Switching from FS9 to FSX. Is it worth it?

[JonBuck]

Been devoted to Flt Sim 2004 since it came out 10 yrs ago. Tried FSX once when it was introduced but didn't like it. Now am wondering about the pros and cons of switching to FSX.

 

I enjoy recreating airports in FS9 from yesteryear (1940s 50s & 60s) much like those found in Cal Classics. So, are any of the FS9 utility add-ons like AFCAD, AI Flight Planner, Exclude Builder, SAMM, and the like, usable in FSX? Also can you use any of the aircraft intended for FS9 or does it require all new ones written exclusively for FSX?

 

Is FSX a completely different animal than FS9? Or are they so different in nature that you could have both of them installed?

 

Any comments, viewpoints, advice would be appreciated.

 

JonB

 

PS: FS9 lovers don't shoot me....I'm just asking! :rolleyes:

[jandjfrench]

Hi Jon,

Both FSX and 2004 can be installed with no problem; completely independent. You say you used it years ago so you may have the disc but if not and you'd like to check it out again there's a trial version here:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=5154

Most, if not all, FS9 aircraft are usable in FSX. There maybe older gauges that need to be replaced or textures that require modification. These fixes are usually relatively simple.

Most utilities, that I'm aware, have FSX counterparts or others that accomplish the same thing.

And many computers that run FS9 acceptably will struggle with fsx, with equivalent settings.

Up until a few months ago I had both simulators installed and once in awhile I would go into FS9 and found it rather "cartooney". Prior to FSX I never had this feeling so be warned.

Jim F.

[napamule2]

FSX is to FS9 as FS9 is to FS98. Huge difference all around. But if you have a 10 yr old system (ie:CPU) you won't enjoy FSX at all due to stutters and/or low frame rates, plus system crashes due to 'xyz' (video driver, slow ram, 5400 rpm HDrives, etc).

 

FSX is VERY CPU INTENSIVE (need speeds of 3.4 Ghz (passable if it's a newer 'matched' system) and best at 4.5 Ghz). The secret is a 'matched' system. You can't overclock a Celeron and expect 'results' with FSX. So,all it takes is MONEY. Good luck.

Chuck B

Napamule

[ussmidway]

If you have the PC to run it, I would say do it, and if you have room just leave FS9 installed also. I have both installed, because I love all the old propliners and CalClassics stuff. I fly them both, just depends on my mood.

I was in a similar situation as I had bought FSX years ago, but hadn't really used it. Now I really enjoy it, mainly because of the better default airports, and the boat/car traffic. Really adds to the immersion of GA flying for me.

[ScatterbrainKid]

FS2004 is like a beautiful woman, but FSX is a tad more beautiful..:)

I was quite happy with FS2004 for years, but then tried the FSX demo and liked the better default scenery rendering (especially trees) and other things, so I bought FSX Gold about 6 years ago and have stuck with it ever since.

But FSX can be a bit prima donna-ish, so just make sure your computer can comfortably handle her or she's likely to throw a tantrum.

[alverthein]

Unless you have a really good good computer and like to do the modern payware like PMDG Jets and manage the FMC and do not mind the unexpected freezes/crashes that occur with FSX....then go for it....if not be happy with FS 9...but if you have what I first said...then keep both and use both...and be a happy camper...I also agree with Scatterbrainkid in his post ...he said it better than I did...al v

[leuen]

There is no question about the fact that classic or vintage sceneries, and that's what you like to use further on, fit better with FS9 than FSX. These are two different worlds. I have P3D installed too, but I would never implement classic sceneries there. It's like flying on an other planet!

 

Bernard

[ScatterbrainKid]

The best bet is to bite the bullet and buy a new super-hot PC to end your troubles with sims and games once and for all. I forked out £1100 (1700 USdollars) for one early this year and it runs every high-end game I throw at it (including FSX) smooth as silk.

(We single guys can buy whatever we like without having to squeeze it past wifey, I might go in for a Thai bride next)..;)

 

My new superhot baby-

Case: ZAL Z3

PSU: cx600m

M/board: H87

Processor: I5 4670 3.4 Ghz

RAM: 16Gb 1600 ram

Hard drive: 240 Gb SSD

Graphics: GeForce gtx 770

Optical: DVDRW

O/S: Win 7 SP1 64-bit

Other: 1tb drive

Total price 1072 GB pounds

[NASTAR]

FSX is to FS9 as FS9 is to FS98. Huge difference all around.

