Simviation Forums

Question folks...
On the download pages (something I have noticed ever since downloading at Simviation..) with each ac offered for download,in its title,there's the symbol " > " . Here is an example of what I mean.. (Category: FS2002 > Military) .
The question is,...does that symbol mean that this ac will work in FS2002 and up (ie., FS2002,FS9 and FSX) ? If this is the case,I have missed trying some nice ac.I fly FS9 .

No, it's just part of the "outline" structure of the site: Site > page > subpage > specific location

stephan wrote:Question folks...
On the download pages (something I have noticed ever since downloading at Simviation..) with each ac offered for download,in its title,there's the symbol " > " . Here is an example of what I mean.. (Category: FS2002 > Military) .
The question is,...does that symbol mean that this ac will work in FS2002 and up (ie., FS2002,FS9 and FSX) ? If this is the case,I have missed trying some nice ac.I fly FS9 .

You are PARDONED, Sir: I am by far more ignorant...

The ">" is just the convention for designating what classification the aircraft belongs to, like "Prop", "Civilian", Ultra light".... They could have listed them as "FS9/Military", "FSX-Civilian", or "FS2002:Prop", or whatever.

As far as "upward compatibility", if I remember right some, if not most, of the FS 2002 aircraft work just fine in FS9, for the most part. There used to be a "Compatibility" page on the download pages that went into more detail as to which versions were upwardly compatible, but I can't seem to locate it any more.

Thanks folks for the replies. On the issue of fs 2002 and FS9 being compatible,I have found that many of the FS2002 ac do show up,but are missing the landing gear and stand suspended in mid air. Were it not for that flaw,I'd have several of the FS2002 ac as well. Started out with FS2002 and went to FS9 later. Had plenty of nice looking fs2002 ac then,but sadly,they dont show the ger when I load them into my FS9.

As Boikat said. The '>' is just a break symbol. It could have been anything but our coder at the time chose that character as the break symbol in separating categories in the database. Think of it as a space - nothing more.
As for compatibility. Well that's another matter and aircraft (etc) can be far more compatible than people realise. Even CFS aircraft can sometimes be used in FSX. (bit of aliasing etc). One general rule is that FSX native aircraft (the model file has an 'X' in the top intro line) are not backwardly compatible. But if I remember correctly (back to about 2009 when I last used FS2004) there would rarely be a problem using FS2002 files in FS2004.

Wussup Pete. I guess it is simply a matter of bad luck for my part. I di , once in a while get one from FS2002 that shows the gear in FS9,like the SR71. But for many of the others that I had when I flew FS2002 and transferred them to my FS9 ac folder,the gear doesnt show, which is quite a disappointment,because there are some nice looking ac for FS2002 that you cant find for FS9.

If I remember correctly, the usual reason for display bugs with FS2002 aircraft in FS2004 (animated parts like retractable gear or props not showing correctly) is that the aircraft was modelled with older design software like the original Flight Simulator Design Studio (FSDSv1) which was introduced for use with FS2000. Later FS2002 aircraft modelled with GMAX or FSDSv2 should display correctly in FS2004.

If the design software used isn't stated in the file descriptions the easiest way to find out is to try them. If you get a warning message about incompatible software when you first select a new aircraft in FS2004 it won't be fully compatible.

That sounds about right. Seems to me like I heard that same thing when I just started with FS2004 many moons ago.

By the way the same thing applies to scenery. Scenery meant for FS9 usually will not work correctly in FSX. I am not 100% sure about terrain mesh as they are a different animal. Strictly a guess Probably not.

For myself,tho I have the discs for FSX,my system isnt powerful enough to run it with any degree of satisfaction,so the discs just sit in the box until I am lucky enough to put together a system that WILL fly it. Till then,my concerns remain with FS9.

stephan wrote:For myself,tho I have the discs for FSX,my system isnt powerful enough to run it with any degree of satisfaction,so the discs just sit in the box until I am lucky enough to put together a system that WILL fly it. Till then,my concerns remain with FS9.

Never fear, Steph.... ...

I remember it took me ages to transfer from my trusty FS 2004 to my FSX!

