It's the number one burning question of our time. No, really. It is.
If you are a flight simulator enthusiast who is already using FS2004, and are considering upgrading to FSX... Or, if you are about to embark on your maiden journey into the wonderful world of flight simulation, both sets of virtual pilots must take into consideration the following factors that will help determine what version of Flight Simulator is best suited to their personal flying style and current, or future hardware requirements.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2004: A Century of Flight (FS9)
Pros:
-Requires modest hardware to run with high FPS and settings at max
-Only takes 3 to 4 gigabytes of hard drive space
-Has a vast library (thousands) of payware and freeware addons
-Backwards compatible with a lot of addons from Flight Simulator 2002
-Requires only one update that is still backwards compatible with previous addons
Cons:
-Graphically dated (2003). Low resolution textures, scenery, etc.
-User Interface not as polished or appealing as FSX
-Certain controls (default and custom) not as refined as FSX
The number one thing FS2004 has in its favor, even though it is listed as a con, is its dated graphics. Dated graphics do not require ultra high-end hardware to run fluidly with all visual and Air Traffic features at maximum. Users with mid-to-high end gaming computers should have no problems running FS2004 at maximum settings. This aspect is very important to flight simmers on a budget who want to fly, but can't afford the latest and greatest hardware.
For example, there are virtual pilots who can run FS2004 at maximum settings on an AMD 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) single core processor with a ATI X1950 Pro 256MB AGP card. This is modest to low-end hardware circa 2005, 2006 in comparison to what is currently on the market now.
Directly related to FS2004's low hardware requirements is the full game does not take up very much space on the hard drive once installed. FS2004's small footprint is good because it means less time will be spent spooling data from the hard drive to the RAM. Also, the obvious benefit is more space available on the hard drive for other applications and programs as well.
These two factors are why a lot of users have not switched to FSX.
Also, since FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run at high levels this makes it ideal for payware addons that require more CPU cycles to simulate the complex systems found on modern commercial jets like the Boeing 747, or Airbus 320. Payware aircraft addons from PMDG, and Wilco/FeelThere products will perform much better on FS2004 because of the increased processing overhead available compared to FSX that uses more CPU cycles for just rendering the virtual world alone.
So, if you are the kind of pilot who mostly wants to fly the "heavy iron" like the Boeing, Airbus, or Embraer commercial jets, I strongly suggest you either stay with FS2004, or purchase FS2004 along with FSX, and install it alongside FSX, for precisely this reason. In my experience, you will be much happier with the performance in the more realistic payware addons in FS2004 than you will be in FSX.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR X (FS10)
Pros:
-Graphically improved world with photo realistic rendering features
-Improved FDE for majority of aircraft (default and third-party)
-Improved control configuration (default and custom)
-Improved User Interface
-The most airports to choose from than previous versions of FS
-Structured missions for beginners and goal-oriented pilots
-DirectX 10 Preview mode for Windows Vista users
Cons:
-Requires high-end hardware to run at max, and even modest levels
-Large hard drive space requirement of 13 to 15 gigabytes
-Two Service Packs (SP) required; SP2 breaks backward compatibility with many addons made prior to SP2
-Smaller addon library compared to FS2004
The primary improvement FSX has over FS2004 is the photo realistic virtual world. Not only is it photo realistic, but it is more "alive" with moving cars on major highways, animals and even ferries and ships that run on real world routes and time tables. The visuals alone are worth the upgrade to FSX from FS2004... But they come at a very steep price (literally and figuratively) because of the hardware required to run the game at acceptable levels.
Virtual pilots already using FS2004, and those thinking about jumping into Flight Simulator for the first time should be forewarned FSX requires almost top-of-the-line hardware to run decently at high resolutions (1280x1024+)... And even this is not a guarantee because unlike FS2004, the performance of FSX varies drastically from system to system as I will discuss in later entries of this blog.
It should also be noted FSX is primarily designed for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight compared to FS2004. The improved terrain and water effects can only be appreciated at 10,000FT and below. This makes it ideal for pilots who like to fly GA (General Aviation) aircraft like Cessna, and other propeller planes close to the ground. Those thinking about upgrading to FSX from FS2004, and pilots new to flight simulator in general should consider what kind of pilot they are, or intend to be before they purchase FSX (and the Acceleration expansion), and purchase accordingly.
If they are completely new to MS Flight Simulator and flight simulation in general then FSX is probably the more visually appealing way to learn GA, but when they move to more complex aircraft (and this does not include the default jets in FSX) like those made by PMDG, or Wilco, then they might also want to have FS2004 installed along with FSX, for the reasons I discussed earlier about the complex addons performing much better in FS2004 due to its modest requirements.
I used to have both FS2004, and FSX installed simultaneously, but just recently decided to fly FSX exclusively. I came to terms with the fact I want the improved visual experience at the expense of lower frames per second.
The one major thing I do not like about FSX is SP2/Acceleration expansion breaks compatibility with some of my favorite third-party addons and renders them unusable. There is nothing I can do other than hope the manufacturer comes out with a patch to fix some of the issues SP2 caused. The good news is more and more manufacturers are finally addressing problems caused by SP2, and are slowly releasing fixes that make their products usable under SP2 again.
One of the other "pros" I want to discuss that is exclusive to FSX is FSX is the first version of Flight Simulator to have structured misisons as a primary focus. This is (was) a highly controversial subject in the flight simulation world because many flight simmers consider(ed) the missions a way for ACES Studios, and MS to "dumb down" the simulation aspects of the game, so it appeals more to the casual gamers and casual flight simmers.
I am indifferent to the missions. I completed most of them and while I do not love them, I don't hate them, either.
I think there is positive value for a beginner who is completely new to flight simulation in general because a majority of the missions (at the beginner level) are tutorials on the basics of how to fly. In this respect, I think they are long overdue because they take a pro-active approach to what used to be a "learn it yourself" method flight simulator always used prior to FSX. These tutorials give new pilots a solid foundation of how to properly taxi, takeoff, fly and land safely in a number of aircraft. The way they are structured is very logical as well. They start in very basic aircraft like a ultralight and then progress to commercial jets and beyond. Each mission/lesson builds upon the skills learned in the previous one and the final ones are like Checkrides that combine everything the virtual pilot should know up to that point.
The more advanced level missions (Intermediate and Expert Level) are more for entertainment purposes than anything else. They present interesting scenarios... Some with a wicked sense of humor like the "Area 51" shuttle mission... But veteran Flight Simulator pilots will probably do one or two out of curiosity, but then stick mostly with the Free Flight mode where they can plan their own routes, what aircraft they want to fly, weather conditions, time of day and year, etc.
So, to recap:
FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run a maximum levels. Therefore, this makes it ideal for flight simmers on a budget, and for virtual pilots who fly more realistic addons that simulate the more complex systems found on commercial jets (IFR) that require increased CPU cycles.
FSX is aimed at the VFR pilot. The improved virtual world can be photo realistic, but the improved visuals come at a steep price. High end (expensive) hardware is required and performance in more complex addons might suffer as a result of the added CPU overhead they require on top of the increased rendering cycles already being used for the improved visuals.
As suggested, there is no rule stating you can't have both FS2004, and FSX installed on the same computer. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope this brief guide has helped make your decision on which version to use more informed and possibly easier than it was before.
No comments:
Post a Comment