 

I think you're being way too harsh on FS9, it's not that bad. I would compare it to Win XP when FSX is Vista, X is prettier but 9 feels more.....solid.

 

The main pro in X IMO is the fact that the world is actually round, you don't get loading screens if you fly at directly to the east or west like you do in FS9. The other thing is that addon developers are slowly but surely abandoning FS9. Also the water and trees look way better than in 9. Other stuff is a bit trivial, like jetways move and every airport has airport vehicles, more camera views like flyby and locked spot (both available in 9 with freeware addons) etc...

 

I have both FS9 and FSX installed (FS98 too!) but only use FS9 because my PC, frankly, sucks. Still I think that you have to put a lot of $$$ for X to run smoothly and look good, and the end result IMO is not that great of an improvement over FS9.

 

P.s As an FS9 lover I feel it my duty to inform you if you choose X you'll have my B-17 to deal with. :p

[mistercoffee1]

I held off on FSX until I had a PC with enough horsepower to run it, which was only this past January. My previous Pentium 4 3ghz did great with FS9, and we had a nice run together. Once I finally got an i5 and could run it past 4 ghz, I then purchased FSX while also keeping FS9 installed on the same system. I agree with everything posted above, and great analogies as well.

Verdict for me, I play FSX 99% of the time. It had more to offer, even with the quirks.

I fire up FS9 if I want to fly a plane that I don't have on FSX, like a Cessna 182.

[zswobbie1]

Good question...

I find that I'm flying my 2 versions of FS9, the normal one, & a second version, Golden Wings, most of the time.

FS9 just works. FSX, I find, is a pain.. you got to tweak he darn thing, you spend so much time going through all the different views to get the one you want, & it crashes.

 

I finally dumped FSX in favour of P3D, but still end up with FS9 most of the time.

Also, I did not want to spend a heap of cash on my PC. I'm running an i5, W7 64bit & 4GB RAM.

[ScatterbrainKid]

A glance at the "help me" posts around the FSX forum show that installing an addon plane or scenery or weather etc is often (but not always) the cause of problems because prima donna FSX decides it doesn't like it for some reason, but happily with forum help the problems can usually be solved..:)

[DominicS]

Been devoted to Flt Sim 2004 since it came out 10 yrs ago. Tried FSX once when it was introduced but didn't like it. Now am wondering about the pros and cons of switching to FSX.

 

I enjoy recreating airports in FS9 from yesteryear (1940s 50s & 60s) much like those found in Cal Classics. So, are any of the FS9 utility add-ons like AFCAD, AI Flight Planner, Exclude Builder, SAMM, and the like, usable in FSX? Also can you use any of the aircraft intended for FS9 or does it require all new ones written exclusively for FSX?

 

Is FSX a completely different animal than FS9? Or are they so different in nature that you could have both of them installed?

 

Any comments, viewpoints, advice would be appreciated.

 

JonB

 

PS: FS9 lovers don't shoot me....I'm just asking! :rolleyes:

 

Hi Jon,

 

Just thought I'd chime in here:).

 

You know, both simulators (if I'm honest) are getting on now and both are very much yesterdays tech. Saying that, if you have the hardware then you will see a marked difference between the two, but not to the extent that some would have you make believe.

 

Making the comparison: FS2004 to FSX is the same as going from FS98 to FS2004 is, in my opinion, just daft and counter-intuitive. Of course, by staying with FS2004 you'll miss out on all the very latest Orbx related add-ons and A2A aircraft (to name just a few), but there are still many fantastic add-ons which will make FS2004 look and feel great.

 

If you enjoy Australian scenery then you have the VOZ (freeware) add-on for FS2004 which was the forerunner to Orbx's impressive Australian scenery and is fantastic; if you like Alaskan flying, then there is Glacier Bay which is equally impressive and also freeware. Then there are the payware sceneries, Misty Fjords and Tongass, which are just breathtaking (highly recommended).

 

In fact, there are so many impressive add-ons for FS2004, that one just has to check out the file library here at FlightSim.com to see how popular this sim is.

