for a fellow FS9 simmer, I understand perfectly that the FSX graphics can be shocking.

For exemple, the water that looks like water must be quite disturbing. Also, the snow that is white instead of grey and black, must have been offensive for a lot of FS9'ers. White snow, haha, can you believe they did such a blasphemy ?  Aahh I wish there would be some addons textures to get back my precious black and grey snow from FS9, not this ugly white snow from outer space. FSX is so arcade. 

The most scandalous thing must be the price of the hardware. I had to spend at least 1500$ two years ago to build a computer able to run FSX with high settings (the guys at the NASA contacted me immediately after, they wanted to buy it to me ) , which is totally unacceptable compared to the... 1500$ I had to spend 8 years ago to build a computer able to run FS9 on high settings.

A bit of rant, I know, but I just couldn't let you guys go on with the propaganda

Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


Indeed.

Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


Fire at will. Counter-fire ready to deploy.


Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


Shocking? But shocking how?

Some days back, just for the hell of it, I took a ride in FSX while the kids were at school, riding, against my best judgment, the Robinson (managed to land once roughly but safely enough and the second time made the expected smoldering crater... helos are just not my glass of wine ) and I just thought this. Compared to FS9, FSX is... too bright, too... cartoonesque... less real... too visually loaded. This is why I define it a drag queen.

And notice please that I didn't go on the performance angle... much... because nowadays, with the new and powerful rigs we have, that angle is objectively moot.


Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


1) Water in FSX does not look like water much. Too bright. Seems almost like on the surface there's a sheen of... buoyant mercury? Oil? Something brighter than water, anyway. I admit that in FS9 water is too dim, but in FSX M$ tried to... compensate. Compensated TOO MUCH. And you know what is said about people that have SOMETHING to compensate for (speaking of M$, not you, let me be clear), especially TOO MUCH.

2) Grey and black snow in FS9? Tell me, did you have a good monitor back in the times? Even with NO add-on textures (available for the great price of NOT almost anywhere), I've never run in this kind of puzzling coloration you say.


Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


You were lucky it wasn't the CIA. They would have politely (read: brandishing a rifled hollow metallic stick mounted on a case that allowed for ammunition to be chambered) invited you to follow them with your rig in some black van and... let's say there are worst things than losing your new PC.

Of course, I was referring to the impossible to find hardware capable to run decently FSX in its first years. You may have had a top of the line rig to start with, FSX would not give you satisfaction. You bought an even more powerful rig... only to get maybe 3 FPS more. Then you went for AN EVEN MORE POWERFUL RIG... only to find that you had reached the top of the mountain and could not climb more, at least until more powerful CPUs, faster memories and newer GPUs were made, and were left stranded with an objectively unusable FSX in wait for a reason to spend more of your money.

Back then, you may have spent the sum you say plus one zero at the end and still wouldn't have gotten anywhere with FSX. It's a FACT almost everyone nowadays prefers to forget.


Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


Jumping from FS2002 to FS9 I only had to change CPU (had an Athlon Xp 1700 and bought a 2400) and videocard (had a Radeon 9200 64Mb and bought a Gefo TI4400 128Mb) to run it smooth.

Expense? About 110€. Those who needed 1200€ (or 1500$) of boosting back then had rigs that were as old as Noah and woefully unable to run FS95.


Daube wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:17am:


Nah. Rant is good, as long one does not lose sight of reality. I was talking about the first year of so after FSX got out, as already stated.. especially the first six months, with FSX not patched at all... impossible to get any satisfaction from it at all, and STILL I remember people that said they would rather use FSX WITH NO AUTOGEN AT ALL, FS98 style, but run the NEW FSX than roll back to the usable FS9. That really got me furious, back then, making me mint a new definition for those self-defining sim-pilots.

Gamers (to be read with all the scorn one can muster). You have a good thing going... then they arrive and everything its put on its head because of their idiocy... just look at the Flight debacle.

Of course, ever since the fourth year or so, a REASONABLY PRICED rig... of about 1500$... you could buy that made you use FSX quite well... yet, you know, thinking back, at the time of FS2000, this sim version was literally rejected from almost everyone ever since the start because on the rigs of the time it didn't want to perform... just like FSX six years later... and yet FSX, with FS2000 performances barely more than a half a decade later, took a different route.

One can only wonder why.

Three happy Flight Sim Clubs:

(a) FS 2004.... ....
(b) FSX.... ...
(c) Combined FS 2004 and FSX).... .. ..

Paul... ...!

P.S...mustn't forget...
(d) Flight... ...

... ...!

I have all three, FS9, FSX and Flight installed.  I fly FS9 almost exclusively, but once in a while I fly FSX and even less of Flight.  I have spent way too much time and cash on FS9 to give it up.  I really like FSX and it runs pretty well on my machine and some day it may become my primary sim, but so far FS9 is still keeping me busy.  Its hard to imagine still using a  program that is over 6 years old (it came out in 2003 if I remember right).  It is a testiment to the community who keep adding to it and improving it as well as Microsoft for building an open system that can be modified by third parties. Shame they forgot lesson.

Sean