Flight Sim 2002 and 2004

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:03 pm

Okay, I have Flight Sim 2000.
I want to get a new one, but which one shall i get?

Can someone recommend one of the above, baring in mind i dont usually play that much on it, but then its an old game/sim.

Cheers,
Pete

60085 · Post by **60085** » Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:11 pm

2004:CofF. Tis much better in my opinion. Will be even better when I get my machine back so I can run it and patch all my addons.
The weather system in '04 is far superior to that of '02 (unless you buy ActiveSky for 2002 - but even then its probably inferior).
The AI is better, the procedures having taken a step forward (albeit a small step) and if you just use the default aircraft then the GPS/Nav aids are much improved.
The Century of Flight aircraft in '04 are quite enjoyable too.

60085 "MANNA".

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:41 am

Well the obvious thing is 2004 is going to be better than 2002, as its had 2 more years of development and is far superior is many departments.

I think what you need to look at is, what can ur system handle?

2004 is going to require a much higher spec than 2002 to get decent graphics of out it. As is with all MS sims. Required spec increases expentially

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:37 am

I have a good PC, it could handle both, but not sure if i would falk out Â£50.00 for it, but then im not sure, i did for 2000

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:13 am

i got the Â£70 pro version of FS2000. Personally id go for the most recent version. If u want to buy an updated version might as well get the latest.

If u dont want to spend so much, wiat a bit longer and the price will come down a little more.

johndibben · Post by **johndibben** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:24 am

It might've been my imagination but FS2002 appeared to run better than FS2000. Someone else commented that to me in an e-mail. FS2002 still required higher specs as it had more 'bells and whistles'.

FS2004 is the obvious answer though.

It's something else to do whilst waiting for the 'dithery' MS to make some decision about MSTS2.

RichyJ · Post by **RichyJ** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:34 pm

FS2000 was a shambles of a program and is a very good example of what happens if you rush a program out (MSTS2 take hint)
FS2002 was a superb program smoother, better looking better planes scenery etc
FS2004 looks like an updated version of 2002 but with better weather controls. and standard planes

One thing i always i liked about was being able to fly on the exact weather conditions of a certain area (Internet connection looks up the weather) it added spmething to the game (i might dig out fs2002 and head towards the hurricane that is heading towards us at the moment)

Chris23 · Post by **Chris23** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:38 pm

Go for FS2004.

There are always issues of what runs well and some have fallen foul of FS2004 but in my experience it works well.

The question of machine spec is complex but my belief is that in FS2004 if you turn off the features that FS2002 didn't have it runs just as well. The extra features need the extra power. Seems reasonable to me.

I have run FS2004 on a Athlon 650, 128meg & original GeForce card. It runs fine but no virtual cockpit & at relatively low detail levels. Much higher than the FS2000 detail that the machine was originally purchased to handle however!

FS2004 is cheaper than FS2002 unles the older edition has been reduced in price.

I could make the same comment about MSTS. The original product runs fine BUT you can add enough add ons to make it stumble. Be careful what you choose to add on lower spec machines. Extra features need extra power.

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:43 pm

FS2004. Not perfect, but way better than its predecessors. Microsoft, why are you so scared of low speed flight? For gawds sake get those stalls and spins sorted PLEASE!

Post by **NeutronIC** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:49 pm

I have played with my FS2004 for a little while and I have to say it is a cut above FS2002 - the Autogen appears to have been improved too, and framerates are better - I was flying over london in stormy weather (wind, rain, clouds, lightning) at 1600x1200x32bit, all detail levels all the way to the right (except dynamic scenery, which I never have on) and I was still getting a good 12-15 fps - which is shockingly good considering the above is just about worst case scenario

My machine is AMD 2100 with GF4 4600.

London is fixed, the dome is in the right place now and has a new and better model, the london eye is now on the skyline too which looks great.

Roads have all got lamp posts and telegraph poles around them - which adds a hell of a lot to the scenery.

New helicopter for those that like the whirlybirds like myself! Robinson R22, a nice fun little flyer.

Virtual Cockpits are now not only pretty, they are fully usable so you can tune your radios etc from the cockpit instead of having to keep switching back to the 2D cockpit to do that.

Pretty much all the original aircraft are present except the Cessna RG and they have now all been updated to fully utilise the current standard - unlike in 2002 where things like the Mooney and Learjet were still back in 2000 standard (no virtual cab etc). Lots of extra aircraft to celebrate the centenary of flight. Some new repaints are also present such as the mooney now having two colour schemes to choose from.

Weather is awesome, I love how it looks, rain streaks down your windshield (even in virtual cockpit mode, though it looks better in 2D mode). The clouds look very nice, you can see different weather in the distance too. Linking to get online weather from Jepperson seems to be more reliable than it has been in the past too.

ATC has apparently been rewritten too - though I haven't tried it yet as I spend most of my time in light aircraft and can't be bothered with flight plans and things

Worth it imho

Matt.

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:53 pm

ATC is americanised, but works ok. Gets a little fussy when you try to do something unexpected. Quite why an RAF approach frequency controls airspace out as far as the Black Sea is beyond me, but hilarious nonetheless.

60085 · Post by **60085** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 3:33 pm

2004 is going to require a much higher spec than 2002 to get decent graphics of out it. As is with all MS sims. Required spec increases expentially

CofF isn't that much more of a drain on your resources than '02 (atleast it wasn't for me) - and it looks a whole lot better

.

Even though I can now run FS2000 at ridiculously high framerates nowadays, its still jerky. The fact that after two patches it was still a heap says a lot. The only thing that made it tolerable was the work of the freeware and payware developers.
I paid Â£60+ for FS2K Pro when it was released and once the novelty of flying Concorde wore off it was removed.... until BAV came along

.

60085 "MANNA".

tubemad · Post by **tubemad** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:22 pm

i got FS2004 for Â£5 and its worth it!!!

1903 wright flyer

more detail

dynamic weather ect

CelticChieftain · Post by **CelticChieftain** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:41 pm

What the hell has any of this rubbish got to do with RAILWAYS.It seems that posting information about a RAILWAY SIMULATOR is not allowed,but talking complete and utter tripe is acceptable as long as your face fits.

Does the saying ,hypocritical,two faced and power crazy,spring to mind ,WELL DOES IT............................ ?????????

60085 · Post by **60085** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:02 pm

CelticChieftain wrote:Does the saying ,hypocritical,two faced and power crazy,spring to mind ,WELL DOES IT............................ ?????????

No.

60085 "MANNA".