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

[Simul8er]

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.

Totally agree with that one, plus I have too much invested in FS9 to want to start all over again buying the same products for a new platform that doesn't perform nearly as well as the old one does. Thanks to smaller developers there are a constant stream of top quality new products for FS9 coming out all the time, and one only has to take a look at simmarket to see them shoot straight to the top of the best sellers list as soon as they come out. I will not be bullied into changing platforms by larger developers who have huge overheads just because it suits them not to provide FS9 products any more. I get sick of being told FS9 is dead by virtue of the fact that a big developers can't make 1000 or so sales on an FS9 product, I have money to spend and I'm more than happy to give it to the little guys who provide the products I want. I have a 4.8gig corei7, GTX680 setup that runs FS9 like you wouldn't believe, so there is absolutely no reason for me to change.

[Goatman24]

Boy, you really stike a nerve with the FS2004 folks whenever a post like this comes up which seems to be once a week. I had FS2004 and it's a great sim especially if you've got a sub-par computer or if you have a lot of money invested into add-ons. Personally, I wouldn't go back from FSX. FSX may not be that much better in your opinion but even you acknowledge, it is better.

Why is it people get so upset with a company because they make a lot of money (Jealousy maybe?). I see this inference with Microsoft all the time. It's simple, if they make a product people will buy, they'll make money. If not, it's their money they've invested in. Nobody's bullying anybody. If there's a market for it, it'll be made.

Microsoft decided to roll forward with "Flight". Now I've got a lot invested in FSX and don't like the direction "Flight" is going. So I won't buy it. (I should say use it since it's free until you want anything past Hawaii.) It's their decision and I'm fine with it. Maybe it leaves a void that someone else will fill in the future.

Mitch

[Jim Robinson]

I ran FS9 from the day it was released up until last summer on an old Athlon XP machine, it ran great and I had every addon imagineable. Hours and hours I spent in that beloved old sim. I never thought I'd say it, but since building the new computer in my sig, FS9 is a cooked goose for me. I'll always have it installed though, and once in a while I still do a flight. 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.

Jim

[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.

[HardCub]

Hey guys, I'm not upset (hope I didn't sound that way) ~ I'm not bashing FSX... I just still prefer FS2004 because it runs so solid, and now with my newer and more powerful system, OMG! it is truly a silky smooth experience. I can fly FS2004 with every thing jacked and it never falters. FSX performs very nicely with fairly high settings on the new system, but it will bog down if the online weather calls for overcast skies, or densely populated metro areas. Since I only fly with real-time online weather updates, and since my favorite scenery is the Orbx PNW scenery areas which are prone to overcast conditions on a regular basis in the real-world, my FSX bogs down frequently from the graphic load, even with my new system specs. And... I don't even have my AI traffic installed yet for FSX. I'm sure that will produce a "good hit" of some sorts.

I have invested just over USD $440.00 thus far in FSX-only software, so I DO think it is a nice simulator, even if I still prefer the older sim over the FSX platform.... I just still am not 100% sold on FSX yet. And @ this moment I seriously doubt I ever will be. IF Orbx ever recreates the same level of scenery details for my home state of North Carolina, and the Eastern part of the USA, then it will be a totally different story. But for now, I am content to keep flying my old favorite. Happy flying my friends!

[mith]

Boy, you really stike a nerve with the FS2004 folks whenever a post like this comes up which seems to be once a week.

I hope this is not directed at me... I meant absolutely NO offence to anyone using previous versions...

[ricardo_NY1]

FSX may not be that much better in your opinion but even you acknowledge, it is better.
Mitch

Allow me to put that into prespective.........FSX has things which I find desirable such as multiple visibility layers, but a Lamborghini stuck in third gear is going to get beaten out by a Toyota Celica. I invite any FSX user to shoot a video of our sims arriving into KJFK with AI at full blast using a good payware aircraft and we'll determine from there which is the better sim and which is the stuttering slide show.

[mith]

Allow me to put that into prespective.........FSX has things which I find desirable such as multiple visibility layers, but a Lamborghini stuck in third gear is going to get beaten out by a Toyota Celica. I invite any FSX user to shoot a video of our sims arriving into KJFK with AI at full blast using a good payware aircraft and we'll determine from there which is the better sim and which is the stuttering slide show.

I have photo scenery and typically fly 50 fps... but when I get close to KLAX... I go down to 20 which is very annoying....

[simmerdr]

Yes, such a discussion comes up often...in forums...in editorial letters to sim magazines etc...

I believe mith's original post wanted to know why (i.e. all the valid reasons) users use FS2004 rather than stir any kind of debate between the two platforms. So far, this thread has been very interesting, though...

I fall into the category of users as Jim's post below...except I probably experience a bit more screen stuttering with my (moderate) computer...especially near detailed airports while using complex FSX native aircraft...

I would like to add one thing (besides scenery) that has not been emphasized enough so far. It is the aircraft itself...e.g. the interior and exterior, which has improved significantly in the hands of some developers. Just to give one example, I remember, (little-known) Carenado used to ship FW aircraft with Abacus in the early days of FS2004 and look where they are now in terms of the marvellous GA aircraft they are regularly spinning out. I cannot think of another manufacturer which has taken full advantage of FSX capabilities as Carenado. Carenado's (FSX) GA aircraft [VC]s have become the gold-standard, which they could not have done w/ FS2004. The same goes true for premium jet sim manufacturers. In fact some show off their aircraft w/o any FSX scenery add-on...

So, depending on our interest ratio between scenery and aircraft, we will continue to lean towards one or the other (or both). Personally, I would like to stick to both too, but my logistics do not permit it...aka: my FS2004 computer with all the nice add-ons is in the storage.....just not enough time to do justice to both even if I can have both on the same computer...BTW, neither do I like to constantly tweak my FSX settings with the addition of new aircraft and scenery...

I ran FS9 from the day it was released up until last summer on an old Athlon XP machine, it ran great and I had every addon imagineable. Hours and hours I spent in that beloved old sim. I never thought I'd say it, but since building the new computer in my sig, FS9 is a cooked goose for me. I'll always have it installed though, and once in a while I still do a flight. 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.

Jim

[nospambob]

I have a slightly different reason. I've been using FS9 for years on an old Gateway.
I now have a new powerful quad 4 pc. I recently installed FSX, and it runs just fine.

Still, I prefer to practice instrument procedures in FS9 because it has better 2D cockpit support and I don't need the VC or the eye candy while in the clouds. I think FSX probably has better virtual cockpit support, but I rarely fly that way.