So, I'm making the switch...any advice?

[OldAirmail]

Years ago, I found that I could live with lower FPS if the scenery was good.


I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but after switching from FSX to Prepar3d V2 the FPS dropped below what I was getting from FSX BUT the sim looked smother.

[TryHinkel]

Just got it, installed it, configured it, flew it...

..and deleted it. I'll stay with FS2004. Thanks anyway, fellas.

Sorry to read that, but to me it sounds like you just didn't try it at all :/
I mean, did you install it correctly ? FSX Acceleration or FSX Steam ?
Did you install any sceneries ? Any planes ?
Did you make any kind of comparison with FS9 to see the benefits ?

If you're happy with FS9 then that's ok, although I feel a bit sorry for you, because you're missing quite a lot of excellent addons.

Not only did I spend two sleepless nights trying to optimize everything by trial-and-error, but a local friend came over and tried to use his expertise to make it work. By 2008's standards, this PC is upper-crust, which exceeds FSX's stated minimum requirements for that era, being a 2006 release. Also, realizing that FSX takes up 5x the hard drive that FS2004 does...well, it explains a lot.

It didn't thrill me at all with the synthesized cockpit eyepoint movement; it may be more realistic, but it doesn't thrill me. Compared to the FS2004 Cessna 172, the FSX 172 is downright anemic...even after tweaking peripheral settings to the max and eliminating null zones. Scenery and its reality was the least of my worries...I gave lower settings a chance. My priority was plane performance, all else could be tweaked after that.

At any rate, if FSX is good for everyone else, then that's fine. I don't judge anyone for liking or preferring it. For now, FS2004 is fine for me. Someday, I can afford a new PC and see how the Sim World does as far as ease on PC resources, flight dynamics reality and ease of modifications (scenery and airport modification, mostly).

Besides, I'm not entirely ready to flush all that Opa personally taught me down the loo just yet. Thanks, everyone, for your posts, they're appreciated.

Oh...PC is NOS Dell Optiplex 745 with Intel Core2 Quad 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM, 240GB HD and MSI GeForce 210 1GB 64-Bit video, WinXP SP3. PC was built new in '07/'08, never used until I bought it new last summer, seller installed the Core2 Quad (originally came with Core2 Duo) CPU while I watched.

[napamule]

Ok. You are getting 7 fps in FSX because your CPU speed is only 2.4 Ghz. You did not tweak the FSX cfg so what do you expect. Opa would of encouraged you to try a little harder and spend more than '2 sleepless nights' tweaking it. The other problem is that you only have one HDrive. You will find if you install FSX (any sim version) on a seperate HDrive you will get a huge performance improvement and might even get 25 fps which is 'passable' to fly in FSX (you CAN'T fly on less than 15 fps-won't work). If you can get a 2 GB video card that alone would also help attain that 25 to 30 fps you want. Then you can do FSX 'Settings' (sliders, graphics, etc) by reading up in forums. It's all there. Takes a day or two to gather info, print out to best implement EXACT values, and then watch what happens. You might be surprised. But FS9 is still good and I have it installed on same HDrive as FSX. And, by the way, do NOT install FS9 or FSX in 'Program Files' folder (the 'default' install) due to permissions. I like to port FS9 to FSX (race cars, boats, etc). Keeps me busy. So FS9 still has it's place no doubt. FSX adds landable, AI, carriers for landing the F-18, bridges you can drive over, etc. Good luck.
Chuck B
Napamule