Hello friends,
Finally I made a decision on What game to follow. Some comparisions I've made entre Which game Should I choose and here Are some points ..
- Textures and overalls graphics: FSX FS2004 beats in textures and graphical scene. FSX can read bigger textures (4096x4096 pixels) which are 4 times bigger than FS2004 textures (1024x1024 pixels) so HD repaints with much more detail can be done. As also REX can load those HD textures.
From my opinion I would use 1024 textures because in FSX you can't allow a lot of these textures, specially for clouds which will make the frames to drop (with my PC specs)
Talking about the textures, the ground textures in FSX looks excellent, even without an addon, so if you want to look FS2004 simmilar to FSX you should use addon sceneries. So it can be almost equal to FSX in these terms of ground textures.
-Airport addons: FSX will eat much more FPS than FS2004 so if we sum to this the big and detailed airports the framerate goes down a lot (for example, Framerate isn't the same on Aerosoft Heathrow for FSX than for FS2004, but you still get good details in FS2004). So in this case, you can have the same detail in the airports as FSX (not the quality of the textures though) but with less framerate impact.
-Autogen: You can use more autogen in FS2004 than in FSX, why? Because of the Framerate impact. FSX doesn't allow me to have some buildings there and the framerate drops a lot compared to FS2004, but the most important is that you will not stop looking the texture quality of the buildings or trees while you are approaching your airplane to the runway, so the difference of texture quality here is less important. Even you can use reduced textures for FS2004 as also for FSX.
-Some other things that were decisive in my decision was the airport addon scenery. With FSX and LEMD I just simply can't play... with the default F18 I get 4 FPS so I can't imagine with PMDG 747. Also there are a lot of Japanese airports that aren't made for FSX, and I usually like Japanese or asiatic liveries, so the fact that not to have those airports is important for me.
Overall... FSX has more quality on textures and details, but the main problem is that you can't use them... in FS2004 you can have great details, normal quality textures and still play with good framerate.
Many addons are made for FSX only these days... my opinion is that they are wrong. I've seen the new PMDG 737 pictures with a poor graphical environment on mountains and ground textures... so you have a great detailed airplane with a poor detail on the ground and big impact in FPS in big airports.
For me and my PC specs FS2004 is more balanced.
So I'll see if I can solve those errors I had, and hopefully I'll be back with the repaints.
Today a new Flight test will begin. Hopefully it goes well.
Finally I decided what game to follow. I made some comparisons between the two games to choose from and here are some points ..
- The textures and graphics in general: FSX FS2004 wins in terms of textures and the scene graph. FSX can read larger textures (4096x4096 pixels), which is 4 times larger than in FS2004 (1024x1024 pixels) which can be repaints in high definition with more detail. REX also can carry high definition textures for clouds.
From my point of view I would use 1024 textures in FSX and can not afford these textures, especially for clouds that greatly limit the FPS (with specifications of my PC)
Speaking of textures, soil textures in FSX are excellent, even without add-ons, so if you want to have similar FS2004 to FSX to use addons. Therefore, it can be almost equal to FSX in these terms of soil textures.
Addons for airport eats FSX FS2004 FPS much so if we add to this the major airports and details, the framerate drops significantly (for example, the frame rate is not the same for Aerosoft Heathrow FS2004 FSX, but you can still get good detail in FS2004 with better FPS). So in this case, you have the same detail at airports and FSX (not the quality of the textures though), but with less impact on framerate.
-Autogen: You can use more in FS2004 autogen in FSX, why Why? Due to the impact on FPS. FSX will not let me have some buildings there and the framerate drops are higher compared to FS2004, but the most important thing is not going to look at the quality of the textures of buildings or trees, while it is approaching its plane to the track so that the difference in texture quality is less important here. You can even use small textures for FS2004 as well as for FSX.
"Some other things that were instrumental in my decision was the scene with airports. With FSX and LEMD just can not play ... with the default F18 I have 4 frames per second, so I can not imagine with the PMDG 747. Also There are a lot of Japanese airports are not made for FSX, and usually I like Japanese and Asian liveries, so the inability to dispose of those airports is important to me.
In general ... FSX has more quality in the textures and details, but the main problem is that you can use ... in FS2004 you can have nice details and textures with normal quality and still play with a good frame rate.
Many addons for FSX only are these days ... My opinion is that they are wrong. I've seen the new pictures of PMDG 737 with a graphical environment in the mountains and poor soil textures ... Why why fly the plane if it can not have details on the ground (not to mention at airports)?
For me and my PC specifications, FS2004 is more balanced.
So I'll see if I can fix the errors I had, and I hope to be back with the repaints.
Today I'll make a test flight in FS2004, hopefully no errors.
Guillem.
0 comments:
Post a Comment