FS2004 vFSX

[Icetoocool]

Hi guys i recently brought a copy of FSX deluxe,and have been playing it on med setting for virtually evething.
I was wondering do you think i would get a better performance and settings if i used FS2004. and how much difference graphically would there be running FS2004 to max and FSX on MED setting.

Cheers

[Crussell]

Well, Chances are you would get better performance, but when I switched from the FSX demo to FS2004, It felt wierd, FS2004 can be made to look like FSX if you get good scenery files.

[Sean Grenyer]

In my view the graphics in FSX simply blows FS9 out of the water, even on minimum settings they look better than FS9 maxed out.

Why spends loads on add-ons for FS9 to make it look like FSX?

Sean

[Xyn_Air]

A lot depends on your system and the experience you are able to get for yourself.  For example, my system can run FSX, but I have to turn so many of the settings down the simulation experience for me is less than what I can get out of FS2004 on that same system.  On the other hand, my dad has a much better system and FSX for him provides a really good simming experience.  There are all sorts of things he can do on FSX that I cannot on either FSX or FS2004.

So, which one is better?  The one that makes you happiest in you simulation experience.  ;)  Me, I'm a greedy sort, so I have both and am glad I do.  Even though the performance I get out of FSX is limited, I do think that some day I will have the system to get out of it much of what it has to offer.  And, FS2004 . . . well, it is like a classic car plane; just because it is getting older doesn't mean it isn't still a lot of fun to fly.

Have fun, be happy.  Best I can tell you.

All the best,
~Darrin

[BuggsK100RS]

I run FSX it runs ok and when i run with Clear skys altho a bit boring to look at i can turn up EVERY thing to max and al long as im not in a city i runs very smooth and is very playable at about 30FPS.  Just for normal flying missions ect i do turn things down to about half way.  That way it still looks good (ish) and is mutch smoother when the Sim is trying to make weather.

Its all a mater of what YOU wont do you wont it to Sun silkey smoth or Look the Muts Nuts?? At tho momet I carnt do both (unless im out to sea in clear weather) I dount i will be able to do both this year untill i have got my self a new video card and maby some more Ram.

[Felix/FFDS]

This has been discussed many times before, but one thing you have to consider is that (and this is comparing default sceneries, etc., no add-ons to "improve"  the views, etc) FS-X default sceneries are, in general, made to a more detailed base than FS9, so running FS-X on "medium" is similar to running FS9 on "full"  settings.

Of course, a lot depends on one's hardware and especially, video hardware.

[Ang2dogs]

I first got hooked on flightsim with fs98. Then I got fs2002,wow the senery blew me away. Next was fs2004,bascilly the same as 2002, but it was nice of ms to add in runway and taxiway signs(and the vintage aircraft).And now FSX. Yes FSX has the (world) senery/terrain/geomontry right on. Igot lakes were there are lakes,hills and mountains and even roads are bout were they would be in the real world, and the extras are nice(moving traffic, birds, animals ect ect). So FS9 vs FSX, Both are great pieces of work, I get many hours of enjoyment simflying when I can find the time( beats the hell out of sitting in front of the boob tube). Ilove FS9, was very easy to tweak it. FSX I can see will take a bit more time to get the best framerates (maybe cause it's DVD?). And I wish they would have left in the option to resize your panel view like you can in FS9 . Other than that, It just makes you wonder what FS2010 is gonna be like.