fs 2004

joeljansson · 09-09-09, 08:26 AM

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

Task Force · 09-09-09, 02:25 PM

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

Skybird · 09-09-09, 05:02 PM

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.

Spike88 · 09-09-09, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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:

Skybird · 09-09-09, 06:25 PM

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.

Or try Simwing's Heathrow...

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

joeljansson · 09-10-09, 09:14 AM

so which one should i get isnt fsx very expensive

Ubergeek87 · 09-12-09, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

FS2004 superior for IFR, FSX superior for VFR.

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'

Skybird · 09-12-09, 02:15 PM

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.

09-09-09, 08:26 AM	#1
joeljansson Sparky Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: in front of the screen in sweden Posts: 158 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	fs 2004 fs 2004 worth buing considiring that and sh5 from a store here in sweden. __________________

09-09-09, 02:25 PM	#2
Task Force Rear Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SPACE!!!! Posts: 10,142 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	fs 2004 is good, (but if your system is good enough you could get FSX...) __________________ Task Force industries "Taking control of the world, one mind at a time"

09-09-09, 05:02 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-09-09, 06:25 PM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. Or try Simwing's Heathrow... I use to lower some options with destinations like this, especially clouds and traffic. That way frames remain managable __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-10-09, 09:14 AM	#6
joeljansson Sparky Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: in front of the screen in sweden Posts: 158 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	so which one should i get isnt fsx very expensive __________________

09-12-09, 02:15 PM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.