Search
Ok to all you long time simmers in the know ! Started simming with FSX 2 years ago now had no previous editions, i purchased my pc at the same time on advice it was upto the task as it turned out not too great. Over time i have spent many ££££S on a tune up 3G ram and recently a ATI SAPHIRE HD4850 512M Graphics card but still can't turn things UP much i can get 26 fps in clear sky but it struggles in high sceanery areas. Having been a member of this site also for 2 years i take it theres a lot of 2004 simmers that are happy and won't upgrade to FSX because you need a Ferrari of a computer to get the best out of it !! My long winded question is i have got a new copy of 2004 in its unopened case ! do i use it ? would i be a happier bunny come on guys tell me !!!! ...KEV ❓
Yes you Must use FS2004. I have settings max in high denstity areas and cloudy and average 30 fps.
undelivered wrote:
Ok to all you long time simmers in the know ! Started simming with FSX 2 years ago now had no previous editions, i purchased my pc at the same time on advice it was upto the task as it turned out not too great. Over time i have spent many ££££S on a tune up 3G ram and recently a ATI SAPHIRE HD4850 512M Graphics card but still can't turn things UP much i can get 26 fps in clear sky but it struggles in high sceanery areas. Having been a member of this site also for 2 years i take it theres a lot of 2004 simmers that are happy and won't upgrade to FSX because you need a Ferrari of a computer to get the best out of it !! My long winded question is i have got a new copy of 2004 in its unopened case ! do i use it ? would i be a happier bunny come on guys tell me !!!! ...KEV ❓
Oh and does 2004 work with vista ?
Most likely it will. 😀
Thank you my friend you was the only one to comment and i took your advice, wiped FSX from my hard drive and installed FS2004 ! ok sure its not as polished as FSX but i can turn everything up to its max setting and still get as many FPS as i desire !! Now off to the downloads page thanks again buddy...Kev
No problem 😀
Good thing you got FS2004. Most of the add-ons for FS2004 are awesome.
anything good thats not too difficult to install please let me know !
Well, you can go to the Fly Tampa website and download the Logan Intl airport, it is a freeware. 😀
I would never go back to 2004 after evaluating both that and FSX. It takes a bit to get everything set right, but once you do, it runs very well. I've got everything set as high as it will go and it is truly awsome. Comparatively 2004 looks kinda cartoony even on the highest settings. As a real world pilot, my expectations might be higher as I do have both high end full motion simulaotrs and the real thing to compare it to, but all said in a side by side cmaparison, FSX simply runs smoother and looks more realistic. A lot was put into the development of FSX as a replacement for prior sims to ensure details and overall accuracy and this would make the enitre simulation experience better. There was a reason for M'soft to offer a newer version, but then my dad still swears by 8 track stereo.
Yes you are spot on my friend, FSX is a leaps ahead of FS9 and with acceleration pack utterly brilliant ! but try as might over the 2 years running it i just could not find settings/ fps that i could live with, its like i said at the start of this topic i thought i'd puchased the right PC for the sim but was badly advised by the store and spent a fair ammount of money upgrading the graphics card and memory. the FSX cd case gives system requirements that in my opinion are vastly inadiqate and in order too enjoy it at its very best an ultimate gameing computer is required and thats now a long way down the road for me price wise, being a forty something family man theres ony so much you can spend on your own hobby but i'm sure i will return to FSX in the future and i thank you for your opinion on this topic... Kev.
I thought my computer was the issue as well, but in playing around with the settings in FSX, have come to be able to run it almost to the max, or at least where it feels good. I found making adjustments in the display settings seemed to work best and for some reason FSX smoothed out. I bought the older version FS 2004 after initial problems with FSX on some bad advice and found it to be somewhat limited in usable aircraft, and primitive in the graphics, especially the aircraft details, and weather. Compared to FSX the 2004 clouds look kinda dumb. I'd suggest you try to optimise FSX for your computer as a better option than settling for an older version. At least that's what I'd recomend to a friend. Now if theres anyone out there who wants to buy a mint copy of FS2004 century of flight cheap.... Oh and I just know there's going to be some whining from the FS2004 fans out there 
well, I used to have FS2004(back then I didnt know about add-ons), than 2 ago years I installed FX, it looked so cool , so I stayed with fsx plus my computer handled. The sucksy thing about 2004 is that you need a lot of ad dons to just make it look good. I think FSX ground texture is alot better than FS2004
ab1332 wrote:
well, I used to have FS2004(back then I didnt know about add-ons), than 2 ago years I installed FX, it looked so cool , so I stayed with fsx plus my computer handled. The sucksy thing about 2004 is that you need a lot of ad dons to just make it look good. I think FSX ground texture is alot better than FS2004
I'm comparing FS to a woman.
FS2004 is a girl that needs tons of makeup to look good.
FSX is a girl that is moderately pretty without any makeup but with makeup looks a lot better then the first lady.
Well these girls/ladies your talking about one is happy to run around in an old chevy but the other woulden't be seen dead in anything other than a Mercedes !!
Razgr1z912 wrote:
ab1332 wrote:
well, I used to have FS2004(back then I didnt know about add-ons), than 2 ago years I installed FX, it looked so cool , so I stayed with fsx plus my computer handled. The sucksy thing about 2004 is that you need a lot of ad dons to just make it look good. I think FSX ground texture is alot better than FS2004
I'm comparing FS to a woman.
FS2004 is a girl that needs tons of makeup to look good.
FSX is a girl that is moderately pretty without any makeup but with makeup looks a lot better then the first lady.
FSX is a pretty women complete with makeup, but really is old under the makeup, and it shows.
Hi,
I am leaning towards FS2004. It runs great on my new laptop and after I installed FSX my system display got all wacky. Had to call HP - 3 hour call to set it back right. So I de-installed FSX. FS 2004 is just awsome, runs smooth. I am still finding more about FSX before I give it a shot again. For example the view controls seem to be quite complex and yes the frame rates are low. This is in spite of having a powerhouse PC.
Peter
FSX is not for all computers, It is better to install on desktop which probably could handle it better than a Laptop. It is also suggested to have a better graphics card than usual. 😀
