Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

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

  1. #21

    Default

    I have two of Corenado's planes. The banana (bonanza V tail) and his Skymaster. I love them both, though recently I've been flying the Skymaster.

    When i started this thread, I suspected two results. One, people fly previous versions for computer hardware issues, and two... for those who have spent tons of money on add-ons. Both of which are perfectly understandable.

    I'm kind of fortunate in that, I am single (nobody will let me kiss them) and can pretty much get any computer I want (I never buy the BEST... just good computers). So flying FSX is not an issue with me, though like I said in another post... landing in LAX with full eye candy (which I never do) really drops my fps (around 20) which is not acceptable to me.

    As long as everyone's happy with what they have... awesome. I also have "flight"... but that's pretty much a dead issue with me. I don't care for the "Death by a thousand cuts" philosophy.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mith View Post
    One, people fly previous versions for computer hardware issues, and two... for those who have spent tons of money on add-ons. Both of which are perfectly understandable.
    Computer hardware issues being the reason to use FS2004 should be considered a blessing, because $2-3K later on a machine for FSX and you're still going to have hardware issues one way or the other. FSX will always be a compromise until someone starts making 7ghz processors, and that is just not going to happen any decade soon.

    2004 is a personal choice......I call it "I can finally enjoy the simulator and not play into the hardware/tinkering game" that comes with every release, and FSX just does not deliver that much more for me to throw a grand into a CPU that doesn't even meet the requirements........not even OC'd.

    Anyone wanting to see how good FS9 can be, just buy the Flightzone stuff, Portland/Rhode Island. You would think OrbX had a hand in it.
    Last edited by ricardo_NY1; 06-13-2012 at 10:19 AM.
    Ricardo
    FSThrottles.com

  3. #23

    Default

    Just for kicks, I have every version of Flight Simulator in stalled on my PCs- v1 thru FSX. Sorry, no "MS Flighty" on my machine! Win7 for the latest, dual-boot into XP for older versions and emulators for the oldest. Sort of fun to compare, guess I just wanted to see if I could do it. I did try to run both, keep both FS9 and FSX up to date but found out that takes up more time than imagined. FS9 will always hold a special place in my simming heart but I fully appreciate the "under the hood" advancements that FSX has to offer.

    Nice thing is my FSX addon investment will move with me once I migrate over to P3D once they emulate multi-core, multi-GPU, DX11. So I see I have years of good simming ahead.

    Clutch

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mith View Post
    As long as everyone's happy with what they have... awesome. I also have "flight"... but that's pretty much a dead issue with me. I don't care for the "Death by a thousand cuts" philosophy.
    This has to be the best discription of Flight that I have read so far, I have to give you an Oscar nomination for that one!

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jpc55 View Post
    this has to be the best discription of flight that i have read so far, i have to give you an oscar nomination for that one!
    lol

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    2,214
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricardo_NY1 View Post
    Anyone wanting to see how good FS9 can be, just buy the Flightzone stuff, Portland/Rhode Island. You would think OrbX had a hand in it.
    Oddly enough, those 2 addons were the first two that came to mind when I said this earlier, lol:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Robinson View Post
    I've got some awesome stuff for FS9 that either isn't available for FSX or isn't something I like well enough to re-purchase for FSX, so there's plenty of reasons to keep FS9 around for a while yet.
    Incidentally, 9Dragons Kai Tak was another, Clutch .


    I do have to defend FSX somewhat with regard to the endless tweaking though, frankly I did a lot more tweaking, optomizing, etc. trying to get FS9 to run well on the aforementioned Athlon XP machine, than I have with FSX running on this new machine. I had some issues getting anti-ailiasing working with my vid card, but that was a matter of finding the right settings with Nvidia Inspector. I had a few CTDs that were solved with Pete Dowson's FSUIPC fix, other than that it's been pretty painless.

    Jim



    i7 2600K @ 4.4 gHz | GA-Z68XP-UD3-iSSD | EVGA GTX580 | 8 Gb DDR3 @ 1866 mHz | 256Gb 6Gb/sec SSD (x2) | 1Tb WD Caviar 6Gb/sec | 27" LED Monitor | W7 Pro 64

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A..
    Posts
    668

    Default

    I hope this is not directed at me... I meant absolutely NO offence to anyone using previous versions...
    Mith, no the comments weren't directed at you and no offense taken. I guess I'm just suprised at all the energy people put into saying why they think their sim is best.

    Mitch
    Was born on the North Coast, where they coined the phrase that they still call "Rock-n-Roll"!!!
    Windows7 64-240 GB SSD-4GB RAM-3.33GHz Int.Duo E8600-GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB-22" Monitor-Saitek Yoke, trim wheel & switch panel-CH pedals-GFTQ6 throttle

  8. #28

    Default

    I have a new computer that will run FSX and I got FSX and the Constellation software combined for $20. I tried it out but it's just different enough that I don't want to spend a lot of time learning it. Someday I'll sit down and check out in it but when I want to really enjoy flying, instead of fooling around with the program I'll stick with 2009.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goatman24 View Post
    Mith, no the comments weren't directed at you and no offense taken. I guess I'm just suprised at all the energy people put into saying why they think their sim is best.

    Mitch
    Whew... glad to hear that

  10. #30

    Default

    I'll weigh in on this issue in a couple days. I've been running FSX for over 7 months now (started flying with FSX), spending countless hours of time and money trying to get AT LEAST 20 FPS with just REX and GEX and a couple payware planes and like a lot of you guys, flying into large airports is a slide show to say the least. After reading this post and seeing a few photos of what can be made of 2009, I think I'm ready to dip into the bank account and see what I can do with 2009. I'm interested to see if the performance difference really is that much greater.

    BTW im running a i7 2.2 with 8 GB of Ram and a 2 GB Video Card. I know it's not the best, but all im asking for is 20 FPS!

Similar Threads

  1. panels from previous versions with fsx
    By tocalloee1 in forum FSX
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-18-2006, 11:44 PM
  2. post your screenies from previous versions of FS
    By helldiver in forum MSFS Screen Shot Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-01-2005, 02:00 PM
  3. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 07-22-2004, 08:16 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-09-2003, 08:44 PM
  5. Why do you use SID/STARS when there's ATC?
    By Perixon in forum FS2002
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-28-2002, 08:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •