Should i get it...

[Akula.]

I have been wondering whether i should buy this sim. i have all the cfs series, and fs95 (i know, its not the best sim in the world ) but should i get fs2004? is it good, or is it like cfs3? (you know, crashing, freezing, etc.). i also have been wondering about buying fs2002 pro. should i?
Akula

[Billerator]

Depends how much you are into FS.
FS2004 is great, the only 'problem' being the low FPS, but since most of the time that wont matter, there really are no problems with it.

No its not as bad as cfs3. ( Ive had enough of that game )

It is a HUGE jump from FS95 though  :D . If you dont feel like buying FS04, FS02 isnt that far off.

[ozzy72]

FS9 is well worth the money. I'm more than satisfied. Mind you I'm one of the lucky ones who gets good performance out of CFS3 as well.
However I'd imagine FS2k2 is rather cheap now the FS9 is out, so you could go with that, there are tonnes of excellent freeware add-ons that make it almost as good as FS9
It really depends upon your budget and your machine specs. If you've got a top-end machine I'd go for FS9 and love it

[pete]

Flight Simulator & Combat Flight Simulator are 2 different things entirely.

One is a game - Combat Flight Simulator. It's not 'just' a game - but it is a game nonetheless. Point scoring & competing in simulated air battle. CFS does however give the reach to simulate real air battles & that has to be respected.

Flight Simulator is not a game - it is what it is described as - a FLIGHT SIMULATOR - if you use it as a game you will soon get bored. Use FS for what it is designed for - simulating real air flight - and the possibilities could keep you riveted for years.

[Scottler]

It depends significantly on Pete's comments and also your system's ability.  Let us know your specs and you'll probably be pointed in a more accurate direction.

[Zaphod]

I

[MattNW]

If your PC can handle it then ACOF is a fantastic sim. Other than the performance hit there isn't any major problems. A few minor annoyances but that was true with earlier FS too. ACOF has fixed a lot of those (and added a couple of it's own) but overall it's well worth the money. The only thing to consider is how powerful your PC is. I wouldn't suggest anything less than a 1 Gig processor 2+ is preferred  and a top notch vidcard is a must as well as at least 512 mb RAM. If you have that then you'll probably love ACOF.

Here's what I have:
AMD 1.5 Ghz processor
1 Gig PC133 DDR RAM
GForce 4 MMX Vidcard with latest drivers

I get mediocre performance with decent settings (12-20 FPS)

[codered]

It is well worth it.  Remember it is graphic intense like a lot of games are going to these days, so you should be sure you have something that will handle the graphcs.

Check out the screen shots people take in the forums and that should answer your question about if you should buy it.

[SaVas]

Frame rates I get are in the area of 10 to 40 fps on my system. Occasionally lower than 10 in very detailed areas flying very detailed planes, though overall I love FS9, so much so, its become a payware money sink for me

Definitely post your system specs

[garymbuska]

As far as I am concered FS2004 is great I am using windows ME a pent III operating just under 1 gig have 640 meg ram a fx5200 128 ddr video card. I fly with a lot of weather to detailed airports with detailed aircraft and sitll hitting 15 to 20 fps which is not to shabby I have all the sliders maxed out incuding the realism ones. If I fly in clear skies my fps jumps to around 30 or so. If you have a descent system FS2004 wont dissapoint you. But if you have a slower system you might not be able to get the benefit of FS.

[taracer89]

I agree that if you treat it like a game you will be disapointed.

I've been hooked on FS2002 since I got it right after it went back on the shelves after 911. My system at the time could not run it very well, so it was hard to be a good pilot.

On my new system, it runs so well that I had to learn how to fly all over again, and I'm getting good fast.

Now I want to get FS9, but I'm not sure if I should. In one post above, the person has a 3.04 GHz P4 and reports low FPS. If they are having problems with that system, what can I expect from mine?

My specs:

Athlon XP3000+ (2.167 GHz)
FSB: 333 MHz
RAM: 512 PC2700 DDR SDram
Video: FX5200 128Mb AGP 8x

Can I expect the same performance with FS9 that I get with FS2002?  

I bought this system so I could run FS9, but now I'm worried.

[BiggBaddWolf]

I love FS2004, and would recommend it to anyone, but then again I was flying Pro Pilot 99 before I got the FS 2004  :o
No comparison at all!!!

[Sterk]

[quote]

Now I want to get FS9, but I'm not sure if I should. In one post above, the person has a 3.04 GHz P4 and reports low FPS. If they are having problems with that system, what can I expect from mine?

My specs:

Athlon XP3000+ (2.167 GHz)
FSB: 333 MHz
RAM: 512 PC2700 DDR SDram
Video: FX5200 128Mb AGP 8x

Can I expect the same performance with FS9 that I get with FS2002?