Why bother with a FS 2006?

[hatter]

beefhole:

Odd. I hardly have a beast of a machine (AMD64 at 2200MHz and an 9800XT, which is, geez, already two generations old). Runs fine for me.

Sure, you can enhance it, but you have to add support. MS's job is to keep MSFS modular and up to date. You can't just keep the same engine forever.

JBaymore:

I agree. This problem is magnified with the increased level of resources required to run even freeware add-ons.

Drumlineramos:

Well, FS9 is, what a DX8 game?

[aafuss]

The default 737 could be improved-maybe to a 800/900 series  or even add Airbus aircraft (if Boeing/Airbus  will allow MS to do so) .

I love PMDG's 737-800/900-impressive flight model and features and the virtual cabin is stunning. I  wish MS would match that with a ActiveCamera or built-in FSUIPC style features.

A 787 would be great as well and the default  Boeings should have FMC and a land me/autoland for all planes should be reinstated (improved, of course).  

[beefhole]

beefhole:

Odd. I hardly have a beast of a machine (AMD64 at 2200MHz and an 9800XT, which is, geez, already two generations old). Runs fine for me.

Hmm, guess there's a patch I missed or something.

[BFMF]

well luckly Directx 9c is now available, i just got it today.

Where have you been?

Versions 9.c has been out quite a while

[Katahu]

That version has been out since Fred Flintstone.

[Chris E]

i personally cant wait for FS 2006, i think if they add some more planes, like some airbus, cause i have not gotten too many good planes.  I love how detailed M$ made theirs, they work well and have amazing detail.  If they would do the same with some airbus and some other ones it would be awesome.  The airbus 380 i have can barely turn on the ground.  I always feel the M$ ones are just very reliable

[A/SGT.Mav316]

dude M$ default aircraft suck. Only default I give em props to is the vintage aircraft and learjet and cessna, they go all out with the Vr cockpit and aircraft detail. As for the big jets they give you crap.

As for your delimna right now with the A380, there are many different versions out there. Gotta find the one that works for you!

I download a virtual airlines British Airways A380 that is totally awesome and have no problem with ground control or flight control. just add the freeware panel and switch the sound file with a real A380 soundfile and you got yourself a winner!

Freeware is about hooking up what you find and make it your own.

If some guys are interested, sharing what you did on the low

[Rocket_Bird]

Back in the FS5 days, MS aircraft were the top notch.  Since FS2002, or even 2000, most addons far exceed their standards.  They are easy to fly, and simplified in many ways.  The default FS B737 fails to simulate most of the real world features of the actual 37, as do the King Air etc etc.  Only aircraft thats even close is maybe perhaps the Cessna 172.  If you have tried addons such as Aeroworx, or PMDG, or tried your hands on real aircraft, you will notice the difference immediately.  With that said, I agree that there really is no need for a FS2006.  You may get better graphics, theres no doubt about that, but with guys like me who can't afford to upgrade my machine... no way!  ;D  As long as you can have the community spirit, the freeware and payware, FS2004 still gets better and better.

As said before, id hate to scrap my FS version after version to try the latest and greatest.  But I guess thats just me.  I can tell by all these FS2006 threads that a lot of people are dying for newer version.

[legoalex2000]

here we go...

lemme put it this way to all of you.

when we had FS5,why did we bother with an FS6? or FS6 to FS7. why did we advance from FS2002 to FS2004?

it's all about the graphics, the engineering, the design of the program. MSFT uses new versions f flight sim as testbeds for new, better, faster graphics and technology. it's a good ting that they come out with a new version, it tells them if they've improved on what they built previously or does this version have unknowns and faults that make this not a good program.

for example, look at CFS3 (if you have it) they tried a whole new design program,trying new ideas to make it run better. however there were a few problems (one of them being limited addons) that closed the chapter on CFS3.

what im trying to say is don't stop at best, strive for better.

boy don't i sound like a sports coach now...

Ramos

[vt6]

well if you look at what we have to fly or as far as that drive or sail, fs9 is only going to grow. i say in about a year or less fs9 will be what fs2006 would have been.
except some graphics witch is an uderstatment on my part becouse if you look at the water texures and other emprovements that have been made to airports and ground texture ms would have to work hard to catch up.

braydan

[Woodlouse2002]

You'd all be complaining bitterly if M$ didn't bother with FS2006.

[mark_av]

You'd all be complaining bitterly if M$ didn't bother with FS2006.

Amen, Woodlouse.  

[NicksFXHouse]

You'd all be complaining bitterly if M$ didn't bother with FS2006.

......ROFL          ......ROFL




Better save them pennies fer that video card or MB/PCI Xpress upgrade needed to run FS2006


he he he


better argument for this thread would be:

WHy Bother with AGP??

[Katahu]

Woodlouse, your point can't be any better than it already is.

[exnihilo]

The only complaint I have about fs2004 is the lack of a real world model (i.e. actual globe) which would allow great circle navigation.  Other than that, yeah, keep what we've got!