Back to FS9

[JoHubb]

I thought maybe to try FSX. After a week of tearing my hair out I've given up.

[EricFSX92]

I have both on my system. I remember when i first got FSX, i could not get used to it. It takes a while to get used to it and messing with the graphics settings to get the right combo and performance. Since then i have gotten a much faster PC and i enjoy both sims with no problems. I recently got MS Flight...well i will never let my old sims go

[ppgstf]

Let us hope that the developers do not use the arrival of 'Flight' as an excuse to stop making payware for FS2004. In my opinion, and on my machine, FS2004 is the best.   

Shouldn't be a problem as there is no third party involvement with MS Flight.

[Fozzer]

I have both on my system. I remember when I first got FSX, I could not get used to it. [glow=yellow,2,300]It takes a while to get used to it and messing with the graphics settings to get the right combo and performance.[/glow] Since then I have gotten a much faster PC and I enjoy both sims with no problems. I recently got MS Flight...well I will never let my old sims go

It was always the constant; "messing with the graphics settings to get the right combo and performance", etc, instead of actually "flying", that has always put me off running my copy of FSX since it was first released.
I cant be bothered with all the messing around, to get it to work!
I just want to get up into the air!

FS 2004 doesn't need all that fiddling around!... ...!

Paul...FS 2004...(and FSX and little patience!)... ...!

[Daube]

FS 2004 doesn't need all that fiddling around!... ...!

Paul...FS 2004...(and FSX and little patience!)... ...!

If you limit the graphic settings in FSX to match the graphic level of FS9, then you don't need fiddling in FSX either

Jon I'm sorry for you that you couldn't manage to make FSX smooth enough with the settings you were looking for. But at least you tried, which is nice. By the way, what is your hardware ?

[Jetranger]

Well, I couldn't either get FSX Comfortable, bout' a year ago,,, till I went and got me a new computer and a fairly expensive Graphics / Video card, and threw in 2 more sticks of RAM for a grand total of 16 GB Ram coupled with a really decent Quadcore Processor, and now, my FSX Gold Acceleration performs flawlessly with all the sliders to the right, except I have my Automobile traffic set at 80% . I can't believe how much prices have dropped on computer parts compared to back in 2003/2004/2005 when a stick of Ram a measly 512 gb was expensive, now, you can get a whole GIG cheaper than you could got 512 for back then, and processors & mother boards and graphics cards,,, unbelievable how much all that stuff has dropped in prices compared to back then,,,,, :-? :-?

[Fozzer]

Its not just the fiddlin' with the graphics setting in FSX; its all the years of reading the various Forums, noting the time, and heartache, and vicious arguments involved in installing various updates and lengthy alterations with the FSX.cfg Files to modify and correct various never-ending problems.... ...!

It was not a pleasant time, I remember, so I made a point of avoiding FSX and its community, and concentrating on enjoying my FS 2004, which has always performed flawlessly and smoothly for me, on maximum settings....and still does!
I still have FSX on my Hard Drive since it was first released, but it never gives me the daily, welcoming thrill, that my trusty FS 2004 does...That's what I call Magic!!

Paul....FS 2004...FS Nav...and a big grin!... ...!

2005 Dell Dimension 5000.
Pentium P4. Dual Core 2.8GHz. nVidia PCIe GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Video RAM. 2.5GB System RAM. 320 Watt PSU. 2X SATA HDD's....runs a treat!

[Strategic Retreat]

The spartan yet solid and secure feel of FS9 has still its followers, and one of them is yours truly. 8-)

Every time I see my kids playing with FSX (and woe the day the ask for Flight... to sleep with no supper and no PlayStation for a week) it always reminds me of... well, a drag queen (no offense is meant for the category). Someone took a copy of FS9 and made a drag queen out of it... and the performances of this overly burdened massively made-up version always confirmed my perception.

[Daube]

A drag queen, seriously ?

[tgibson]

I have gotten used to all of that in FS9, but I'd never get used to every airport around the world sitting on a desert polygon.  And if you think that's what water looks like I have a mirror I can sell you (look at Flight's water - much improved).  Yes I know there is a fix for the desert polygons, but there is a fix for much of what you mention too. 

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]A drag queen, seriously ?

[Daube]

I have deleted my previous answer because from what you wrote, it is now clear that any argumentation would be useless. It's fine to use a bit of sarcasm for a laugh once in a while, but having to prove that a circle is round is too much for me 

[Fozzer]

Three happy Flight Sim Clubs:

(a) FS 2004.... ....
(b) FSX.... ...
(c) Combined FS 2004 and FSX).... .. ..

Paul... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

P.S...mustn't forget...
(d) Flight... ...

... ...!

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]I have deleted my previous answer because from what you wrote, it is now clear that any argumentation would be useless. It's fine to use a bit of sarcasm for a laugh once in a while, but having to prove that a circle is round is too much for me

[jack_ryan]

I have all three, FS9, FSX and Flight installed.  I fly FS9 almost exclusively, but once in a while I fly FSX and even less of Flight.  I have spent way too much time and cash on FS9 to give it up.  I really like FSX and it runs pretty well on my machine and some day it may become my primary sim, but so far FS9 is still keeping me busy.  Its hard to imagine still using a  program that is over 6 years old (it came out in 2003 if I remember right).  It is a testiment to the community who keep adding to it and improving it as well as Microsoft for building an open system that can be modified by third parties. Shame they forgot lesson.

Sean