Why FS2004 will fail

[Guest]

Food for thought??Traditionally, each version of FS has been succeeded with a low par FS version since FS4. Example.. FS98 good, FS2000 bad, FS2002 good, ..you get the picture.As for FS2004, it will fail for the reasons below...A new powerful PC will need to be usedSlow fps if used on existing PC specs of todayNo improvement in flight dyanamicsNo improvement in engine/hydraulic/oil managementNo improvement in VFR or IFR, gauges and the likeNo improvement in uneven runwaysFS2004 will improve..CloudsSceneryATCTons of eye-candy featuresAdditional stuff like the add-ons we enjoy now.FS2004 will be a redesign of eye-candy only in my opinion. And so I can confidently say, I will stick with FS2002 for quite some time. I consider FS2002 loaded with the add-ons of today is a version of FS2004 anyway.Remember, MS cannot make default aircraft too complicated or hard to fly, as by doing this (the way we would like to see), would scare away most of there market = $$$$$ in lost revenue.Am I right.. or am I off base. It's all conjecture, I know, but I am sure you'll let me know in October of next year :-)Happy Simming!!Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.comhttp://www.douglasdc3.com/1/dc3.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Why FS2004 will fail?"Not off base, but why bother to speculate at this point? Take these thoughts:"A new powerful PC will need to be usedSlow fps if used on existing PC specs of todayNo improvement in flight dyanamicsNo improvement in engine/hydraulic/oil managementNo improvement in VFR or IFR, gauges and the likeNo improvement in uneven runways"If you use FS2002 as an example, users of the program can approximate FS2000's scenery density and "look" by backing off on some of the newer settings (AI and Autogen), and they end up with performance superior to FS2000 on the same system. I'm still running 2k2 on the same P3/800 I ran FS2000 with. People will want new features and eye candy, and that certainly will require a more powerful system. But FS2002 proves that a system upgrade is not a requirement, and it proves that code can be optimized to make the simming experience more realistic.Flight dynamics? If we want a sim 100 pct. faithful to every aspect of the flight model, then I expect some will be disappointed. Remember, Microsoft isn't marketing this product to pilots only, but also at the young and old alike who have a casual interest in aviation. IMHO, dynamics like those in the new C421 are almost 90 pct. of what's real... And you don't have to pay to get an a/c to your liking...a few tweaks of the aircraft.cfg can fix nearly all of the issues mentioned on this forum over the past year."No improvement in engine/hydraulic/oil managementNo improvement in VFR or IFR, gauges and the like"I consider myself a fair contributor to this hobby (I've written the Autoland series of adventures and programs, as well as Landclass Assistant). While such detail is important to you, and it's important to others, I couldn't care less. I don't want to see FS2002 become something else (more akin to a aircraft systems simulator), at the expense of the visual quality of the wonderful world we can fly in. My feeling is, if FS is required to do both, the system requirements would become steeper.And I have a feeling I represent the majority--I suspect for every user serious enough to participate in a forum like this, there are 100 that simply want a form of simple (and I stress simple) entertainment that doesn't involve shooting the bad guys, blowing up "target rich" environments, or two-three year's study in the aviation field. "FS2004 will be a redesign of eye-candy only in my opinion."Eye candy? You bet--bring it on! -John

[greeneg 0]

Sorry buddy, you're wrong. If MS doesn't think that it will be a sucess, you'll never see it at retail. Your comments may well have some value, but it'll be out-- all in Bill's good time.Beat Regards,Ed Green, KCLTegreen1@carolina.rr.com

[Chris Willis 8]

Trev, It is not because you will need a new pc and there is no change in the aircraft System thats fs2004 will fails.Fs2000 (fails a little) because they have the transition of (fs98)2d to 3d engine. If you are in the Simulation market, you don't have choice to upgrade your system. Aircraft System, You will have from 3rd party to correct this.Never you will see in fs2002 and Any time in fs2004:-New engine thats we can't have now to add new 3rd party thats is impossible to do with fs2002.-Weather/sky -Scenery,better autogen,more gates, more detailed scenery, more photo real & interactive scenery with sound, moving people, No more bgl, An easy way to add photo sat a la terrascene? -Tons of eye-candy features ?-Atc improved, this as to wait if comparable to radar contact, they can do it near this one.-Improved and more virtual cockpit, (interactive talking 3d pilot) and more plane.-And all other 3rd party impossile to have now in fs2k2!-Finally blur fixed ?Fs2004 Anytime! fs2002 will looks old graphics technologie at this time like fs98,fs2000 how they look. add the blur also :-) , just the graphics will be 2x better, imagine others things and feature.Too much new feature and others stuff thats you will have to move to the latest version of Msfs Trev , like you do always :-) I know you put this post only for making shaking things :-lol ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest flightpro08]

