Why FS9 over FSX?

[Mafoo]

Now, based on the new information I would suggest FS 2004.

By default FSX is very CPU intensive and was never programmed for Macs even under bootcamp. The demo might give you an idea.

The mac is just an intel based PC. If you run windows on it natively, there is nothing different then windows on any other manufactures computer with the same collection of components.

Oh, and I did install the demo. Was hard to fly with just a mouse, but I was able to put everything on the highest setting, set the rez to 2560x1440, take off, and the fps never left 20 (it was limited to 20).

So it will run the base game just fine. I think what will give it problems, is whatever add ons I chose to add.

[JSkorna]

OK, nice!

[Wing_Z]

So it will run the base game just fine. I think what will give it problems, is whatever add ons I chose to add.

Well, the "base game" (both FS2004 and FSX) is just that: pretty basic.
Adding things to FSX will run you out of headroom pretty quickly, and you will have to start backing off the sliders to keep up performance.
The moment you have to do that, any graphical advantage FSX may have, is gone.
That's where FS2004 comes into its own.
Many users have computers that *could* run FSX, but choose FS9 because it allows virtually unlimited expansion without compromise.
It will just get better and better.

[Mafoo]

Well the good news is the software is the least expensive part of the setup. So if I find fsx is not working for me, I can just get fs9

[jmiked]

Thanks everyone.

I have a mid 2010 27" iMac with an i7 2.93 and 16Gig of ram. The only limiting factor, is my video card is a Radeon 5750 HD with 1 Gig of ram.

Not all that fast by todays standards, but very fast by FSX launch standards. I could see possibly running into issues with high quality scenery add ons I suspect (provided that's not just CPU intensive), but for now, I should be good.

You might want to take a look at X-Plane 10 for a Mac. I say that as someone who regularly runs FS9, FSX, and X-plane 10. I run an over-clocked quad-core 3.4Ghz Win7 machine with a good graphics card and FSX can slow down quite a bit after a few add-ons.

There's a demo of X-plane available. Just a thought.

Mike

[Mafoo]

I gave the demo a try. Seemed nice and all.

My only concern is the TrackerIR 5 does not come with OSX drivers. There is a 3rd party tool driver is suposed to work well, so I will try it out. Also there are so many more planes for FSX. I want the exact planes I plan to fly durring my training.

Oh, and a quick question (kind of off topic, but it applies to this thread).

If you pick one plane over another, are the flight dynamics accurate? I realize a small plane will fly different then a large one, but for example, will an Cessna 150 fly differently then a Cessna 172? If so, are the flight dynamics any better/different in FS9 vs FSX?

[tgibson_new]

The flight dynamics themselves (i.e. the equations used to generate the dynamics from the AIR file and CFG file) are virtually identical in both sims. That said, some GA flyers state that FSX gives a more realistic interpretation of those dynamics - i.e. it feels more like you are moving through a dynamic air mass. Airliner flyers wouldn't probably notice that very much.

Hope this helps,

[MoeWoodworth]

Mafoo. As for realistic flight dynamics you might be better off buying third party aircraft or downloading free ones from here. The default aircraft such as the Cessna 172SP are ok but once you try say a Carenado Cessna 172N you will be blown away how much of a different feel they have.

Moe