The cure for all of your FS9 troubles

[Gary R.]

Flight Simulator 2002.

Never ever had a problem with that one that I didn't generate myself.   Do you all think its by design that MS has an everyother issue cycle for good and not so good?  I mean FS 98 was good, FS 2000 a little more buggy, FS 2002 good, FS9, a tad buggy.
CFS 1, early teething problems, CFS 2 great, ran like a swiss watch, CFS3, lol, chuck it and get Forgotten Battles Gold.  You all see what I'm getting at here?  They make something that works and then say lets try this or that and its something they try that isn't all there yet and next thing you know, there's problems.  

[flyboy 28]

Amen, brotha.

[Jared]

lol, funny yu should mention that....I'm sitting here in the middle of a pile of cd's after a full format of my main drive...

And at the very moment FS 2002 cd#3 is in the drive installing..:-)

Figured I may as well put all versions fs on it again..;-)

[Hagar]

I don't remember any bugs or teething problems with CFS1. It ran perfectly from the time I installed it soon after it was first released. I was using Win95 at the time. Maybe I'm just plain lucky but I've had very few problems with FS9.

[Jared]

I haven't had really any problems with any of them...;-)

FS98, 2002, 2004 installed...

2000 will be on there once I get my cd's back from a friend..:-)

EDIT: Same place full settings, same weather..

FS98 90+FPS

FS2002 70+FPS

FS2004 30-40...:-)

[GunnerMan]

I had no problems with any of thm except 2, one was in CFS1 and was not M$ fault that was CFS1 had big comp[atability issues with DX9 and two my clouds went south on me for a while also not M$ fault...I am not very good at seeing bugs so I guess I am lucky and that makes me one of the very very few people that likes CFS3 lol but thats another story for another time for another thread.

[Ben_M_K]

I agree Gary. I dont need the best graphics out there, just something realistic and FUN!!

[zcottovision]

Most games require a fairly large area to be mapped and textured with good detail. FS9 requires huge portions of the world to be mapped and textured, and that's inevitably going to hurt frame rates. When you think about what FS has to do, it's no wonder that you have to pay a fair amount for the hardware. I won't disagree with the fact that it takes a fairly serious computer to run FS9 pretty well, but that's logic....

Not that I work for MS or anything....