FS2004 New Aircraft

[Alejandro Rhodes]

[smiley=door.gif]

[Brett_Henderson]

[smiley=door.gif]

FSX is to FS9, as DSL is to Dialup

Sorry.. I'll go now (couldn't resist)

[ShaneG_old]

Tomato

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]Tomato

[ShaneG_old]

No one ever denied that FSX is better in just about every way....


Except one.




Anyone can run FS9 now.  FSX, only those with the good stuff need apply.

I can run FSX, but not as smooth as FS9.

In my mind, a smooth flight beats ANY level of eye candy & realism that FSX brings.

I spent my time tweaking with FS9, and I finally gave up and bought the hardware needed to run it.

When the hardware for FSX becomes affordable for me, then I will move on, as will thousands of others, just as was done from FS2002 to FS2004...

... just don't rush us, money is tight, and we're all happy just being able to fly at all.


And they are equal in a way.

They both bring lots of enjoyment to each sims respective followers.

this is what makes the FS9/FSX discussion pointless.

[Brett_Henderson]

You are correct...  We're agreeing more than we disagree  :)

I just had to interject some experience, and an angle that I'd want to hear, if I were deciding what path to take, today (1/2 way through 2009).

[ShaneG_old]

You have an excellent point about just starting out. Any money spent on addons to start out in FS9 is money that could be spent on a computer that will run FSX, which as has been mentioned is going to be around for quite some time.

Had I discovered SimV about 3 months before I did, I'd be enjoying FSX right now on a VASTLY different computer than the one I finally assembled.

I can promise that won't happen twice.

[Brett_Henderson]

Oh.. man  ::)  .. yeah.. I made some ill-advised hardware purchases in the past.

That's the BIG picture..  Forums like these are at their best when they help people make good decsisions.

Another thing (why I even butted in here), is that no matter where you sit on the hardware scale.. FSX  IS  the future of this hobby. Three-plus pages saying how bad it is , aint helping OUR future 8-)

[patchz]

[quote]Fozzer: Those oil platforms you mention are taboo to most who live here. They are currently idle and are used to grow commercial mussels

[Fozzer]

[quote][quote]Fozzer: Those oil platforms you mention are taboo to most who live here. They are currently idle and are used to grow commercial mussels

[Alejandro Rhodes]

[smiley=door.gif]

FSX is to FS9, as DSL is to Dialup

Sorry.. I'll go now (couldn't resist)    

[b][color=#000000]WOW ,WOW !!! HOLD ON

[DenisH]

Is that bicycle with wings compatible with FS9?  ;)

[Fozzer]

[quote]Is that bicycle with wings compatible with FS9?

[flaminghotsauce]

When the hardware for FSX becomes affordable for me, then I will move on, as will thousands of others, just as was done from FS2002 to FS2004...

Just to note: I bought two HP refurbished machines in the last year. My wife got the slower 32 bit machine, I got the 64 bit. It's a 2.6 quad core, 6 megs of ram 512 meg Nvidia card, and will run FSX very nicely on high settings (Not ultra high or ultra high weather). I spent $600.

Most seem to think on must spend two or three or four times that to have a "playable" FSX. The deals are out there, and I've never been shy to go used or refurbished. Refurbs are usually as good or better than new, as the problems of new get corrected by the factory.

I'm extremely happy with the 30-ish or so smooth fps on it. My FS9 looks like a movie, too!

[ShaneG_old]

When the hardware for FSX becomes affordable for me, then I will move on, as will thousands of others, just as was done from FS2002 to FS2004...

Just to note: I bought two HP refurbished machines in the last year. My wife got the slower 32 bit machine, I got the 64 bit. It's a 2.6 quad core, 6 megs of ram 512 meg Nvidia card, and will run FSX very nicely on high settings (Not ultra high or ultra high weather). I spent $600.

Most seem to think on must spend two or three or four times that to have a "playable" FSX. The deals are out there, and I've never been shy to go used or refurbished. Refurbs are usually as good or better than new, as the problems of new get corrected by the factory.

I'm extremely happy with the 30-ish or so smooth fps on it. My FS9 looks like a movie, too!

Unlike last time I built a computer, this time around, I'm going to follow NickN's recommendation to the letter. And even with his 'Super System' he just maintains a little over 30fps with all of that luscious detail and smoothness. That's what I want for FSX and nothing less. That's what I have now for FS9, on my existing hardware, which is no slouch in it's own right.


I went the refurb route, and didn't fare as well as you, and then built one from scratch, and wound up on the wrong side of progress.


I'll get there eventually, unless something even better comes along, which it most certainly will. After all, I skipped right over FS2002 when going from FS2000 to FS2004, and they had the same arguments then.