FS9 basic question

>


All I can say is that the Amazon reviewers must have been unable to compare
the two versions directly. I think the problem is that the sims are getting
so good nowadays, that it is sincerely difficult to make any dramatic
improvements over the previous ones which are immediately obvious. However,
FS9/2004 is a great deal better in many subtle ways from FS2002, although it
has taken some users a while to spot what they are. This has been discussed
exhaustively in this NG for the last few months. If you are new to the group
then in a nutshell, all I can affirm is, buy FS2004, you won't reget it if
you are a keen simmer with a lot of time you wish to spend on the hobby. If
you are only mildly interested, then stick with FS2002 which is a good
product also. Nevertheless, I personally have had a lot more fun out of the
extras in FS9; so much so that I have uninstalled FS2002 and would never
bother with it again.
Your set-up will take the new sim, but will not support every activity such
as severe weather, as well as you might wish.

Quilljar,

Many thanks for the informative reply.

"Quilljar" <stay@home.today> wrote in message
news:c2f1i3$ddo$1@titan.btinternet.com...
compare
getting
However,
it
discussed
group
If
the
such

Yeah well... All I have heard in this newsgroup is mostly praise about FS 2004. And I own FS2, 3, 5.1, 98, and 2002. And I thought why not 2004? Well the first 2 days were hell! As this is what it looked like after about an 1 hour after the install process.

http://www.sysmatrix.net/~wolffsoft/misc/fs/SiS315E.jpg

And it had taken me about two days going from the newest video driver to the oldest. And that helped somewhat, but it got worse with the oldest video card driver that I could find. Then I went back up again and I finally got it to work just fine. Display wise anyway.

Weird thing was, all FS versions were working just fine until FS 2004 tried to run. Some bad mouth FS98... well out of all of the versions, I really like FS98 as one of the best versions ever! Super FPS and the graphics isn't all that bad. But the feeling of realism is all still there. In fact, it is the hardest to fly under some aircraft (which is more realistic). And you can pop up the instrument panel in chase mode. FS 2002 or 2004 won't do this! Remember I don't own FS 2000 and this version probably doesn't either.

There are lots of nifty stuff under FS 2004 though. As we hear about the signs at the airports and all. Yes this is really great and I love this new feature. As I was always always getting lost at unfamiliar airports before. But not anymore. Of course, the graphics are the best we have seen yet from MSFS.

Although the RC flight simulator called RealFlight G2 still has it beat and offers far better frame rates (like 5 times better). Although nothing on it is actual airports or scenery (but it looks far better). But this is a model radio control flight simulator. And while it allows full scale modification, there is no real world areas to fly under. I actually fly real RC planes too. So I like the RC advantage too.

So what I am saying is basically falls under two categories. Either you want to fly like real life or sight see. I, unfortunately like both. But both isn't possible yet as far as I can tell. So you must have enough versions to satisfy all of your needs. So owning FS 2004 isn't a total loss or anything. As it serves a purpose. Although it favors on the sight seeing side if you ask me. As it is the worst version ever for FPS that MS has ever released (although this is to be expected, no?).

Some claim that FS 2004 (and sometimes FS 2002) is very accurate. Well sometimes it is and sometimes it is awful! Like both 2002 and 2004 display at the end of the runway at KIMT as water defying gravity. I actually flew in there once and FS98 is more realist than FS 2002 or FS 2004 is. And the town (Iron Mountain) just east of the airport is like a population of 15,000. But no MS FS ever show anything like this at all! There is nothing that shows anybody actually lives there.

So I don't know what you are looking for SpDigby, but I myself have lots of mixed opinions. And I will probably do so in the future as well. But I can tell you that newer isn't always better.

Bill



"SpDigby" <noreply@virgin.net> wrote in message news:GnJ2c.2771$54.2640@newsfe1-win...

Quilljar,

Many thanks for the informative reply.

"Quilljar" <stay@home.today> wrote in message
news:c2f1i3$ddo$1@titan.btinternet.com...

"Bill Wolff" <wolffsoftnospam@nospamnetzero.net> wrote


That is one perfectly clear way the Flight Simulator maker could improve
the sim, instead of generating fake scenery, Microsoft could do it right.

And to the sheep. Please don't give me this "well, it would cost money"
because Microsoft has a solid desktop computer software monopoly with 80%
profit margins and $50,000,000,000 (fifty billion) USD in the bank.
Microsoft can afford to improve the genre substantially over what it is
right now.