Why do you use previous versions of MS (prior to FSX)

[mith]

Just curious... is it the add-ons, the way it runs on your computer etc. Please briefly share why.

Thanks

[mikebond]

My computer is old. I can consistently get only 15 to 20 fps in FS2004. When I tried the FSX demo several years ago, frame rates were sub 10 fps -- can't fly well with that kind of performance.

Until I can afford to replace my machine, FS2004 is it for me.

[mith]

My computer is old. I can consistently get only 15 to 20 fps in FS2004. When I tried the FSX demo several years ago, frame rates were sub 10 fps -- can't fly well with that kind of performance.

Until I can afford to replace my machine, FS2004 is it for me.

That makes sense... I suspected that a lot of simmers are the same as you... performance is really important! You can't fly efficiently with less than 10 fps...!

[Adam24]

I dont have the hardware to run FSX. But, Ive bought FSX, now Im waiting to buy a new PC. Till then, I use FS2004, and sometimes FS2002.

[mith]

Have you guys tried dumbing down the graphics? Not that this is a solution... if you can run better graphics with 2004 then dumbing down fsx is a non-issue

[ReggieF5421]

I can run full AI loads smoother on FS2004 than in FSX.

I have never invested extensively in scenery addons - so FSX looks much better, especially when flying low and slow than FS2004. So FSX is my preference for individual flying.

But if I'm doing flying in a heavily AI populated area, I need to fly in FS2004.

Also, I can fly pretty well in FS2004 when traveling on my laptop, but it won't handle FSX.

I no longer work on, modify, create airports for FS2004 - it is too much work with too many different tools - especially for new airports in FS2004. The hybrid nature of FS2004 makes it very difficult. All my design of new airports, and modification of existing airports is now done in FSX.

I do use FS2004, and occasionally FS2002, to try and help folks with problems.

[CloverAirways]

Used FS9 for about 2 years before I played FSX. I was just too used to FS9 and liked the scenery I had, aircraft etc..
Plus, the NGX doesn't run too well for me on FSX :P

[ricardo_NY1]

I use FS2004 so that I can use the simulator and not have to compromise one thing for another or spend the next 10 years fiddling with settings, hardware, etc. FSX is just not that much better.

[HardCub]

Curt... sometimes pictures are worth a thousand words. Here are a few reasons I still LOVE and fly FS2004 almost exclusively. With silky smooth frame rates of 30-60fps, I am enjoying FS9 more than ever before. Plus, there are now so many fantastic environmental add-ons today that just take the old simulator to a whole new level.

And most importantly, FS2004 is rock solid. Just start it, and enjoy it! Once tweaked, it's always ready... no big surprises.


June 2012


March 2012


October 2010


April 2011


August 2011


November 2010


August 2011


December 2010


November 2010

FS2004 add-ons used in the pictures above are as follows...

Payware scenery add-ons include: REX2004, Ultimate Terrain USA, Ground-Environment_Pro, ActiveSky, FSGenesis terrain mesh (I have ALL of the USA in 19m mesh) and a few of the pictures had BEV (Bird's-Eye-View) ground textures.

Payware aircraft add-ons: Carenado 172N Skyhawk and Beechcraft Bonanza F33, JustFlight Piper Tomahawk and Beechcraft Duchess.
Freeware aircraft add-ons: Dassault Falcon 50, Bill Lyon's freeware Piper Cub J3, Project Open Sky's freeware Airbus A319

[Jayskits]

I have to agree with Simul8er. Although I have a machine that can run FSX, I have just too many great add-ons for FS9, and my sim looks and runs great. Its just not worth starting all over again and spending a ton of money in FSX to replicate what I already have. And even if I did, it would run at far lower frame rates.

If I ever leave FS9, it will have to be for a new generational leap flight sim that breaks important new ground in simulating reality.