Is 2004 better than 2002

[Holmes_Fans]

How much of a difference is there between FS 2004 and 2002?

[Hyperion2]

Some folks will tell you there isn't much of a difference.

[Springer6]

The big difference is in the scenery ( a lot more realistic) and the very big difference is the improved realism of the clouds and weather especiall the real world weather ( several times more realistic than 2k2pro.

The GPS and maps are also a lot better.

I cannot now fly in 2k2 pro having got used to FS9.

Downside is that you need a good graphics card ( with DX9 to get water reflections in FS9) and there is an increased hit on frame rates, but not as much as all that.

[JBaymore]

Keep in mind that fs2004 taxes ALL parts of the machine if you want to try to get all the goodies running that Microsoft advertises it is capable of.  It needs more than just a good graphics card if you want to run all the details and effects and sound and light sources and so on set at "full" and set the AI traffic at 100 percent and such.

You can always turn stuff down to improve "flyability" as to stutters and framerate... but that kinda' defeats the purpose doesn't it  ;).

It is WAY better than FS2002 Pro if your machine will run it at high levels.

Ignore the absurd "minimum specifications" printed on the box.  That is a total joke.

best,

.....................john

[Fozzer]

Having purchased all the Flight Sims from FS '98 onwards, I think the biggest step-up was from FS 2000 to FS 2002.
I now run FS 2004, but FS 2002 still enjoys a slot in my hard drive when I need a reminder of just how good it was... ...!
For anyone with a low-end machine it can't be beaten....
...and for all those with a high-end machine....
...it's still pretty fantastic... ...!
LOL...!

Cheers all...!

Paul...cuddling his copy of FS 2004.....and FS 2002...!!

[Saitek]

Straight answer - yes. it should be obvious - but then some day Microsofts Combat 3 is not as good as the previous version.

Anyway, with improved ATC, better graphics and more realistic texturing with beautiful weather/clouds/sky textures FS9 is really an improvement. However, if one is to enjoy it one MUST have a good computer and graphics card. If not - enjoy FS2002.

[Boomtown Rat]

That's it, i'm coming clean.  I still use FS2002 Pro.  I got FS2004, tried it, and it wouldn't run, so I just get FS2002 Pro.  I don't mind at all, I have a lot of really good scenery (UK, NZ, Australia, Europe, and more.)  And plenty of really good planes (almost all FS2004 planes i've tried with FS2002 have worked, except for the A380 by Robert Versluys (SP?).

[Saitek]

Why didn't it work?

[Rocket_Bird]

Id say 2004 is a nice addition.  It has all the basics, such as taxi-signs and stuff.  It can be upgraded quite a bit to become the sim that you want.  

[Boomtown Rat]

Why didn't it work?

If you were referring to me, it's because I didn't have a 3D acceleration card.  My computer isn't bad, I have a lot of good games that run on it fine (Battlefield 1942, Civilization III: Conquests.).  But no 3D accel. card means no FS2K4.

[microlight]

I agree with Fozzer - Fs2000 to 2002 was a step change, while 2004 is a series of improvements. Good improvements (clouds, weather, ground textures etc.) but improvements. I run both 2004 and 2002 Pro on my machine because there are some planes that I have that just won't display properly in 2004 (mainly the insides of engines! Anybody know how to fix this?) so I keep 2002 active for flying those.

However, I have to say that most of my flying now is 2004, especially since against all the odds, and the majority of the comments that you see here in these forums, 2004 runs smoother on my machine than 2002 Pro does, with the same (or higher) settings. Strange but true.