FS X and FS 2004

[jmk]

It has been a LONG time since I had time to log on to this excellent forum for help.  So please excuse me asking this but I am trying to figure out whether to replace my now very old FS 2002 with either FS 2004 or FS X.  Is there a good site that compares the features and included aircraft etc? or a good chain that does the same?  I know X is newest and best but i may run 04 easier on my machine and still get what I want feature wise.  Thanks for pointing me to the right place.

[ATI_7500]

Post your computer specs first, then I can tell you what FS would be better for you.

[Daube]

That's simple:
- if you plan to upgrade your PC, then get FSX.
- of you do not plan to upgrade, get FS2004.

As you said, FSX is bringing a lot of new stuff, especially on the visual part.
If you're looking mainly for flight realism, FS2004 will already bring you everything you need.
If you're looking for flight realism AND immersion AND fun then you have to do the necessary effort to get FSX.

The fact is that the flight environment in FSX (including scenery, textures etc...) is so much better than FS9, which is just a lifeless desert in comparison. So, if you want just good airports with good AI inside, go and get FS2004. FSX offers something more for the VFR and low-and-slow flyers, because the default scenery is much more detailled... but the cost on the performance for such details is very HIGH, thus the necessary upgrade. You've been warned.

[CAFedm]

One other thing to consider, is that tons of addon stuff is available for the older version. If content flying mostly default planes in default scenery, then of course this isn't an issue. It would seem to be this may be a major reason many are sticking with FS9 for awhile yet. Sure, FSX will catch up one day, but that could be a ways off... :-?

[jmk]

Thank you all.  That was exactly the basic understanding I needed.  Thanks for your replies.

[Mav_316]

Those are very wise words been presented to you grasshopper. For I to made the decision to load FSX (all the tweaking and still don't improve it much) on my machine. Fortunate for me I didn't buy it, it was given to me as a gift. Now I have a descent machine but after a while you just get fustrated at FSX and toss it to the side.

very slow loading screens, Not enough Scenery library being produced for it to keep your interests in it. The only thing I was impressed with FSX is that no matter what airport you went to, with certain Addon Aircrafts, the gates always positioned properly and the loading vehicles rolled up in proper alignment.

After 3 long months of denial, Last night I UN-INSTALLED FSX because I just got sick of it. I was like wowed at how great FS9 looked since I hadn't used it in a while. The ground textures of certain addon airports looked so crisp, the aircrafts looked so smooth and detailed. The water (even though it didn't have the reflection) looked so detailed. I was happy to go back in the library to look for the goodies I have been ignoring for the past 3 months! Even now designers are countering FSX by producing static scenery for their aircrafts and designed scenery meshes that almost look 3D like when you fly over them at certain altitudes (LA scenery and Honolulu Island).

FS9 just like FS2002 (for people that never upgraded) is going to be around for a very long time, until they improve FSX. Right now I feel that if you don't have a Dual Core processor and 2gb of memory and at least a 512mb graphics card in your rig. You really can't enjoy FSX the way it was meant to be. M$ always like to leap forward with the Flight Sim Games. Everytime it releases it seems like it forces you to upgrade to a new operating system and new hardware.

FS2002 - Windows 98
FS2004 - Windows XP
FSX

[DaveSims]

I have both installed on my computer, but I usually only play with FS2004 because I have such marginal performance on FSX with settings that are slightly below what FS9 runs great on.  Plus FSX still has too many bugs, and just gives me a headache to deal with right now.