Why bother with a FS 2006?

[A/SGT.Mav316]

I get news letters from various payware and freeware sites that I frequent. I notice how developers are creating amazingly stunning aircrafts, local Scenery, and environment enhancers for FS2004.

Is it just me but it seems that Microsoft sells technology and not really much of an upgrade of Flight Simulator. I mean we got FS9 in 2003 or earlier right! Just from taking a look right here at the freeware and payware screenshots. FS 2004 is the ultimate Flight Simulator.

But you know what I said that about FS 2000 and FS 2002. But it seems they have just gave developers much better tools to work with to create a more intensly realistic flight sim. So I think it is fair to say that Microsoft should relax with these upgrades and just watch and see how developers enhance their product.

I am just glad Microsoft doesn't put a lot of work into their Flight Sims. Can you imagine how much FS9 would have costed if it had all the quality payware and freeware addons packaged with it!

[hatter]

Well, hardware is getting better, and we can run better graphics more efficiently if MS were to release a DX-9c or above based MSFS.

Payware/freeware developers would have an easier time of making things look good and have the possibility of making them look even more stunning.

The one thing they need to address is the relatively low quality (and resource hoggingness) of the VC. I think big, crisp VCs should replace 2D panels once and for all (I just bought a copy of LOMAC, and the thing is beautiful and runs like a breeze).

[Saitek]

Yay! It's another FS2006 thread! Where's my list?

[Tweek]

Yay! It's another FS2006 thread! Where's my list?

#41 I believe!

[Saitek]

That's correct.

[beefhole]

(I just bought a copy of LOMAC, and the thing is beautiful and runs like a breeze).

If you have the single most monstrous machine on the planet. (LOMAC is a SERIOUS hog)

I'll just reiterate what I've said several times before, relating to Mav's point.  M$ has absolutely no reason to truly enhance the core game when they've got people who will do it, possibly even better than they could, for free (or for a smaller amount of money).  There's no point in them putting in the dev time and money if it's just gonna be put in there by somebody else anyway.

So I would agree Mav

[Jakemaster]

I was getting kind of "i want fs2006", but then something amazing happened.  Bill Lyons released all of his payware as freeware, and came out with golden wings 3.  Its almost like golden wings 3 is a better flight sim.  The ground textures are so much better than fs9, the clouds are better, and the water is amazing.  SO I have atleast another year before I start begging for fs2006

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

I am satisfied with FS9....besides, the more advanced FS gets, the more powerful machine you will have to get....I highly doubt FS10 will on anything lower than a 3Ghz processor......

[JBaymore]

I am satisfied with FS9....besides, the more advanced FS gets, the more powerful machine you will have to get....I highly doubt FS10 will on anything lower than a 3Ghz processor......

For everything that is supposedly promised on the box and in the advertising fs9 doesn't really run well on anything less than a 3 gig machine!  

best,

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

[Chris E]

anyone know when 2006 will be released?  like christmas time?   I can hope for a good christmas present of it

[alrot]

Yay! It's another FS2006 thread! Where's my list?

i hope by that release i already has saved enough money to buy a new pc,64bit

[Jakemaster]

I just got a little laugh:

According to the tin for FS9, here is what you need
with windows XP: 128MB RAM
Processor: 450MHz
Hard Drive Space: 1.8 GB (ha! My 2 installations take up close to 20)
Video Card: 8MB/3D (yeah, bs.  My integrated 128 X200 is alot better than that, and it barely does enough)


Now, do you know what I just realized.  Simmers probably have the best computers in the world.  All of these people who play counter strike and such don't really need really good computers.  

[JBaymore]

[quote]I just got a little laugh:

According to the tin for FS9, here is what you need
with windows XP: 128MB RAM
Processor: 450MHz
Hard Drive Space: 1.8 GB (ha! My 2 installations take up close to 20)
Video Card: 8MB/3D

[A/SGT.Mav316]

The one thing they need to address is the relatively low quality (and resource hoggingness) of the VC. I think big, crisp VCs should replace 2D panels once and for all (I just bought a copy of LOMAC, and the thing is beautiful and runs like a breeze).

I agree that they should do away with the 2d panel and use the resources to just create a more detailed VR cockpit for all aircraft models. But other then the other part about better hardware making it easier to create better and more stunning addons. I have to agree with you on that as well. Just look at how stunning FS2004 aircraft as well as scenery has gotten!

I just hate having to scrap the older version with the new one and when you try to run both on the same machine, it is like your computer keeps running into errors with the older version because it likes the newer one. My case with trying to run FS2002 and Fs2004 on the same PC!

[legoalex2000]

Well, hardware is getting better, and we can run better graphics more efficiently if MS were to release a DX-9c or above based MSFS.

Payware/freeware developers would have an easier time of making things look good and have the possibility of making them look even more stunning.

The one thing they need to address is the relatively low quality (and resource hoggingness) of the VC. I think big, crisp VCs should replace 2D panels once and for all (I just bought a copy of LOMAC, and the thing is beautiful and runs like a breeze).

well luckly Directx 9c is now available, i just got it today.

www.microsoft.com/directx

Ramos