I'm sorry, but this post made me fall out of my chair laughing. :-lolHow does one have the nerve to say a product isn't going to be sucessful BEFORE it is even created? Yes, it's a guess, but IMHO, soemthing like this shouldn't even be posted at least until FS2k4 goes into Beta testing.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-coolVATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designer

[Guest]

Though I disagree with your assertion that FS2000 was a bad sim, you are probably correct about FS2k4. I'm sure MS will add another airplane or two, improve ATC, improve clouds, and everything else you mentioned. I wouldn't call it a failure, however.I am of the opinion that the major stumbling blocks of simming have been cleared and that what we see in the future will be refinements, some more significant than others. A faster computer will be probably be necessary, but FS2k2 flies better that FS2k on similar machines. So, who knows.One other issue slightly off the subject: From what you have said (and Andrew Herd from Flightsim.com), FS2k4 will no longer support FSDS aircraft. Where is this information coming from? MS is usually fairly secretive about these things until the summer before release.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Trev, too bad you are not going to be at the Tahoe Conference. MS is going to be giving a 45 minute presentation on exactly this; the subject of the future of FS... :)Shameless plug ends...

[virtualstuff 763]

I'll never respond to this kind of post, however for once yes it's really to fall out of your pilot chair laughing :-lolHmm.. was a large drop down from FL 350 and still :-lolHence they are at the moment quite bussy to write a lot of lines of code :-)Let's talk about FS2098 :-lol and the hardware demands...awfEHAM

[Guest Timbo]

I can't say for certain, but I'd think MS would evaluate what went wrong with FS2000 so it doesn't repeat itself in FS2004.[TABLE BORDER=0][tr][td]

[/

[/td][/tr][tr]

[td]

[link:www.fsworldonline.com/~timsfsstudio]Click here to visit Tim's FS Studio!] Updated July 20th!

[/td][/tr][/TABLE

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, I think it was only because of the transition of (fs98)2d to 3d engine in fs2000, some wrong thing in the coding and I don't think this will happend in fs2004.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest]

TomI have expressed concerns that without competition there wont be the motivation to really push the boundaries as happened with FS2002.We also had the events of sept 11 th which was bad publicity for Microsoft.My guess is that they will shift the emphasis away from the heavies and maybe more towards a geography and Mother nature emphasis of the living world rather than the make believe heavy iron jock.I hope they dont do the eye candy thing and just improve the cloud appearance but go a step further and start to look at dynamic living weather which is the biggest challenge to the real pilot.They also need to relook at panel presentation, get rid of this ridiculous situation of 2D and virtual cockpits.They need to actually examine what a pilot sees and work on peripheral views.Its about time that the flight dynamics engine which is ancient had a major shakeup IL2 is leagues ahead.Will there be the motivation to ground break or just a glitter exercise for FS2004 ...................Peter

[Guest]

FS98 already had 3D hardware acceleration.Sierk

[Chris Willis 8]

"3D hardware acceleration."not a real 3d 16bit engine..in fs98 was 8bit pixeled texture.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I think it was only because of the transition of (fs98)2d to 3d engine in fs2000, some wrong thing in the coding and I don't think this will happend in fs2004."I agree--that very well sums up the key difference between FS98 & FS2000. Considering FS2000 was the first in the "3d able" series, I feel it did alright and its performance vs. FS2002 could be compared to the difference between FS95 and FS98. Now that I fly FS2002 I realize some of FS2000's drawbacks more, but they were livable to a degree, and I enjoyed FS2000 for two years...

[Chris Willis 8]

Peter, "I have expressed concerns that without competition there wont be the motivation"Competition there is many out there, they use cfs engine, with cfs series they have to face others competition also.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg