FSX -v- FS2004 Graphics Quality

[priorityexpress]

Firstly, I have searched for similar posts and couldn't find anything directly relevant so please don't bite my head off if you've heard it all before!!

I have really tried to get on with FSX but despite trawling the forums and trying everything possible (new graphics cards, loading nVidia inspector etc. etc) I keep going back to FS9 because the graphics, for me, especially when it comes to the aircraft themselves are just superior.

Is it me or do aircraft in FS2004 look near photo-real and the ones in FSX look, well, like badly drawn cartoons: Am I missing something here??

BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A03
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(i3) Dual Core CPU 3.20GHz
Memory: 4MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
Graphics Card: Nvidia GT9800 (upgraded from ATI RADEON 9800 SERIES)

[Paxx]

...Am I missing something here?? ...

You are missing a 4GHz+ processor and apparently some reading glasses.

[icarus2]

Firstly, I have searched for similar posts and couldn't find anything directly relevant so please don't bite my head off if you've heard it all before!!

I have really tried to get on with FSX but despite trawling the forums and trying everything possible (new graphics cards, loading nVidia inspector etc. etc) I keep going back to FS9 because the graphics, for me, especially when it comes to the aircraft themselves are just superior.

Is it me or do aircraft in FS2004 look near photo-real and the ones in FSX look, well, like badly drawn cartoons: Am I missing something here??

BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A03
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(i3) Dual Core CPU 3.20GHz
Memory: 4MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
Graphics Card: Nvidia GT9800 (upgraded from ATI RADEON 9800 SERIES)

You must be joking! stop by mine sometime Il show you FSX when its cranked up a bit!

[archerflyer]

"...Am I missing something here??..."

Yes, this is what you are missing, and what many others are not:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...-of-a-Spitfire!

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...-over-Mallorca!

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...g-Island-Sound

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...ch-Switzerland!

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...tross-D.Va-FSX

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...4-TransAsia-MD

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...?241155-Escort

It's more about the capability of your system, and less about the capability of FSX. FSX is vastly more demanding than is fs9. Now, one doesn't truly need a 4 GHz processor, but one does need a more "muscular" system to truly enjoy the less limited potential of FSX.

[ajmitch51]

So exactly what hardware does FSX demand? I have built a new system to try and keep up. It's done wonders for FS2004, but I still can't get FSX to run perfectly.
My system as I rebuilt it has:
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit;
ASUS M4A88T-M motherboard with AMD 880G chipset;
64 bit Athlon II X3 445 CPU 3.10GHz;
8Gb DDR3 dual channel DIMM memory;
Zotac GeForce GTX460 SE Graphics card with 1Gb DDR3 memory;
Soundblaster Audigy sound card. Not sure about this as it was advertised as a new version of the Audigy and the drivers date to 2005, but my old card was an Audigy 2, but not sure about the drivers on that. I've got the option of using the on-board sound which is from VIA, but the graphics card has sound built into it too, that uses NVIDIA high definition audio with drivers from last year. So on the sound side of things, I'm not sure which is the best to use.
Also, what's with the DX9 vs DX10 issues?
I have FSX Acceleration, but read that some things require SP2, but that you can't have both SP2 and Acceleration installed. What is correct?

[scott967]

I would say a true fsx aircraft, with properly used and applied fsx material, will be head-and-shoulders above an fs9 aircraft on a properly sorted system, at least in DX9 mode.

[cianpars]

For me the higher res scenery graphics was the major reason I moved from fs9 to fsx. I don't think I could go back to fs9 now - in fact I wiped my fs9 setup a long time ago (which I kind of regret now as it would have been nice to go back to it to remind me how much better fsx really is).

IAN

[torkermax]

For me the higher res scenery graphics was the major reason I moved from fs9 to fsx. I don't think I could go back to fs9 now - in fact I wiped my fs9 setup a long time ago (which I kind of regret now as it would have been nice to go back to it to remind me how much better fsx really is).

IAN

You handing any of that stuff out? With the correct scenery addons and aircraft. FS2004 can look every bit as good as FSX and be one heck of alot more stable. I have been using FS2004 for 8 yrs and FSX for 4 yrs now! I have the best hardware money can buy and FS2004 is still a very viable sim! The old saying goes, You want candy FSX you want sim FS2004.

[cianpars]

Agreed in part, though I have a fettish for photoscenery and at 1 meter (or 60cm or 30cm in some cases) resolution versus 4.75 meter, there really is no comparison.

Cheers,IAN