Simviation Forums

jus wondering i heard ppl said fs2004 quite as same as fsx graphics?
is ite true?
and fs2004 means the "Century of flights??" because my pc just have this..
AMD athlon 64 3000+
Nvidia7600gs
1gb RAM...
What do you think ? can i get this fs2004 to MAX graphics>??

probably... you're graphics card is probably enough, but i'd wait till the price comes down so that you're not too dissapointed if it's not to your standards'

happy flying 8-)

wait, you were talking about buying FSX, right?

With your PC I would stick with FS2004 and not bother with FSX.
FS2004 will run very well with that specification and there are lots of great add-ons that you can use including thousands of freeware items: aircraft, scenery and utilities.
FS2004 is excellent and as a Simulator (rather than a game) it is very realistic and not much different from FSX.

Regards

Jim

Not entirely accurate, to be honest with you.

On one hand, FSX is the same as FS2004. For example, those with low-end systems will experience FS9-like graphics because the current hardware won't be able to handle the high system requirements set by FSX. One very good example is my computer. My computer is so old, that it doesn't even support DX9; as a result, my computer can't render reflections or any feature that requires shader 2.0 support.

But on the other hand, FSX is completely different. If you look beyond the visuals and into the technical, you'll see that there is a huge difference. For one, FS9 can't render a "round" planet so it has to deal with a "cylindrical" planet. This imposes a huge limitation on how and where aircraft fly [can't reach the poles and can't fly higher than 99,999ft MSL]. Now look at FSX. In FSX, you have a "round" planet; thus allowing you to fly litterelly into space [up to 18,000 MILES] and you can finally reach the poles [this was one of the biggest complainst from users]. In FS9, you need 3rd party utilities to provide better viewing options [which not everyone is aware of]. In FSX, those additional viewing options are now stock. This can be very convenient for those who don't even know how to install those features if they're new to the sim. FS9 also fails to support inverse kenetics [IK or skin and bones] while FSX supports this. IK in FSX can be used for both scenery and aircraft design.

Also, FS9 doesn't support DDS textures while FSX does. On top of that, FS9 can't support the new ultra-high terrain resolutions that FSX can. And one more thing, I noticed that the terrain in FSX is much more friendly with surface vehicles compared to FS9's terrain.

So, visually [assuming that every user has a low-end machine] FSX looks the same as FS2004; but techincally [if you look at the bigger picture] FSX is a whole new level.

Not entirely accurate, to be honest with you.

On one hand, FSX is the same as FS2004. For example, those with low-end systems will experience FS9-like graphics because the current hardware won't be able to handle the high system requirements set by FSX. One very good example is my computer. My computer is so old, that it doesn't even support DX9; as a result, my computer can't render reflections or any feature that requires shader 2.0 support.

But on the other hand, FSX is completely different. If you look beyond the visuals and into the technical, you'll see that there is a huge difference. For one, FS9 can't render a "round" planet so it has to deal with a "cylindrical" planet. This imposes a huge limitation on how and where aircraft fly [can't reach the poles and can't fly higher than 99,999ft MSL]. Now look at FSX. In FSX, you have a "round" planet; thus allowing you to fly litterelly into space [up to 18,000 MILES] and you can finally reach the poles [this was one of the biggest complainst from users]. In FS9, you need 3rd party utilities to provide better viewing options [which not everyone is aware of]. In FSX, those additional viewing options are now stock. This can be very convenient for those who don't even know how to install those features if they're new to the sim. FS9 also fails to support inverse kenetics [IK or skin and bones] while FSX supports this. IK in FSX can be used for both scenery and aircraft design.

Also, FS9 doesn't support DDS textures while FSX does. On top of that, FS9 can't support the new ultra-high terrain resolutions that FSX can. And one more thing, I noticed that the terrain in FSX is much more friendly with surface vehicles compared to FS9's terrain.

So, visually [assuming that every user has a low-end machine] FSX looks the same as FS2004; but techincally [if you look at the bigger picture] FSX is a whole new level.

Wow.  :o My head hurts. To much information at one time.

Not entirely accurate, to be honest with you.

On one hand, FSX is the same as FS2004. For example, those with low-end systems will experience FS9-like graphics because the current hardware won't be able to handle the high system requirements set by FSX. One very good example is my computer. My computer is so old, that it doesn't even support DX9; as a result, my computer can't render reflections or any feature that requires shader 2.0 support.