 

If FS2004 works for you, and works well, then I'd stick with it. Saying that though, there's nothing to say that you can't test out FSX to see how it performs (with patches and tweaks).

 

At the end of the day (as I mentioned above) both simulators are getting on now, and it's only when you begin to use P3D or X-Plane that you realise how much so.

 

Simulating flight on your home PC has to be fun, and if FS2004 is fun, then why change? You know, there's always something that looks better, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily an all round better;)

 

Happy flying!!

 

Dom

[leuen]

Obvisouly it seems you didn't unterstood JonB's question. He asked whether he could use his backdated sceneries with FSX. So what Orbx, Glacier Bay, Misty Fjords and so should do in a backdated world? Make it sense to have classic sceneries with FSX and why? That's the question.

 

Bernard

[DominicS]

The OP states:

 

Now am wondering about the pros and cons of switching to FSX.

 

I gave him my opinion (whilst understanding the question).

 

Cheers

 

Dom

[alexzar14]

 

Making the comparison: FS2004 to FSX is the same as going from FS98 to FS2004 is, in my opinion, just daft and counter-intuitive. Of course, by staying with FS2004 you'll miss out on all the very latest Orbx related add-ons and A2A aircraft (to name just a few), but there are still many fantastic add-ons which will make FS2004 look and feel great.

 

Indeed there is more to do with FSX than one may have the time for, while FS9 was dead years ago.

 

FSX - 3 in one for me:

1. commercial airliners with awesome advance in VC modeling and graphics, and advances in FMS features are amazing. So are the Mega airport and FlyTampa etc sceneries for FSX, now they learned to do it without heavy performance impact.

2. Light commercial and business, from Caravan to Beech twins and bizjets (like Carenado) within the scenic regions of Alaska or tropics, awesome terrain and regional sceneries again.

3. General aviation, A2A, areal sceneries like fjords and etc...

 

I just started FSX and it seems I will be busy for years to come. As hardware progresses, so does the FSX experience, but it is only recently since we have started to see the hardware capable of FSX, so for me FSX has just born.

[JonBuck]

Thank you all very much for your comments, & suggestions.

 

Just to clarify something, I replaced my older CPTR a couple years ago with a Dell

XPS 8500, running Win7 64-bit, with Intel i7-3770, & a NAVIDIA GT630 video card. Last month my laptop died so I replaced it with an Alienware 14. Both have Navidia cards as the (even older) MS Train Simulator has even more querks and seems to run better with the GeForce cards. So, from all your comments I think FSX would run on both my machines.

 

Even though both are dated programs, I now understand that FS9 & FSX are two different creatures, but with some similarities. Both have their own querks and problems. And by now, more and more add-ons utilities and freeware items are being offered for FSX. That much is inevitable, I guess. But FS9 seems to still hold an attraction for many flight simmers. Me, too! I'm still in the 'prop' age and haven't flown any jets yet, (not even the earlier P-80 which I saw fly way back in 1945 as a 9-yr. old boy). Still lots of round-motor flying machines I haven't had the opportunity to fly on the sim. I fly my own (real life)Cessna18Q for the Coast Guard Auxiliary and dearly love flying the sim-version C-182Q at home when the weather has me grounded. On the sim it's always summer and CAVU.

 

Having said all that, methinks I'll dust off the old FSX disks which have been languishing on the shelf since it first came out, and give it a try. And..if I still don't like it for whatever reason, I can uninstall it and stick with the older FS9.

 

My only concern at this point is whether one interferes with the other when you have both installed on the same CPTR. Someone once complained that uninstalling FSX made FS9 run strangely. Does anyone know if that is a common problem?

 

So again, I'm very grateful for all your responses. If I run into problems, I'm sure I'll

be back again asking for more help. In the meantime....much obliged!!!

 

JonB :cool:

[StringBean]

My only concern at this point is whether one interferes with the other when you have both installed on the same CPTR. Someone once complained that uninstalling FSX made FS9 run strangely. Does anyone know if that is a common problem?

 

The two sims do not share any resources.

 

They can both happily exist on the same computer.

 

There is a known issue that uninstalling FSX will remove the FS9 registry entry. This is easily fixed.

 

Other than that they have no impact on each other.

 

peace,

the Bean