Is it still worth it??

[Raoul98]

That is the smartest thing to do Fozzer!!!! 

[Raoul98]

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

[Fozzer]

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

Never fear, Raoul..

If your FS 2004 CD gets mashed up in the CD Drive, and the Computer suddenly bursts into flames, you could easily forget the whole idea, and take up Fly Fishing as a hobby, instead... ...!

Much less stressful...trust me... ...!

Paul.... ...!

Let us know how you got on with the successful installation of FS 2004... 8-)...!

[Raoul98]

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

[alrot]

Worth it?

you should consider if you are running FSX the diferences in the defaults 737 cockpits


8-)

[Fozzer]

Worth it?

you should consider if you are running FSX the differences in the defaults 737 cockpits

https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 777711.jpg
8-)

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!... ...!

[Raoul98]

NO fozzer,  when i got fsx for the first time, i hooked up my joystick and flew the 737-800. But about that 737 cockpit; if i am right the POSKY aircraft for fs9 are very detailed in the cockpit, especialy the 737 types. And give me some other good ifr planes with amazing VC's

[Splash]

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

[Fozzer]

[quote]I am still running FS2004, after running FSX, X Plane, Beta testing Flight and a whole bunch more.

[Strategic Retreat]

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 ALWAYS, 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 NEW... 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 NOT 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).

[Daube]

It's always nice to expose a point of view, but without arguments or with incorrect arguments, it's pretty much useless, especially for the original author of the topic and other readers that might be in the same situation.

Saying things like "it's my point of view, if you disagree just ignore them" is not constructive discussion at all. So I will not ignore your comments because I partly disagree with them. Basically, your whole post can be summarized by "FS9 is better because it runs smoother, and FSX is for gamers who are waiting for Flight". You have not compared the realism of the sceneries, and you have not compared the realism of the addon planes.

First of all, contrary to what you wrote, we are NOT focusing only of the graphical details here. In my previous answers, I have been trying to keep a global technical view on both sims, and made a comparison based on the different kind of flights that could be done in both sims, because I KNOW both sims very well, including their addons. So the discussion is absolutely NOT about the default planes.

Is FS9 more FPS friendly than FSX ? Yes.
Is FS9 more stable than FSX ? Yes.
Is FS9 stable ? No.
Does that help the new, unexperienced simmer ? No.

Concerning some of your comments, there are some totally wrong arguments that must be corrected:

1- Reflective glass in the VC is not a FSX-only feature. VC reflections are not real reflections, it's just the canopy glass that has a transparent texture pasted on it, which is also possible in FS9. Impact on the FPS: nothing at all. Oh, and the frost IS simulated in FSX, for pitot icing, carburetor icing and structural icing, including on default planes.

2- Dynamics are not exactely the same. For example, Acceleration brings in some changes for example in the supersonic domain. Some changes were found for copters as well, and when it comes to smaller planes I believe stuff like ground effects etc... is there as well.

3- Differences perceived by "not advanced users"... how insulting is that ? Do you really believe that people like FSX only because the water looks better ?

4- M$ not allowing greater realism... are you aware about the differences in the APIs of FSX and FS9 ? The modifications made in the FSX API has allowed external programs to take control of the sim and offer the greatest level of realism ever seen in ANY simulator, ever.

And finally:

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 have 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 needs over the requests of the firsts (for references see: Flight).

I agree.
Gamers will just press CTRL+E, push full throttle and takeoff.
Real simmers, who are looking for maximum realism and immersion with realistic engine behavior, have switched to FSX and use Accusim planes for example, which are for the moment the most realistic addons ever made for any sim.
In FSX with an Accusim plane, the only thing gamers would be able to do is to watch the engine burn on the parking place. And this would be only for the very best of them, those that could actually manage to START the engines...

[wifesaysno]

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!

[Daube]

To an unexperienced simmer that wants to make IFR flights and has a powerfull computer, I would nevertheless recommend FS9 instead of FSX.
But if he's looking for VFR flights, then I would recommend him FSX.

[Fozzer]

I have both Sims on my Hard Drive... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

..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!.... [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]...!

Paul... ... ...!

[Strategic Retreat]

Saying things like "it's my point of view, if you disagree just ignore them" is not constructive discussion at all.

