How many simmers still use fs2004?

[stvn]

I like to fly FS9 a lot more than on my older desktop than I do with FSX FSXSE and P3D installed on my newer (sarcasm, lol) pc.

 

When I was buying lots of payware planes way back in the day many that I did buy I did when a product was compatible with both FS9 and FSX...much like we see is the standard now with FSX and P3D payware -and freeware planes- nowadays.

 

Or maybe it's because flying FS9 on my older desktop somehow feels more nostalgic with no hiccups whatsoever even with them old payware goodies. On some days I just don't want to deal with the FSX/FSXSE/P3D stutters on my other pc flying hi-res payware planes...that's never been an issue with FS2004.

 

To the original poster asking the question asking how many of us simmers still use the old but trusted FS2004/FS9? I say 'thank you' for asking...and that question like FS9 will never go out of style imo.

[gdnow]

FS9 on Windows 10 for me!

[leuen]

As long as I will be able to create such tricky AI landings like here on summit of Mont Blanc, I will stay with FS9.

 

 

Bernard

[GKKnupper]

fs9 only and forever compared to this fs ....

[GKKnupper]

better graphics what a joke everything looks SO artificial in that FSX ..........

 

In AI I run 151 ORIGINAL airplanes, NOT the so called AI plane ONLY, without any PROBLEM, STUTTER and crashes !!

 

 

FSX is so ARTIFICIAL in Appearance and the AI traffic sucks , NOT one bit was fixed , YES there are 100 dreds of problems

in AI with the AI, NOT one was the FS9 problems.

 

I still do NOT understand why FSX was created !!

 

BEATS me ... forget the "importent and wonderful DDS texture "Improvement"

 

Sincerely

 

G. Kirschstein

[GKKnupper]

over 456 gb on my install ...

 

sincerely

 

G. Kirschstein

[GKKnupper]

@derryl737

 

Are joking Sir ... what a joke IF you know how to fly an real airplane than I do not understand your comment at all.

 

And last not the least the FSX graphics look ARTIFICIAL compared to the FS9 !!

 

sincerely

G. Kirschstein

 

gkcherry1@t-online.de

[GKKnupper]

100% FSX, the flight dynamics leaves FS9 in its dust.

 

see my comments on page 6.

 

I only can read your comment as big joke!

 

Anybody who can fly a REAL airplane can do the CFG & AIR files to represent a 100% behavior of any plane.

 

Sincerely

 

G. Kirschstein

[pzl 104]

Talk about thread resurrection. Did you realize that you replied to a 5 year old post?

 

Btw, your comment about designing flight models is 100% wrong.

[Skywatcher12]

Talk about thread resurrection. Did you realize that you replied to a 5 year old post?

 

This is a thread I think many enjoy bringing back.

 

A general comment, I notice a difference between flight sim users. FS9 users are very happy and content. We know what we have, we are totally happy with it, it's a joy to use.

Those with FSX and P3D's seem stressed! They are sick of the problems related around the sims and the problems appear to have taken the enjoyment out of flight simming for them.

 

The announcement of the new MSFS demonstrates this quite clearly. MSFS has been put on a pedestal before people have even had a chance to try it or read feedback from anyone. The FSX and P3D crowd have publicly trashed and gone uninstalling their old sims vowing to never look back.

 

These are unhappy people, angry people. I know myself, FS9 is so good I could easily and happily use it for the rest of my life. I don't "need" another sim. I look at MSFS objectively. Over at the other site I've literally been thrown out for this very reason. They are an intensely unhappy and frustrated group over there.

 

The thing is, FS9 is great! If the day ever did come that I would leave it, I certainly would not leave trashing my time with it as FSX/P3D users have been trashing their sims. It's been a delight to use and brought many, many years of enjoyment. I would have nothing but positive comments to make regarding my time with it.

 

It's good to see and read a thread like this. It's good to see people who enjoy and value a fantastic piece of software as FS9 is. I think our enjoyment greatly frustrates other users. I say sorry but bad luck to those users! lol

[pzl 104]

Sigh. That's like the people who are saying that the VW Beetle (the old, original one) is a great car. No need for a modern VW Golf. No joy, only stress with new cars. The Golf doesn't have more wheels than the beetle, etc.

Funny how many people are living in their own small world without even wanting to know what else is going on. A lot of wrong assumptions on your part.

[AmphibusAl]

FS9 most of the time. Still trying figure out how to covert all the wonderful scenery/aircraft of FS9 to FSX.

[zswobbie1]

If I may..There are actually many of us that are quite happy with FS2004, & do not feel the need to chase the holy grail. F$2004 works on any PC, no need to keep on chasing expensive hardware.

I have more scenery than the other sims have, especially detailed freeware local scenery. I also have aircraft that the others do not have. Remember, we are NOT lessor sims just because we dont fly PMDG & other, that are so-called 'training'planes.

FS2004 also allows me to have multiple installs, I have 8!! So I dont have any scenery conflicts, &, as my installs are themed, I have unique GUI's, scenery & planes. I have an Alaska install, Golden Wings, Vintage, Historical, Heritage, Ford Tri-Motor Project (REAllY great) & a couple of others.

