FS2004 versus FSX!!!!

**whizzer111** · 04-08-2008, 06:08 AM

Hi all.
I have recently bought a computer,mainly for flight sim's.
I decided to buy fs2004 coz i heard reviews that FSX was very demanding.
Now,i realise they meant maxing all the sliders.I wish i had bought FSX now.
I was disappointed to observe England was only rough resemblence to reality-my home town was merged with Hastings-AND no south downs etc!! I realise this is owing to the poor 1KM mesh.
My question: does FSX,whilst having a far superior mesh (i assume it has the gentle hills in their rightful places??) more faithfully reproduce towns/cities? Or does one have to buy the VFR scenery for this? I like the autogen.Surely the VFR includes autogen?
Glad to hear that a new software ''18 times better'' is being developed!

I own an Athlon 64 phenom,3 GIG RAM quad core-with inbuilt 256mb card (8400GT).It seems to play FS2004,''lock on'' real smooth even with details near maximum .Hope it plays FSX okay with medium settings.
Cheers

**Thunderbird8** · 04-08-2008, 06:52 AM

See the update in the other scenery thread and hang on a few weeks!

**whizzer111** · 04-08-2008, 11:43 AM

Can't wait.
Is FSX scenery more faithful than FS2004?

**CPSBruce** · 04-08-2008, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by whizzer111

Is FSX scenery more faithful than FS2004?

Should be, but from what I've read about FSX, it's still two years old. Microsoft seems to release a new flight simulator package every two to three years, I'd stay with FS2004 if you already have it.

**myocardia** · 04-08-2008, 11:45 PM

whizzer, your system would have no problems at all with FSX, IF you buy a video card for it. With your current onboard video, it would most likely struggle with most of the settings on low. But, for �50-75, you can get a video card more than twice as fast as your current video chipset. Example #1: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=56&subcat=938 and example #2: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=56&subcat=912