Simviation Forums

Yes, it's time to have this vote again because it's been a while since the last one and some people may have changed their minds. Decide which simulator you like best.

I still like FS9.

Is there really a competion between these 2?

Of course FS9 is way better.

And on what grounds do you base this on a1? FSX is better. Period. I am looking at this from an unbiased point of view, and I will admit, FS9s performance is better. However, FSX, has better graphics, and THOUSANDS of capabilities. Look at it. We have jetways at each airport. Service trucks by default, and fuel trucks. We have the capability to add SUPER high resolution ground textures. Space flight.  Glider tow-planes, which can actually be modified to launch a Space Shuttle. Bump mapping. Self shadowing. Light bloom.

Would you like me to go on? There is no comparing the two, FSX supersedes FS2004. Its like comparing the Gulfstream G550 to the WeeBee. Keep in mind, that it was designed to run on TOMORROW'S software, yet people (miltestpilot, I'm looking at you) can run it at max, with 40FPS.

It took ages for everyone to convert from FS 2000 to FS 2002, and from FS 2002 to FS 2004, (including me!).

The same thing will happen with FSX, only this time it will take longer...probably.... ...!

F....G-BPLF....FS 2004. (And FSX).

Maybe that FSX has really some good things, but the performance is like a "further improved advanced slideshow" and the graphic is only better if you take both FS with default and WITHOUT any add-ons!
@An-225: Just look at the screenshot contests!! Are the FSX shots there really better than the FS9 ones????? NO!!

I love my FS9, all it's problems and all it's errors! And I'll wait till FS11, nobody will get me to upgrade to fsx, not even if you gave me it as a birthday present!  ;D

First, I have to agree with Fozzy (and I was not sure that would happen in my lifetime  ;D ; big hugs, right, Foz?).  It is probably going to be a matter of transition over time.

That being said . . .

I am particular to FS9 right now simply because I can get better performance out of FS9 on my present computer systems than I can get out of FSX.  My dad has a much better system than I do, and he prefers FSX because he can get more out of FSX than FS9 because his system can handle it.  Really, if there is one big drawback to FSX, it is that the software is way ahead of what seems to be the most common hardware that people have.  Once the hardware catches up to the software, then FSX will start coming into its own.

That being said (#2) . . .

FS9 had incredible developer support.  While it can be time consuming to install this add-on or that, FS9 can still give the potential of FSX a good run for its money simply because of the massive amount of support it enjoys.  FS9 was a truly benchmark piece of software when it comes to flight simulation for the home user.  If you set aside graphics, FSX was a fine-tuning over FS9, but it didn't reinvent the wheel.  So, while FSX has a lot of untapped potential yet to be discovered, FS9 is still a truly great piece of software, and having it in one's software library is definitely a good thing for any aviation/flight simulation enthusiast.

So, my grand conclusion from all my rambling is:

Murjax!  Why didn't you include a poll option for BOTH?!?  ;D

I am so proud of myself for agreeing with Foz,
~Darrin

I'd not say the change from 2k2 to 2k4 took that long. But if you look at the history of FS I'd say this was like the change from 98 to 2k. When it first came out FS2k has a LOT of issues that put people off. Eventually everything got sorted and the game caught on but it took time. I think MS were a little premature in their release of FSX but I can't deny it is fantastic. That said I'm still flying FS9 'cos my rig struggles with FSX

First, I have to agree with Fozzy (and I was not sure that would happen in my lifetime  ;D ; big hugs, right, Foz?).......  

.....I am so proud of myself for agreeing with Foz,
~Darrin

A Chocolate Cookie is in the Post... ...!

...make the most of it...it's a rare gift from me... 8-)...!

F... ... ... ...!

It's a funny old do...I hung on to FS 2002 for ages, in spite of all the Lads saying "Hey Fozz, it's about time you went over to FS 2004!"....because I had spent so many happy hours improving the "Game", scenically, over a long period of time!
Long live FS 2002... ...but FS 2004 is very nice...as well... .... .......!

This is kinda like asking about watching movies a few years ago,  "Which is better for watching a movie, VHS or DVD ?"

If you didn't have a decent DVD player (and had a huge collection of VHS movies), then you didn't have an honest opinion.

You could STILL watch a movie in great clarity and with great convenience in VHS... and the ultra-clarity, smoothness and extra features of DVD viewing was like an expensive distraction...  "My VHS movies look great to me"... "I've got a great collection of VHS titles and DVD players are too expensive"...

The FS9/FSX comparison is even more dramatic. It's the biggest leap in visual quality and technical features since MSFS has been in existence. Probably  TOO big a leap, but wow... when you get to fly FSX on a computer with "decent" capability, FS9 seems pretty blah.

The biggest hurdle ($$$) is already getting jumpable. A very good FSX machine can be built for under $2500US..  a very playable computer for under $1500US..  And if there's an upside to this huge leap; it's that the potential is almost open-ended. As hardware get better (and less expensive), and the add-on community catches up (I can tell you from personal experience that  FSX modeling is very challenging), the simming experience that FSX offers is so far above FS9, that it's not a fair question to compare them. They're different products of different technological eras...

Brett said it well. I'll admit, I like the better performance of FS9 now, but in a year, FSX will knock the socks off FS9. By the time Geforce 9 cards are on the market, the geforce 8 series will be further lowered in price, making it more accessible to the common man. Thats why I'm waiting to build my new system!

This is a great thread!

Well, im going to go with FS9, it was a hard choice because ive played both but the reason why im picking FS9 is because, you don't need a super computer to run it on. Second, because its possible to get all the Ground Crew, Fuel tanks, Jetways ect ect, by addons, i have thousands of addons, to make FS9 "better" and it can still be improved, im hopfully getting a new computer soon, so when i do, my graphics will be much better and textures improved, the only thing that let it down for me was, Space Flight which in FSX is possible, but other than that i think FS2004 is better.

Depends what you want from each version..With the Addons i have now, VFR flying is simply GREAT in my FS9! Check out this, proves my point!

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1188685777

All FS9

FSX when I choose to run it. I get rather excited as I love the graphics, but with me heart condition I have to stay clear. But, Google Earth is great and I dont get a problem with it. So the world is still me oyster.

Thanka

Obviouslly, FSX has it's advantages. But as far as I'm concerned, those advantages in no way justify the purchase of the new hardware it needs. I use a relatively old machine and choose to continue to run Windows 98, for it's size, simplicity and light use of resources, and FS9 runs quite happily on it. I would have to comprimize far too much to run FSX, so for my money, It's FS9 all the way!