Which version of FS do you use with the 737NG?

[Qavion 19]

'As for the 767PIC, Why have they not made it 2004 Compliant? I've heard all kinds of excuses, oh it's too complicated, but how long has 2004 been out? Long enough to get the little bugs worked out to convert it. I was using the PMDG 737 from Day 1 when I bought FS2004."Try posting this question on the PIC forum (or use the Search function) and you'll find you may not have a full understanding of all the obstacles (Here's a few examples: The current "team" is not as big as it once was. The chief test pilot no longer participates in the development of the sim, so it won't be as easy to develop as it once was. The new sim will not be under the control of the Wilco "conglomerate", so new arrangements will have to be made (sales, websites, etc). There is not the original enthusiasm for the project and the team has other priorities (family). They don't care if they take a long time. Conversion is only one of their goals. They want to improve the EFIS/EICAS displays (which may require a start from scratch?). For this kind of project there is little reward for much effort (and how long will it be before another MSFS version comes along... and you have to start the whole process over again)."Don't give a sob story about performance. I'm running a Dual CPU PIII-1.0GHZ here and it runs just fine. Sure I have slower framerates than the norm, but it's no where near unflyable."How many "run of the mill" simmers run dual CPU's???? BTW, I, for one, didn't say it was unflyable, I basically implied that I got no benefit from upgrading to FS2004....only extra expense. Earning a living the hard way, one learns very quickly to rationalize your buying decisions (You ask the question "Could my money be better spent elsewhere?" on a very regular basis).Hope this makes sense.Regards.Ian.

[Guest Paul Heaney]

"How many "run of the mill" simmers run dual CPU's????"True, but it's a PIII 1 GHZ, and that says enough.

[Guest knack]

FS9 exclusively.Actually I found FS9 weird at first but the more I used it the more I liked it. Yes, it does require better (read: more expensive) hardware but since upgrades are part and parcel of owning a PC...oh well :-roll Framerates? Yeah...well...after the PSS buses in FS9 I can assure you that the NG is a dream come true! Don't get me wrong...I love the buses but something in the code brings this machine to it's knees begging for mercy. The exact same settings with the NG have it humming along happily.*waiting for "Fat Albert" (aka 747) to make it's debut!*TonyP.S. Geia sou, Lefteri! :-wave

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Unfortunatelly, the utilities to fly online on VATSIM/IVAO are not yet ready for FS2004 (you need a lot of additional programs which many have problems).So I use FS2002 when flying online (that is most of the flights) and FS2004 when offline.George DorkofikisAthens, Greece

[Guest tmetzinger]

>Unfortunatelly, the utilities to fly online on VATSIM/IVAO>are not yet ready for FS2004 (you need a lot of additional>programs which many have problems).>So I use FS2002 when flying online (that is most of the>flights) and FS2004 when offline.>>George Dorkofikis>Athens, Greece>There I have to disagree... I fly online a LOT, and squawkbox and the AVC work great - I even have a button on my yoke acting as the transmit key for AVC!

[Guest UlfB]

Hi all,I hope that PMDG and all other fs software developers just dropped the support for FS2002 and Win98 (incl ME, SE and whatever). The software will then be much easier to develop, test and support. And hopefully result in lower prices for the us, and then we can invest our money in new hardware with WinXP. (But normally prices don't go down very much on a market, just the profits going up.)Any way, soon or later we have to let go of FS2002, Win98, FS2004, WinXp. And I look forward to let go of FS2004 and to run FS2006 on an twin CPU AMD-64 with 12GB. It's kinda flying in FS2004 - Don't look back - it just slows your frame rate down :+ Ulf Bjarke

[Guest NetBoyz]

I still use FS2002 because I have so much installed on it that I have simply put off the idea of moving it all to F2004. There was an Avsim forum discussion recently on how big one's FS folder is, and although I didn't reply, my folders were substantially bigger than the largest reported. More aircraft than anything else, and I have done a lot of panel work and don't look forward to chasing down bugs as I move them forward. I have more GB of PMDG liveries installed than of any other aircraft, so I'm in favor of both PMDG and FS2002! The poll questions above didn't seem to cover my case.Dick Bixler

[w4fej 0]

2004

[Guest knack]

Hi Tim,GREAT tutorial, btw :-beerchug I've been toying with the idea of online flying in FS9 but since I haven't seen any of the programs actually released for FS9 (just addons that help them work, like George mentioned) your post concerning online flying piqued my interest even more.Apart from Squawkbox and AVC, does Roger Wilco work as well?Tony

[kerosene31 349]

>FS2004 ONLY! Time to upgrade folks.>Upgrade what exactly? I have a P4 3.0 ghz machine with 1 gig of RAM and an ATI 9800 pro running WinXP pro. Can I run fs2004 with reasonable performance? Sure. But I can run fs2002 with just about everything maxed out, and get 25 fps constantly. Plus, for me at least it isn't just performance, but also the whole overcast issue. I have not seen fs2004 be able to generate true overcast conditions from downloaded real weather. If someone could fix this, I would consider going back to fs2004.

[bobbahn 0]

Xclusively FS2002.The reason is not my hardware, but the ammount of time I used to get "my" FS2002 the way it is. I have several hundred addon sceneries and 18 planes I use regularily, every single one has its own look and feel. Considering this, updating every 2 years is just too often for me, it took me so much work to get this configuration, so now I want to use it.If the problem were framerates, I would consider upgrading the machine, which is just a financial problem, but transferring all these add-on