Fs2004 photos...?

[UnitedExpress4180]

Hi,
I'm in the midst of switching from FSX to FS2004 (don't ask why, I won't tell you). I was wondering if someone could post some screenshots of default aircraft and liveries (specifically, the airliners) so I can get an idea of what's in the game. Post pictures of any aircraft, as long as the plane and the paint that is on it is something that comes packaged with the FS2004 disk.
~Thanks

[Daube]

Believe me, you don't want to see the default 737, 747 and 777 in FS9, especially if you have already seen the 737 and 747 in FSX. The default repaints are terrible, so are the 3D external models.

The vintage planes look really good, though. In fact I transferred them into my FSX hangar and fly them with great pleasure. The textures are a bit low resolution, but the models (including the virtual cockpits) are quite cool so I like them a lot. Lockheed Vega, De Havilland Comet, Vickers Vimy, Curtis Jenny and Ford Trimotor are my frequent choices when I want to make some short flights in FSX.

The default Cessna C-182 looks very good too (I wish the vc textures would be higher resolution, but they are more than OK for me. This plane now flies very often in my FSX, in fact).

The default Cessna C-172 looks ok, but of course it will be a great dissapointment when you'll compare it with the FSX C-172. Same goes for the Learjet.

The default Mooney Bravo is ok in FS9. Of course, it's not as good as the FSX version but it will be fine nevertheless. This is also valid for the default Beech Baron.

The default Kingair was not that good in FSX, and it's just the same in FS9.

[ShaneG_old]

Believe me, you don't want to see the default 737, 747 and 777 in FS9, especially if you have already seen the 737 and 747 in FSX.

Agreed!  One of the first things that should be done with the default Jets is finding replacements.

The props are rather nice, but still not on the graphical level of FSX.

One runs FS9 because they don't have the hardware for FSX, not because it looks good.

It can be made to look good, but if you started with FSX and then switched to FS9, you're in for a bit of a shock.

[Daube]

Fortunately, for the 737 there is some nice replacement available (I don't remember who did the 737 NG with the Brazilian livery, it was somebody from the forum, right ?).

Also, the 747 can be replaced by some POSKY models, but they have no virtual cockpits. However, there is the iFly 747 which has oustanding quality !

And for the 777, even FSX'ers know about the famous POSKY 777 and it's fantastic virtual cockpit !

[stevehookem]

I hate to tell someone that is switching from FSX to FS9 that it won't look as good. I haven't found that to be true. In fact, I am constantly amazed at how much better FS9 is in most areas. At least the way my son and I fly--in and out of major airports in airliners.

I have some of the most current hardware available. I wasn't happy with the performance of FSX even with the i7 and all the Nick tweaks. Now we fly smooth as glass and have a much happier experience. The available add-ons (even those that are a bit dated now) far exceed anything available for FSX. Add in the HUGE number of AES airports and the reality is far better than that in FSX.

I also take into consideration that most of the FSX users are turning sliders way down. How does that make FSX look? I have all my sliders maxed in FS9 and it is fantastic. In a Level-D 767, all maxed, 75% traffic, Mega-Airport Charles De Gaulle and add-on everything else, I have my frames locked at 30 and it never moves from that. Smooth as glass. In FSX, with all the constant tweaking, I would not have gotten more than 9-10 FPS at best. And it wouldn't have looked nearly as good.

Be happy with FS9. Embrace it and all the amazing add-ons! It just works and I like it!

[Fozzer]

I hate to tell someone that is switching from FSX to FS9 that it won't look as good. I haven't found that to be true. In fact, I am constantly amazed at how much better FS9 is in most areas. At least the way my son and I fly--in and out of major airports in airliners.

I have some of the most current hardware available. I wasn't happy with the performance of FSX even with the i7 and all the Nick tweaks. Now we fly smooth as glass and have a much happier experience. The available add-ons (even those that are a bit dated now) far exceed anything available for FSX. Add in the HUGE number of AES airports and the reality is far better than that in FSX.

I also take into consideration that most of the FSX users are turning sliders way down. How does that make FSX look? I have all my sliders maxed in FS9 and it is fantastic. In a Level-D 767, all maxed, 75% traffic, Mega-Airport Charles De Gaulle and add-on everything else, I have my frames locked at 30 and it never moves from that. Smooth as glass. In FSX, with all the constant tweaking, I would not have gotten more than 9-10 FPS at best. And it wouldn't have looked nearly as good.

Be happy with FS9. Embrace it and all the amazing add-ons! It just works and I like it!

...and thereby rests our case, me-Lud... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF..FS 2004..FS Navigator... ...!

... ... ...!

[UnitedExpress4180]

Yeah, I could only ever run FSX with medium-low graphics, and even still I could only ever get 15-18 FPS, at BEST. I only ever got high-res VC's and paints by modifying them with GIMP, which takes forever. Plus, I never got the AI traffic to work with FSX, which I really was disappointed by. Thus why I'm going to FS9. As for the pictures, I don't care if the paints are crap, I just want to make FSX versions since I'm a repainter who is running out of ideas. So, please post photos anyway.

[ShaneG_old]

Here are a few of the default 747 in the cargo paint:

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaB ... 1252244976