Just based on graphics, nothing else!

[EHM-2467 Dale]

I run FSX on medium / medium high and I can usually get around 20 fps when online etc.

Now I also own FS2004 and my question is would it be beneficial to run FS2004 because I could probably run this on high/very high settings.  Is the graphical upgrade worth it or do I stick with FSX?

Cheers

Dale

[EHM-2029 Sotiris]

Hello Dale,

essentially FS9 has two strong points.
1) You can get much better performance on it even in crowded airspaces with lots of multiplayer traffic and with very high settings. However, this is arguable on whether the better performance justifies the loss of some features of FSX. And it's an endless discussion everywhere...

2) Now this reason is much less controversial. You can GET more than 20 times more freeware stuff for FS9. Whether it's planes, airfields, sceneries, enhancements, soundpacks, clouds and so much more.
This is mainly (in my IVAO experience) what is holding people from switching.

FSX is growing in its offerings but they are typically payware and getting anywhere near the airport scenery coverage I currently have on FS9 would either make me a No.1 Pirate or poorer by 100's of €, $, £.

It's also a developers' fault as many of them are doggedly determined not to learn the new developing tools required by FSX to make their freeware sceneries etc.

So, if you're happy with what you have now and your only concern is performance, don't switch. If you're one of those ppl who want to have a half-descent scenery everywhere they fly to then look around on what's on offer (according to your favourite destinations) and switch over.

[EHM-2467 Dale]

Talk about a conundrum!

[EHM-1465 Dominic]

An interesting question for me because I'm a pure FS2004 user and although I've considered moving to FSX I haven't done it because of the mass of scenery and add-ons I have for the older platform. So it's interesting to see what others think

Who else has been troubled by this decision..?

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Well, I'm FSX only, and to be entirely honest I really wish I'd waited another few years yet. The add-ons community is only just starting to get into the swing of things with the new technology, and sure, it's going to be really exciting when they do all catch up to it, but it's been a lean few years to say the least...

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

For myself, when FSX came out I had basically the same comp I have now, and when I tried it, I found that to have a playable framerate (about 30-35) I had to lower my settings so much that it looked like utter crap, definetly worse than my FS9 at 40+ fps.
With a few addons, namely terrain meshes, airports, stuff like Ground Environment and Flight Environment... I can honestly say that my FS9 looks as good or even better than the equivalent framerate FSX...
Check some of my screenshots (some have a bit of contrast&brightness tweak)

FSX starts looking good when you turn it to medium high/high.

** Edit
I also just remembered that FS9s comparably lower spec needs enable me to turn on Anti Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, which is a big plus, where they are a big no-no for me in FSX

[EHM-2387 Eric-Jan]

I started FSing with FS98 way back in the days. That was not much more than flying into Chicago buildings (not intentionally at first . Since a recent job-change I had more free time on my hand, and I happened to stumble upon a discount FSX at about the same time. So I started FSXing about one year ago, having skipped FS2000, FS2002, and FS2004. I joined IVAO, and now I'm hooked! I did not feel like "taking a step back" to FS2004, even though my PC was steaming and puffing under the FSX load. I started collecting addons to make things even better. I must admit that it takes a little more effort to find what you are looking for, but if you do you'll find that there is surprisingly much available. I do use payware addons when I think they are worth the doe, which makes finding stuff a lot easier, of cause. But I prefer good freeware, that needs no explanation. The other day I tried to make a backup of all the stuff I gathered in this last year, and I needed 3 DVDs already!
Anyway, even though my PC is flying at 100% all the time, it's the addons that make me stick with FSX. Especially the payware ones that I bought for FSX only . Also, I like to fly VC, and the looking around is different in FS9 than it is in FSX. That's just a matter of getting used to, but those few times I did get to fly FS9, that was the one thing I kept doing wrong...

So for me, the addons are the main reason to stick with FSX. I know the same goes for others that stick to FS9. An in the mean time, I am saving up for a more powerful PC

Oh, and to answer Dale's question: I think 20 fps in FSX (which is somehow different from 20 fps in FS9 [huh?]) is sufficient. Of cause, the higher the better, but in my experience, anything above 10 fps is "flyable", and 20fps + is comfortable. I have my fps "locked" at 20 fps. If you don't have any addons yet, and are willing to put some extra effort in obtaining them, I would advice you to stick to FSX. You'd be "future proof" with that choice.

[EHM-2155 Mariano]

I find 20 fps annoying
Matter of personal preference I guess, but I notice frame chopping all the way to 30 fps. Its a lifetime of playing fast pace first person shooters =)
Also theres the question if you get 20 fps high on the sky where theres not much to render or flying into the runway with other planes there and buildings and trees...
Virtual cockpit also is unplayable with anything below a 20" monitor cos the numbers are too small, I always chose a good 2d panel over virtual cockpits specially cos most of the planes we use dont have them...