 

FS2004 just works, & we can fly more than tweaking.

AS the late Garry Smith said, It's all about Facts, Fun & Fiction!!

 

By the way, yes, of course, I do have a variety of VW Beetles, old & newish, including a van, in my sim

[pzl 104]

FS2004 just works, & we can fly more than tweaking.

I don't know why most fs9 users believe that tweaking is necessary in FSX or P3D.

Except for the wideangleview entry I'm not using any tweaks in FSX and exactly zero tweaks in P3D.

[Skywatcher12]

Sigh. That's like the people who are saying that the VW Beetle (the old, original one) is a great car. No need for a modern VW Golf.

 

Yes...sigh...lol

 

Let's clear this up once and for all. I'll stick with your VW analogy.

 

I am driving a 66 Beetle. You are not driving a 2020 Golf. You are driving a 68 Beetle if you are using FSX. The cars are same generation, very little difference between features and appearance. However, the 66 Beetle runs like a dream, never breaks down and uses little fuel. The 68 Beetle runs rough, constantly breaks down and you're forever filling it up with juice.

 

This sums up FS9 v FSX. The car nut will always understand it is best to buy the 66 and not touch the 68 Beetle.

 

Back to the flight sims. I can tell you I have a decent PC, tonnes of add-ons payware and freeware for FSX and the ONLY reason I opt to use FS9 is because it is better and it has better visuals.

 

I'm running an i7 8700K CPU. Without overclocking and running at 3.7GHz, there is no way in the world I can make FSX look better than my FS9. In FS9 at 3.7GHz I can run any add-on under any conditions (eg bad weather) and never drop below what I deem a workable 25fps.

 

These workable frame rates are not possible at 3.7GHz with FSX whilst running a sim that will visually beat FS9. It's not even close. I have certainly tried. All those people running 3.7GHz CPU's or less and who are using FSX, yes, I think they are totally out of their minds! lol

 

There is still not a PC out there today that can max out FSX with sliders fully up and system intensive add-ons installed. FSX is likely the only game from 2006 that cannot be maxed with a top end modern PC. If FSX were a car, you would term it a lemon!

 

FSX is a battle against stutters and fps (Car analogy: running rough), VAS (Car analogy: constantly breaks down) and always needing better hardware (Car analogy: Always needs more fuel).

 

You would need a 6GHz CPU to achieve performance at a level equivalent to how you can run FS9 with a 3.7GHz CPU. A 6GHz doesn't exist and anything at 3.7GHz or less, you are using a far inferior sim to FS9 imo. Maybe close to 4.5-5GHz with FSX and you could start pushing a little ahead of FS9 but even then, you will still be battling stutters, fps and VAS with certain add-ons and conditions. How is FSX better???

 

When a 6-7GHz CPU is released, yes, FSX will be a great sim except you will still have to deal with VAS! In FS9 we can fly 6 hours with a great looking sim and it does not crash. FSX will NEVER be able to achieve this.

 

FS9 is the best sim atm. If people can't see this so be it. I'm not the one battling away with all the issues, poor performance and poor visuals. If people want to drive the lemon, they are the ones that will have to put up with it. Myself, being a car nut, I'll take the 66 and give them a big wave when I see them stuck on the side of the road as I drive by. lol

Edited April 19, 2020 by Skywatcher12

[pzl 104]

FS9 is the best sim atm.

You've forgot to mention that it's the best sim for YOU and that this applies just to YOU in your limited/small world.

[zswobbie1]

I don't know why most fs9 users believe that tweaking is necessary in FSX or P3D.

Except for the wideangleview entry I'm not using any tweaks in FSX and exactly zero tweaks in P3D.

 

Many years of tweaking both FSX & P3D makes me believe that it's required. Easy to believe that, with experience.

Mark is quite correct with his statements & experience.

[pzl 104]

A lot depends on your equipment. Again, I don't tweak FSX or P3D, I don't have any performance problems and I'm definitely not the only one.

[Skywatcher12]

A lot depends on your equipment. Again, I don't tweak FSX or P3D, I don't have any performance problems and I'm definitely not the only one.

 

Without knowing a thing about your system, I can tell you that is not the truth! Every single person on this planet running FSX will have performance issues running certain add-ons. Any other statements are simply not the truth. lol

 

My limited small world applies to the entire world as I have tested my statements, tested them on a far better system than most people are running FSX on.

 

Here is one example. Landing at Imagine Simulations Atlanta using iFly 737 in both sims.

In FS9 I can do this with the worst weather, all airport features on and if I lock the sim at 25fps, fps will not move from the locked value at any point. 25fps stays solid as a rock.

In FSX this cannot be achieved. At this particular fps hungry airport, even with clear skies and airport features turned off and FSX settings turned down, 25fps STILL can't be maintained everywhere! lol

 

In FSX, half my airport won't even be there because I have turned off so many features in the configuration to get acceptable fps and smooth sim. The differences with this airport in FS9 and FSX are incredibly minimal to begin with. When you have to turn FSX's settings down and then the airport's settings down in order to run it, it turns into a no contest. The FS9 visuals leave FSX for dead.

