Simviation Forums

Hi all.

Up until this past Christmas the only flight sim I had ever used was CFS2.

I bought FS2002 Standard version just after Xmas and have been totally enjoying it. I got a registered copy of FSNavigator and have really been going hog wild.

I have a couple of questions:

1. What are the big adavantages/differences between the Pro and Standard versions of FS2002? I mean I am really having fun with FS2002 Standard and was just wondering if an upgrade would be worth it.

2. What are folks refering to when they refer to FS9?


Thanks!
Chris Westervelt

The FS2002 PRO offers some more airplanes, not really sure which and the GMAX software (3d modelling) is included, but I believe GMAX is freeware anyway

When people say FS9, they mean the new FS2004...it's called FS9 because it's the 9th version of the FS-series

This question has been asked regularly over the last couple of years.   The general feeling has been that the Pro version has several advantages.    There are a few more planes in the default menu, but a major point for "fiddlers" from the download sections is that many of the add-ons required Pro.

There isn't any way you can "upgrade" without buying the Pro version and this probably wouldn't be worth your trouble and expense.

If I were you, and had found you were really enjoying getting to grips with FS2002, I'd spend the extra money by getting FS9, there are many improvements over FS2002, and there isn't a Pro version.     Just check your computer specs as you'll need a bit more power.

I agree.  If you've already got 2k2 Standard, upgrading to 2k2 Pro would kind of be redundant.  I went from FS98 (skipped 2000...phew) to 2k2 Pro and then to FS9.  

I was probably among the most hesitant simmers around to bump up to FS9, but I'm soooo very glad I did!

Hi again!

Hey, thanks very much the helpful responses and input.

Hehe, so FS9 means FS2004. That had me stumped!



I almost picked up a copy of FS9 today- geeze, it was so inexpensive I could hardly resist!

Now I have another question- when I looked at the system requirements on the box it seems that I have more than what is called for in all areas.

How big of a bump up in resource use is FS9 and what are the main differences between FS9 and  the FS2002 standard and Pro series? Is it an evolved FS2002 or some quantum leap in a new direction- kind of like the jump from CFS2 to CFS3?

Thanks again,
Chris

Chris,

I personally haven't installed FS9 because I suspect my system is just about stretched far enough.   From my reading of these posts frame rates can drop quite a lot as the new program is hungrier -  I have an AMD Athlon 1800, and a reasonable video card.     I suggest you quote what you have installed in the FS9 forum and ask if it appears suitable.    Don't take too much notice of what Microsoft quotes as minimum standards, they have never been honest yet with any of their software going back at least to Windows 98.    What will load up and appears on your screen is one thing, what is playable in this case is another story.

I have helped a new mate install and get running on FS9 - it follows along exactly the same lines as FS2002 and isn't visually a "quantum leap."      If you are competent with your FS2002 you'll just carry on much the same with a few improvements.

Good luck,  Bazza

The jump from 2k2 to FS9 is considerable, but in subtle ways, if that makes any sense.

The scenery and weather has improved tremendously, and the addition of taxiway signs is a definite bonus.  Also you've got some added ATC options which are great to have.

What are your system specs?  Once we see those we'll be better able to help ya...

In my own opinion I think it's fortunate that M$ didn't make the same mistake as with CFS3. FS9 retains the same basic structure as before & follows the traditional pattern of ongoing improvement instead of introducing a completely new format. Some improvements mean that the older 3rd party aircraft are not compatible. Gmax & FSDS2 aircraft should be fine. One big improvement is with the DVC. The gauges are now clickable as in the 2D panels.

There are some differences for scenery designers but older FS2002 scenery will work. The FS2002 style AFD BGL entries no longer show up on the menu. This can be overcome by adding these entries with AFCAD. The 3rd party scenery design programs like FSSC are being updated to fix this problem.

The main difference between the 2 different versions of FS2002 for 3rd party developers was the Gamepack included with Pro. This is the only practical method for exporting Gmax aircraft for CFS2, FS2002 & FS9. No Gamepack has yet been released for FS9. I assume this will be included in a forthcoming SDK.

Some people have found that FS9 runs smoother for them than FS2002 ever did. It runs fine for me on a low-end system with an outdated graphics card. This will obviously depend on your particular system. There have been display problems with some graphics cards.

Aw, Doug! Just when I'd convinced myself that I wasn't going to upgrade from FS2k2 Pro! Perhaps I'll wait for a mad moment, install it and see what happens....

Howdy guys,

Lots of good information- thanks!

My system is at the lower bounds of what is just acceptable anymore for these kinds of programs- and is likely soon to drop off the edge into the old bit bucket!

CFS2 maxed out runs pretty good. FS2002 likewise is good- however- in big cities with lots of traffic and dynamic  and autogen scnery- it does begin to noticeably puff and pant.

As you can see, it is nothing to brag about!

Windows Me
Pentium III 650MHz
128MB RAM
32MB VRAM
Nvidia GForceII MX

I am definitely due for a new rig!



Thanks,
Chris

Maskrider,

A friend of mine has a P III 733 with 256 MB Ram and a 64 meg GeForce card. He's able to run FS 2004, but not all the sliders are maxed out.

Get's reasonable frames too

Regards,
Stratobat

Hi Strat!

That is encouraging! Thanks.

I guess my old tin Lizzy still has a few more miles on her, yet!

I can live, for now anyway, without everything maxed out. I am having fun just learning about the nuts and bolts of flying- something you couldn't really do that much with CFS2. A cfs2 that included everything in FS2oo2 would be awesome!

Cheers,
Chris

Yah M$'s "minimum specifications" is what you need to run the game at minimum quality (which sucks) for about an hour, or at max quality for the time it takes to change one view, which is forever when your card sucks. My card doesn't paticularly like DVCs, so I am holding off FS9 till I get a new one. FS2002 planes with full panels suit me just fine for now.

Just got my fs2002 at xmas for $10 after rebate.  Pretty sure it will "hold" me for a while, plus I'm only running 256 ram and gateway stock graphics so I couldn't handle the upgrade to 9 if I wanted to.

Maybe I will get fs 2010 when it goes on sale.