Simviation Forums

I don't understand why you want more than one version of FS. If FS9 runs well on your system there's no point.

PS. As I recall the bugs with FS2000 when it was released make the reported problems with FSX pale into insignificance.

I don't understand why you want more than one version of FS. If FS9 runs well on your system there's no point.

PS. As I recall the bugs with FS2000 when it was released make the reported problems with FSX pale into insignificance.

How Much Memory does it take up???
Should I get FS2002 instead.
How much memory does that take up??? :-? :-? :-?

I don't understand why you want more than one version of FS.

I just want a wide varity of aircraft to download that wont take up a lot of memory

I don't understand why you want more than one version of FS.

I just want a wide varity of aircraft to download that wont take up a lot of memory

FS9 already has a pretty good selection of aircraft. You can get the others from the huge variety posted right here at Simviation. This would take up far less drive space than separate installs of FS2002 & FS9. I really don't understand your logic.

On my computer: FS2002 = 2639mb; FS2004 = 6126mb (with the Microsoft update)  

It sounds like you have a choice between FS2000 and FS2002.  I'm not clear as to whether you already have FS2004.

If this is correct, I think that FS2002 would be better than FS2000.  I don't know anything about bugs in FS2000 never having used it, but my FS2002 has always run fine.

It also sounds like you won't be able to judge the performance until after you make a decision.  So maybe loading both is necessary from your point of view.  You can always uninstall one later.  You'll get better performance with FS2002, but FS2004 was improved visually and in certain other aspects as well, such as weather and, if you like well-done bridges, you'll need the Microsoft update for that.  

As far as running both, Hagar is right, there's plenty of aircraft here that won't take up a lot of space.  

Why run both?  I run both, but can only speak for myself:  FS2002: better performance with higher frame rates.  FS2004: better visually, and the bridges look great.  I fly FS2002 when I'm into high-speed flying with military jets, and FS2004 with lower speed aircraft (and when I want to do bridge-storming).

I am going to be getting FS2K for Christmas. Its going to be on my computer with FS2004.
I figured they would work together because i have 30GB left on my computer.
I am wondering if FS2002 would be a better choice and would still run lightning fast.

I only ask because FS2002 costs more that FS2004.
I wasnt sure how mush memory it takes up. Please if anyone knows reply. 8-) 8-) 8-)

if you can get fs 2002 i would..i wouldent run it with 2004 on the system....though they are clearly 2 different programs the do share files and because of this some users will have some problems.frame rate willbe much better in 2002 and the weather is more realistic..you cant simulate a competely overcast sky in 2004.2002 you can .i have a very high end computer that gets 100 to 150 fps plus  on 2002 and 80 to occationaly 100 fps in 2004..i fly mostly 2002 i feel you will be very happy with this very stable program..there are some great aircraft available to run on 2002 that have some very real flight characteristics..

Wow its hard to beleive how stupid is was

hi the answer ur looking for is that fs 2002 is that when u first get it would take up 600mb-700mb

and plus fs 2002 has no bugs that microsoft has found while all the others have