 

This is just one example. It is like this for everything. I really don't know why people run FSX, I really don't. They obviously don't compare apples with apples. They just assume FSX must be better because it is newer. They turn FSX settings down and think they must still be beating the older FS9. Fact is, they absolutely are not. With a system like mine, it is not possible to beat FS9 visuals and have a steady and smooth sim.

 

Until much faster CPU's are available, FSX is a lemon and as stated, no matter how fast CPU's become, you will always have to deal with VAS. I can take off in the worst weather and then come into Atlanta in the worst weather after a 6 hour flight and land in FS9. You will never be able to do this in FSX.

[pzl 104]

You can call me a liar and FSX a lemon as long as you want, write pages and pages about fs9 being THE sim, it's still only your very personal, obviously very limited and largely incorrect POV.

As usual, once people are running out of arguments, they start to get personal.

 

I'm out.

[lnuss]

Without knowing a thing about your system, I can tell you that is not the truth!

Why would that not be the truth? Don't you think it is possible that he isn't running the things that give you trouble, or maybe is happy running them at less than max settings? And perhaps he stays away from the big cities where performance is hurt worse than many other places? Or maybe he doesn't have to have 60 fps everywhere in the sim, finding 15-20 to be just fine FOR HIM.

 

I can tell you that my 10 year old machine runs FSX with few problems in the areas I want to fly, and that's with ALL of ORBX in North America installed, but I also don't run with max settings. You seem to think that everyone wants to run it like you want to run it. Perhaps YOU would have problems with FSX on his machine, but that doesn't mean that HE does.

 

Every single person on this planet running FSX will have performance issues running certain add-ons. Any other statements are simply not the truth.

 

Why call folks liars? There might be performance problems IN YOUR EYES if it were run THE WAY YOU WANT TO RUN IT, but that doesn't mean that everyone views things as you do. pzl 104 obviously doesn't see a problem, and that's true of many of us. None (or at least very few) of us are lying, rather just viewing things from a different perspective. You need to learn to understand that there ARE INDEED other viewpoints that are just as valid, just as truthful as your viewpoint is.

 

Certainly YOUR point of view that so far ONLY FS9 can do what you want is a very valid viewpoint FOR YOU, but others have a different (or many different) point(s) of view that ARE EQUALLY VALID FOR THEM!

 

So stop being so narrow minded, and back off and accept that not everyone views things as you do, and those others also have very valid points of view. They have as much of a right to their viewpoints as you do to yours.

 

Note, too, that personal attacks (calling someone a liar, among other things) are frowned on by the folks running this board, such as Nels.

[zswobbie1]

You can call me a liar and FSX a lemon as long as you want, write pages and pages about fs9 being THE sim, it's still only your very personal, obviously very limited and largely incorrect POV.

As usual, once people are running out of arguments, they start to get personal.

 

I'm out.

 

LOL... Is this not getting personal?

 

Obviously NOT an FS'9er. FS9'ers are the most respectful of all simmers here!!! Gotta be a frustrated FSX'er.

[leuen]

Please participate, as it is important that software designers know what we simmers need.

That's still the initial thread ... So please respect opinions and reasons of those who wants to keep FS9 alive.

 

Hateful comments don't help us further. We just are asking for more support. That's all. So let those scenery and aircraft designers do their job. Like f.i. Roger Wensley, who has done a tremendous amount of Alaskan sceneries for FS9. And thanks to all who still wants keeping pleasure with this very old simulator.

 

BTW And curiously you won't find unpleasant comments on the specialized site related to CFS1 ...

 

Bernard

Edited April 20, 2020 by leuen

[Skywatcher12]

Why would that not be the truth?

 

Oh please, sorry, I keep forgetting we are living in the era of complete volatility like never before yet then go and mask/hide it all behind morals and ethics.

 

The guy clearly came here to challenge FS9 users and start a FS9 v FSX debate. He challenged several posts several times in a very hostile manner.

 

I think it is safe to assume if you compare sims, you make comparisons with add-ons. At no point did he mention a default sim. He just made claim FSX is better and FS9 is an old VW. If you are going to keep challenging people, expect responses and don't sook when you get a response otherwise don't start anything in the first place! lol

 

My comments all stand and apply as to which is the best sim and why.

 

If people have a very specific reason to use FSX so be it. Let's be realistic, most don't have a specific reason and use FSX because they think they are getting the best visuals and a better flight sim over FS9. Sorry, I clearly explained at what point they don't and no, there is nothing wrong with my system.

 

I didn't directly call him a liar. Let's keep a little perspective here before we hide behind morals and ethics. The comments he made several times were incredibly patronizing to those members he directed them at. If in return someone has turned around and said he is not telling the truth, oh my, how terrible, you can call that pretty much even. I would personally still give him the "insult" lead myself.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Skywatcher12

[lnuss]

In other words, no one's opinion or viewpoint matters except yours. We don't have freedom of thought or speech...