FS2004

[swordfish1227]

You should definitely stick with fs2004. i have almost the same specs as you and my fs2004 is awesome! 30-50 fps with full settings. fsx on medium low is 6fps.

my specs
amd sempron 64
1 gb ram
bfg 7600 gs oc

[Katahu]

Even though I support FSX in many ways, I do agree 100% with those who say to stick with FS2004 if your hardware is not up to par and if you don't have any money to burn. Eventually, the best hardware we know now will become cheaper and cheaper as new DX10 hardware get released and optimized over the course of at least 1-2 years. That way, when you upgrade, the cost of getting a rig made for FSX will be worth the money; but for now, it's best to stick with FS2004.

Besides, there are still not a lot of addons out there yet for FSX since most of the developers are busy trying to understand the new SDKs for FSX. So, it will be about a year or so before you can look back at FS2004 addons and say "Ha! You call that a decent addon?"

[beaky]

I'm actually upgrading for better FS9 performance! Haven't really seen it at its best on my current system.
 Should be able to upgrade again for FSX, but it's just a little prettier, that's all. Not really necessary for me.
Still perfectly happy with FS9.

[Dispatchcode]

yep i agree, (we should make a pole for this issue between FSX vs FS2004) there's lot more things to do with fsx SDK's... and usually it takes like another 2-3 years to have lots -lots lots of mods to upgrade for ya fsx. i regreted sooo much cos when i bought my pc, it was the last generation of single processor.. as soon as i got mine, Dual Core came out straight away... regret.. regret... but hey why should i?? FS2004 is like for low spec performance pc. and its 90% same as fsx... why bother to spend more money just for fsx? satisfaction? nu-uh . I'LL GET FS2004 as soon as i get paid tomorrow,,... YES! one more question, when i fly with fsx, i use GPS navigator, to fly instead of ILS.. did FS2004 have GPS NAvigator to fly???... (the last thing i should consider before i buy)..

[DizZa]

FSX has way better graphics than fs9, however fsX struggles unless you have a super computer.

My specs are:
Pentium 4 650
2gb RAM
X850XTPE

I have elected to keep fsX AND fs9 installed. I like both. However, once addons come out for fsX, and when I get a new DX10 system, I'll DEFINATELY switch to fsX. Look at my screenshots to compare fsX vs fs9 on MY system.

fs9:
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 506861/0#0
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 262581/0#0
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 73168923/5
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1172737639
fsX:
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1170153937
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1166774737
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1166773357
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1172737639

Most shots are at 20fps.

With a machine that'll be out in the shop this very date, but two years in the future, one will be MAYBE able to use "the cross" decently. With machines in the shops right now, better stay with FS9.

Two years? I'm willing to bet by the end of the year there is a PC which can come close to maxing it out.

[Dispatchcode]

ok , fsx vs FS2004... hmmm sorry to say after tryna compare the graphics between em, there's not much different really. of course fsx more better for detail land textures and stuff and i realise that fsx clouds more real look than fs2004. fs 2004 have default and limited clouds textures (if u can see the clouds has the same shape over and over again when its really cloudy) instead of fsx it mix it up.. combine most of the clouds shape .

i might wanna wait at least a year to upgrade my pc... unless if some ppl out there are computer geek,? they probably waste lot of money for every new hardware release.. (im not)