As I wrote quite clearly, I was thinking out loud. Was not trying to start a flame war nor trying to troll. Since, inside the rules, we're free to speak our minds, and I don't think I've gone against the rules, that's all folks. :-?

First of all, contrary to what you wrote, we are NOT focusing only of the graphical details here. In my previous answers, I have been trying to keep a global technical view on both sims, and made a comparison based on the different kind of flights that could be done in both sims, because I KNOW both sims very well, including their addons. So the discussion is absolutely NOT about the default planes.

You seem to regard my previous post as an attack to you personally...

Would you feel disappointed if I told you my jabs went towards ANOTHER person?

Not making names, but it wasn't you.

1- Reflective glass in the VC is not a FSX-only feature. VC reflections are not real reflections, it's just the canopy glass that has a transparent texture pasted on it, which is also possible in FS9. Impact on the FPS: nothing at all. Oh, and the frost IS simulated in FSX, for pitot icing, carburetor icing and structural icing, including on default planes.

Reflective glass is not a FS9 native feature. It is featured in add-ons, some advanced enough that simulated visible frost even, but not in the default planes. I know I said, and reaffirm, that they are trash among trash, but in an ideal world they should work to showcase the sim's graphical and flight potential.

I guess under FSX they work quite well on the first point.

When I was speaking of frost, I meant VISIBLE frost, else I'd have talked about icing.

That the FS franchise's planes as a whole are burdened with a pitiful icing simulation because of the supermassive holes in the FD is just another matter. :-/

2- Dynamics are not exactly the same. For example, Acceleration brings in some changes for example in the supersonic domain. Some changes were found for copters as well, and when it comes to smaller planes I believe stuff like ground effects etc... is there as well.

Ground effect exists in FS9 too. Among the other corrections you want to forward... we've seen nothing yet. I am not telling you are wrong, simply that I haven't seen anything about it yet.

By the way, if it's true that with copters I only am able to make smoking craters in the ground, if not collapse buildings beforetime, so I could not tell, it's true that tweaking two or three minor parameters does not a new feature make.

The dynamics are fundamentally the same. Just think to the hell some of us who wanted to use FS2002 planes on the 2004 went through because of the FD changing fundamentally from V8 to V9... and then think about the fact that the only problems FS9 planes ported under FSX give are of graphical kind and/or gauges...

3- Differences perceived by "not advanced users"... how insulting is that ? Do you really believe that people like FSX only because the water looks better?

Here, I give you, I should have explained myself better.

I was not talking about beginners who want to learn. We all were those, once upon a time. I was talking about the eternal beginners who wouldn't want to learn even if their lives was on the line, because you don't need to learn just to look at the shiny 3D graphics...

...the gamers, in short.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

4- M$ not allowing greater realism... are you aware about the differences in the APIs of FSX and FS9 ? The modifications made in the FSX API has allowed external programs to take control of the sim and offer the greatest level of realism ever seen in ANY simulator, ever.

All I know, because it was quite the uproar some time ago, is that those fabled modifications only make the lives of planes coders, if not quite a living hell, then much harder than before.

Not a plane coder here. I only dabble a little in the sceneries in FS9 and X-plane.

Under FSX, only what ADE9X allows me to do.

Gamers will just press CTRL+E, push full throttle and takeoff.
Real simmers, who are looking for maximum realism and immersion with realistic engine behavior, have switched to FSX and use Accusim planes for example, which are for the moment the most realistic addons ever made for any sim.
In FSX with an Accusim plane, the only thing gamers would be able to do is to watch the engine burn on the parking place. And this would be only for the very best of them, those that could actually manage to START the engines...

Glad on something we're on the same wavelength.

About Accusim too. Great planes. A shame they don't want to make something for FS9. The kid's FSX installation is so unstable on its own, I fear it would collapse in a singularity if I tried to install them on it (not to speak of what disasters those little rascals would do with it in the short time it would work, before the unavoidable gravitational collapse would in the end destroy the whole PC, our house, town and probably part of Italy as well).

I'll have to content myself with the Calclassics planes under FS9... hell of a consolation prize, freeware and almost up to Accusim standards.


P.S.
If it's not clear still, I wish to offend no one (gamers aside. They do deserve everything they manage to get, under the offense category, and even more). Even those I jab at, it's joking. This is why I say these were and are my personal thoughts stated through the medium of my fingers and the keyboard and if your point of view is different, you better disregard and not start a flame war.