Is it still worth it??

[Raoul98]

I have fsx but i wass wondering is it still worth it to buy fs2004. Maybe its good, give me your opinion!!!!

[Boikat]

Sure.  There are some really great addons I liked that work great in FS9, but are bupkis in FSX.  And if you have the hard drive space, or a spare external drive (which many prefer, anyway), I would certainly keep both.

[Fozzer]

I have fsx but I was wondering is it still worth it to buy fs2004. Maybe its good, give me your opinion!!!!

If you are having hardware problems running FSX to your satisfaction, then FS 2004 is an excellent alternative, and with a few payware+freeware bits and bobs can be made to look as good as FSX, with all of your FS 2004 sliders wound up to the max, and a smooth flight!... ...!

Try it...you'll like it... ...!

Paul...FS 2004 (and FSX)... 8-)...!

[Daube]

I have fsx but i wass wondering is it still worth it to buy fs2004. Maybe its good, give me your opinion!!!!

It all depends on what kind of flights you intend to do.

FS2004 is worth it in just one case: if you love flying IFR with complex liners into/from major airports with a lot of AI planes. In that precise case, FSX will have very bad performance. It *might* have an acceptable performance if you own a powerfull CPU, but FS9 performance will always be greater, leading to more enjoyable experience through smoother flight (higher FPS). That's a well known fact that explains why I still continue advising new pilots to start on FS9 instead of FSX, when they say they want to try the complex liners like PMDG etc...

However, if liners are not your priority, or even if you fly liners, but tend to avoid the major airports like JFK, CDG etc...(like I do), then FSX will offer you a similar experience than FS9. It might even offer you a better experience actually, thanks to the nicest vision you get at high altitude for example (real globe instead of cylinder, leading to a better looking horizon), as well as better landclass system that reduces the "chess effect" due to repetitive textures on the ground.

Finally, if you tend to fly more VFR or bush flights, then FS9 is totally out of the game, it's not worth it at all. This is also the case if you like military planes, especially those based on aircraft carriers.

[Raoul98]

I can play fsx witg about 10 to 20 fps witg everything on high so that is ok. I like all the posky aircraft but not every plane works in fsx. Is the scenery also good?

[Daube]

The "local" sceneries that cover an aiport for example, are just as good as in FSX. There are a few missing things, but in general the visuals of aiports are just like FSX.

However, the "global" sceneries, that cover large areas or regions or countries, are not as good:
- the mesh resolution cannot be as high as in FSX, but it can still reach 19m, which is already quite good. High resolutions  meshes are extremely rare anyways.
- the ground resolution is limited to 5 meters per pixel, which is blurry. This is especially disturbing when you use photo sceneries, like BlueSkyScenery or even TileProxy (which downloads photo pictures from Google Earth servers).
- the landclasses are less complex, which leads to more repetitive ground textures
- the autogen density is lower, so the forests and cities in FS9 won't looks as good as in FSX
- the water cannot even be compared to the FSX water.

This is why I recommend FS9 only for IFR flights. For VFR, FSX is the way to go.

[Raoul98]

Thanks. I am still thinking if i am going to buy it but thanks for the comments

[CrashII]

With a few tweaks and tricks it's better than FSX. Just my two cents, I'm gone again.

[Fozzer]

With a few tweaks and tricks it's better than FSX. Just my two cents, I'm gone again.

What he says!.... [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]... ...!

Paul...I recognise that Dog anywhere!... ... ... ...!

[Daube]

With a few tweaks and tricks it's better than FSX. Just my two cents, I'm gone again.

Well, I thought that Raoul needed real arguments. That's why I tried to make precise criticism.

I fail to see how FS9 could get better than FSX for anything else than IFR flight to major airports  :-/ Could you explain ?

[Fozzer]

I think its mostly to do with individual happiness and satisfaction... ... ...

Paul....FS 2004 + FS Navigator... 8-)...and happily satisfied... ...!

[CrashII]

Like I said with a few tweaks you can get rid of the repetitive ground textures (use VOZ1.8 for example), water textures can be replaced to look similar (not exactly) like FSX water (which isn't that good IMHO), clouds can be mad HQ and there are still tons more add-ons for FS9 than there are for FSX. Your claim that FS9 is only good for high altitude IFR flight is ridiculous. FS is just as good in low VFR flight as FSX supposedly is. There are add-ons to replace the autogen to make it look denser and better.

PS Hi Paul. Just sticking my nose in other people's business....

[Daube]

Like I said with a few tweaks you can get rid of the repetitive ground textures (use VOZ1.8 for example), water textures can be replaced to look similar (not exactly) like FSX water (which isn't that good IMHO), clouds can be mad HQ and there are still tons more add-ons for FS9 than there are for FSX. Your claim that FS9 is only good for high altitude IFR flight is ridiculous. FS is just as good in low VFR flight as FSX supposedly is. There are add-ons to replace the autogen to make it look denser and better.

PS Hi Paul. Just sticking my nose in other people's business....

Sorry but I have to disagree. In case you didn't notice, I know FS9 very well because I flew it for MANY years, just like you. And unlike you apparently, I have also flown FSX for many years and I know its addons too, both freewares and paywares.

Also please do not modify what I said. I haven't said that FS9 is "only good for high altitude IFR". I said that IFR flight to major airports is the only domain where the FS9 experience can be superior to the FSX experience.

When it comes to VFR flying, sure FS9 alreayd offers quite a nice experience, but the experience offered by the scenery possibilities in FSX is way greater, thanks to better ground textures and better autogen. And the photosceneries make it even more true.  The smoother FPS offered by FS9 over major airports is its one and only advantages on FSX.

When it comes to military flights, the problematic is the same. The better world rendering, the better plane rendering, the additionnal features (moving carriers, shared cockpits etc...) make the FSX experience much better than anything you can get in FS9.

The smaller number of available freeware addons for FSX is not a problem anymore. It was a problem in the first years perhaps, but nowadays nobody is complaining about the size of their hangar or scenery library

Once again, I do not see for the above mentionned points how FS9 could offer a better experience than FSX. That doesn't mean FS9 is bad. The question was "is it worth it", the answer is "it depends what you intend to do". Since Raoul stated that liners might not be his main focus, then my answer is "no, FS9 will not bring you anything that FSX is not already providing".

[Raoul98]

I like the comments of daube!! he really helped me out!!

[jetprop]

btw,i noticed you are from the netherlands,thats my birthcountry.