It took a new, tower, gaming computer, with a sooper-dooper i7 central processor, to run my copy of FSX flat-out, with everything maxed and looking lovely!.... ....!

Until then, my FS 2004 fulfilled all my needs at the time.... (Sex became a very poor second place)!

Even with my present FSX, many of my aircraft and scenery files are from FS 2002 and FS 2004...and work wonderfully!

Paul.... ....!

Quote: 'If you get a warning message about incompatible software when you first select a new aircraft in FS2004...'. Well that message asks if you 'want' to DISABLE those 'incompatible' features (ie: annimations (gear up/down)), etc). You answer should be 'NO' (Ie: DON'T disable those features).

The warning is a sort of 'disclaimer' (MS BS) just in case your sim crashes (it won't) you won't be clammering MS for 'support'. But nothing will happen to your Sim if you say 'NO'. Only if you say 'YES' then you won't have gear annimation but the ac will still 'work' and fly (which won't be any fun because it won't have gear showing. Solution = ALWAYS SAY 'NO' and/or only port over fixed gear ac?).

I fly FS2K2, FS9 and FSX (on 'D' drive - 1 Tb WD 7200 rpm). For FSX you just need a 'balanced' rig (not 'gamer' or $3 K rig). Here are my specs.
'i7 2600K @ 3.4 Ghz (Turbo-Boost to 3.877 Ghz), Asus P8H67 Pro, Super Talent 8 Gb DDR3/1333 Dual Channel, Sapphire Ati Radeon HD-5770 1 Gb DDR5, Corsair 650 W PSU, Acer 23 in LCD, Windows XP SP3 (YES-XP!!), MS Sidewinder Precision 2 Joy'. I get 30 fps (locked) in FSX. Sweet.

For FSX you have to update the Motherboard chipset drivers ('firmware update'). Then you get latest STABLE video card drivers (NOT 'BETA'). You then tweak the fsx cfg ('Bojote' or Jesus tweak is what I used). Lock frame rate to 24 (for test), then 25.. up to 30 (max). Then tame the sliders, turn off clouds, water detail and then just don't fly LAX or London airports and you should be 'ok'. But you also must cut processes running in background so Windows programs don't eat up all your ram before you even start FSX. You are missing out on a lot of fun. For example the roads are vastly improved in FSX to where you might even find the street you live on! There's more, of course. Cheers.
Chuck B

stephan wrote:For myself,tho I have the discs for FSX,my system isnt powerful enough to run it with any degree of satisfaction,so the discs just sit in the box until I am lucky enough to put together a system that WILL fly it. Till then,my concerns remain with FS9.

Same thing for me, Srephan: not enaugh power for FSX. In my Lap I can use FS2004 with sliders at full right, add scenarios & aircrafts galore, realism at hard, and it's smooth as a babes bottom... I also tweak FS2004 with Real Environment Profesional.
Only runed into problems with the Ford TriMotor Project Scenarios, FS2004 starts STUTTERiNG & Target Frame rate DROPS, maybe too sofisticated for my Lap. The IVM Duxford scenery with Ai aircraft on pattern is pretty complex, yet has no problems so far.

napamule wrote:Quote: 'For FSX you just need a 'balanced' rig (not 'gamer' or $3 K rig). I get 30 fps (locked) in FSX. Sweet.

For FSX you have to update the Motherboard chipset drivers ('firmware update'). Then you get latest STABLE video card drivers (NOT 'BETA'). You then tweak the fsx cfg ('Bojote' or Jesus tweak is what I used). Lock frame rate to 24 (for test), then 25.. up to 30 (max). Then tame the sliders, turn off clouds, water detail and then just don't fly LAX or London airports and you should be 'ok'. But you also must cut processes running in background so Windows programs don't eat up all your ram before you even start FSX. You are missing out on a lot of fun. For example the roads are vastly improved in FSX to where you might even find the street you live on! There's more, of course. Cheers.
Chuck B

Ask most true FS2004 users if they care. The answer is probably NO. It might be preferable to take these FSX comments and tidbits to the correct forum, and let the faithful rest in peace without being bombarded by FSX trollers. I have it on authority that Putin might be behind this invasion.