But on the other hand, FSX is completely different. If you look beyond the visuals and into the technical, you'll see that there is a huge difference. For one, FS9 can't render a "round" planet so it has to deal with a "cylindrical" planet. This imposes a huge limitation on how and where aircraft fly [can't reach the poles and can't fly higher than 99,999ft MSL]. Now look at FSX. In FSX, you have a "round" planet; thus allowing you to fly litterelly into space [up to 18,000 MILES] and you can finally reach the poles [this was one of the biggest complainst from users]. In FS9, you need 3rd party utilities to provide better viewing options [which not everyone is aware of]. In FSX, those additional viewing options are now stock. This can be very convenient for those who don't even know how to install those features if they're new to the sim. FS9 also fails to support inverse kenetics [IK or skin and bones] while FSX supports this. IK in FSX can be used for both scenery and aircraft design.

Also, FS9 doesn't support DDS textures while FSX does. On top of that, FS9 can't support the new ultra-high terrain resolutions that FSX can. And one more thing, I noticed that the terrain in FSX is much more friendly with surface vehicles compared to FS9's terrain.

So, visually [assuming that every user has a low-end machine] FSX looks the same as FS2004; but techincally [if you look at the bigger picture] FSX is a whole new level.

Yeah it may have better graphics but in order to enjoy that extra eyecandy people would have to shell out more money to upgrade their computer. In my situation, I just bought me a new PC a couple months ago (See sig for system specs) and that ain't even good enough to play FSX. The only thing I really like about FSX is the moving vehicles at the airport. Thats about it. Other than that, FS2004 is my main squeeze:D

"The cross" is better than FS9 in some areas, undoubtedly. Problem, by my personal point of view, is that whatever was done to make it better than FS9 does not justify the exponential increase in hardware demands.

Not even by half.

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.

Personally, I'll wait for FS11. My reasons I have already explained at long in various other threads.

im in dilemma,, as i can see fsx graphics is more real look than fs2004, but then again, fsx is too heavy to rely on my spec, hmmmm too much doe fo a game... then again i was thinking "that's right!" fs2004 got lot more features, download aircraft scenery etc.. instead of fsx, limited. if i stick to fs2004, i probably bit behind.. i need to step further, but seems like my spec can't reach that high for fsx.. it's only in my dream then... anyway i already got fsx but since i joined this forum lots of users prefer/love their fs2004 still..... .... i keep thinking should i buy fs2004... :-/

im in dilemma,, as i can see fsx graphics is more real look than fs2004, but then again, fsx is too heavy to rely on my spec, hmmmm too much doe fo a game... then again i was thinking "that's right!" fs2004 got lot more features, download aircraft scenery etc.. instead of fsx, limited. if i stick to fs2004, i probably bit behind.. i need to step further, but seems like my spec can't reach that high for fsx.. it's only in my dream then... anyway i already got fsx but since i joined this forum lots of users prefer/love their fs2004 still..... .... i keep thinking should i buy fs2004... :-/

No contest...

Go for it..... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...!

Buy FS 2004 and enjoy it.... ...!

Forget FSX for a while...

...trust me... ...!

Paul.... 8-)...!

I agree with Paul - FS9 still dominates for us who remain in the non-super-PC-user class!

cheers Paul.. i think i just decided after i read all the replies from you guys. i'll go for FS2004. and the sentence of "non-super-PC-user class! " , i like that..  ;) cheers yall

and another thing, you know why i kept wondering which FS should i get? and i decided to get fs2004? because of this liveries..... check this out... too hard to do it for fsx eh..? this is for fs2004... my favourite aircraft..

Excellent news, D-code...

You are now living in the "Land of the Sensible".... 8-)....

....(FS 2004)..... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...

...trust me... ...!

Paul.... ...!

Welcome on board. You'll not repent your decision, whatever the various admirers of "the cross" say, seen the decision of making it so heavy, FS9 will be still the most used sim around for at least another 2 years, by my reckoning. Do not fret, and for so much time enjoy yourself. Two years is a long time.


PS: The word used on the above paragraph is a idle reflection I often find myself thinking about lately on how many in the end are really using "the cross", beside for looking at the somewhat slicker graphics and make nice screenshots -- condemning themselves either to poor performances or the buying of expensive hardware only to better their sim experience a little -- compared to us who are flying, and enjoying it.
In the end, it's their right to do what they want (inside the bounds of the law). Whatever floats their boats. And the same is for each and every one of us.

and another thing, you know why i kept wondering which FS should i get? and i decided to get fs2004? because of this liveries..... check this out... too hard to do it for fsx eh..? this is for fs2004... my favourite aircraft..

The best part about owning FS2004 is you can fly the PMDG aircrafts. They are the best payware aircrafts I've seen. I currently own the PMDG 747 and its the bomb yo!! 8-)