Simviation Forums

If you are still wondering whether to get FS2004, my advice is do so!  I stuck with 2002, it seemed all I needed, no problems, why change I thought.  Well, now I'm glad I did.  2004 is a world apart in terms of realism and detail;  honestly, most of the time you have to remind yourself tis is only a sim, it looks so real!

My spec is an AMD XP2400 o/c to about a XP2800, just a GF3 64mb and 512 RAM - and FS2004 soars like a bird with that spec.  

For me, the best improvment is loading times - FS2002 took a minute to load, plus nearly as long to load each flight.  With 2004 its just a few seconds.

Another good thing, loads of planes included so I am trying not to add too many;  Out of the box, FS2004 runs faultlessly but we all know where the problems come from, yes, add-ons.  SO dont use thm, thats my philosophy.  FS2004 has so little scope for improvement, I think it's pointless

George. I'm delighted you're pleased with FS9 but must disagree strongly with this.
[quote]FS2004 runs faultlessly but we all know where the problems come from, yes, add-ons.

I agree that addons make FS much more interesting. I have installed in my FS2002 a few airplanes and the whole PAI traffic (the official files though) and I have no problems except some slow performance when flying close to airports with lots of traffic and I have the ATC to 100%. I think it is boring flying around and meet only Landmarks, Orbits, Soars etc.

I guess it is then all to your hardware. My Celeron 1.7 would maybe have difficulties with FS2004 as well as my GeForce2 64MB with the 3D effects.

I agree with Hagar and Poseidon.

I chose not to get FS9 since, the same as Fozzer, I had spent a long time customising 2002 to what I am happy with. Most of the areas that I routinely fly in have been upgraded scenery-wise (even with payware addons), so that when I do any low-level stuff, the detail is all I could want it to be.

To explore a new area, then what I do is look for scenery addons first. There is also some fantastic freeware stuff out there; people are very creative and talented. I've just recently found some terrific Caribbean scenery for 2002 which is great fun to fly around. I've never had any issues with addons - I'd recommend that you follow the installation instructions to the letter.

I tend to fly airliners mostly, and at FL370, ground detail (when you can see it) is minimal anyway!

My processor speed (PIV, 2gHz) was cutting edge when I got it a year ago, but it's looking dated now, but that's how it's going to have to stay for the foreseeable future. My average frame rate per second in 2002 on not-too-taxing planes, scenery and weather is around 16 to 20, which is acceptable. I certainly wouldn't want it to drop for routine flying, and since MSFS is a frame hog anyway, that was another reason for not going with FS9. What's the point is fantastic weather generation effects if you are seeing them at 3fps?

One last comment & I'll shut up. Check out the Freeware Screenshots forum some time to see the fun people are having. Enjoyment that you're missing out on.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that if it wasn't for the addons(payware and freeware) I would have gone looking for something else.

I've learned a lot about FS here on the forums just by reading the various posts and replies,apart from my own questions(thanks Hagar!) and I've got 2K2 just about where I want it. FS9 was an attraction at one stage but I've just completed some more fiddling and quite honestly after reading comments in other forums 2002 will do me for a while.

Cheers

Yes, fair enough, a lot of good points made there; perhaps I was too categorical in my blaming add-ons; heck, I've just remembered that I do have 3 addon planes.  Most users seem to agree, though, that once you get too many addons, loading times start to suffer, I know they did with me on 2002.

I don't use real-time weather, however the stock weather is one of the great new features of 2004.  I flew from Cork to Belfast the other day, starting off with all the terrain white with snow, later it disappeared, later still I flew into new falling snow;  it's just so real.

Well I don't worry so much about the load time because I know I am going to be there for a while. All the same a lot of it comes down to how you manage what you have. A lot of us have a huge collection of aircraft gathered over time and if you put all of those into FS sure you'll have loading problems. Same as scenery.
What I do is pick an aircraft to fly,load it,fly it,then take it out. I've got a MAIN HANGAR to park them in and load them as I want.

Weather wise I'd wouldn't mind FS9 but with FSsky and downloading real weather every hour I'm happy.

Bottom line is we are all enjoying what we do and if your happy with what you've got that's great.

Heres to fun and games

...I've got both FS 2002 and FS 2004, and they both run fine on my system, (30-50 FPS).... ...!
But...
...FS 2002 with all my add-ons, scenery, weather, etc, is just like an old friend to me now... ...!
...and I don't want to let an old friend down... ...!
LOL...!

Paul.

FS 2004 is fine for newcomers who haven't experienced the joy of firing-up FS 2002 for the very first time.... ...!
(A big improvement over FS 2000).... ...!

I'm afraid the logic of your last statement sort of escapes me, Fozz.  It's probbly a bit early in the morning for me.  But you are right about FS2000, the biggest disappointment in sim history.

Remember those scalpeled coastlines, and then the 'fix' MS came up with which gave you proper coast but moved it so that the San Francisco bridge went over dry land!  Only good thing on FS2000 was the adventures which I am afraid I lost when my HD went down.  Aah, happy days

Just to remind everyone what FS2k2 is capable of, I offer this very quick-and-dirty shot of San Francisco bay, using the add-on terrain mesh available here at SimV...

Is this what you were after Micro...?



Try flying a bit closer to the Bridge to show the detail....
...mine is fine in FS 2002, and appears exactly the same as the photo's of the Bridge.. ...!

Paul.

Fozzer old chap. I'm a tad worried. Have you been at the the vino again - or maybe it's the pills? I could see Microllight's shot perfectly well the first time.  ??? LOL

[quote]Fozzer old chap. I'm a tad worried. Have you been at the the vino again - or maybe it's the pills? I could see Microllight's shot perfectly well the first time.

Well Foz. One of us is seeing things & I know it ain't me.
In fact when I first saw this I thought I had suddenly developed a severe case of double-vision.

Try refreshing the page or deleting your Temp Internet files.