fs 2004
 

fs 2004 worth buing considiring that and sh5 from a store here in sweden.:06:

fs 2004 is good, (but if your system is good enough you could get FSX...)

FS2004 superior for IFR, FSX superior for VFR.

Hardware demands for FSX are much higher. The age of FS2004 means that even with not-up-to-date hardware chances are you can run it well when installing plenty of addons (planes, cockpits, scenery), traffic, weather, etc. If your system can just handle FSX, it means you have no reserves left to install and reasonably use additonal addons like more complex cockpits, traffic software, and so on. All such things pick away at your CPU, and frames.

FS, all versions, are more depending on CPU than graphics board.

I can run FSX On medium settings with a decent amount of traffic on an AMD Sempron 1.8ghz with 5ghz ram and an Nvidia Geforce 6150 LE, and I could also run most of the Addons fine. Although I never tried getting PMDG aircraft due to the system requirements being so high.:rotfl:

All I say is try the PMDG-747 or ATR-72 at Aerosoft's Frankfurt at night and bad weather, with AES, and Traffic Addon 20%. That brings even my old FS-2004 to it's knees while taxiing. :dead:

Or try Simwing's Heathrow...

I use to lower some options with destinations like this, especially clouds and traffic. That way frames remain managable

so which one should i get isnt fsx very expensive:06:

Depends on your system's strength.

Depends also on what you plan to do:

- more IFR or VFR.
- addons or not.

The weaker your system the more the slider moves towards FS2004.

The more hardware reserves you have left after installing FS, the easier you can run additional addons.

The less addons you want to run, the smaller hardware reserves you need beyond installing and running default FS.

The more VFR is important for you, or the less IFR you want, the more FSX is your choice.

-----

FS2004 is no dead software, support-wise. Many new addons for FSX still get released in FS2004 versions as well, especially scenery. Many people still refuse to jump from FS2004 to FSX. Enough people so that they still are a profitable business for producers of FS addons.

ifr vrf???? en english please:D

Google is your friend :yep:, VFR Link

IFR Link

ooooooooooooo:shifty::oops:

What are your system specs?

dont know but its made for gaming my dad bought some of the best parts and made it.:smug:

What makes FS2004's IFR flight superior to FSX's?
I would have thought they'd be nearly the same. The only thing I can think of that would be different is that FSX probably has newer navdata by default.

@joel
you can find your more important system spec by going to:
Start | Control Panel | System (note the cpu and ram in the general tab) | hardware tab |device manager | expand "display adapters" that's the name of your graphics card.
The path may vary a bit, this is for XP with the control panel on 'Classic View'

I am more thinking about technical stability; and the easiness of complex addons (like PMDG, Level-D and Flight-1 ATR) running with FS - or not. Complex cockpoit modeuls are reported time and again to not run as reliable with FSX as they do with FS9. The reasons for this probably are diverse, from software to hardware-related issues.

when saying IFR, I NEVER refer to any Microsoft default airliner. They are far too simplistic, for my taste. As a matter of fact I use no default sports plane for VFR either. the dedicated addons packages that focus on simulkate a given piece of hardware, and only that one, may appear expensive, compared to what you get with FS as a full package - but they make all the difference. They are what turns a dedicated and wanted game into an actual flight sim. FS is no simulator when it leaves Microsoft's production halls, but a game. That it is modular and so easy to change - this is it's real capital and potentially can turn it into a sim. If that would not be the case, many flyers interested more in the sim than game aspects would turn their backs on it, me included.