Why FS2004 will fail

[BobK 0]

Jeez, Trev! Things in the forum too slow for ya? :-lol

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Adding to your list one of the biggest FS2002 improvements of all over FS2000 and FS98--lakes and major rivers that are truly part of the default scenery and visible from any distance... And support for true photoreal scenery, landclass reassigment, etc.... And these features have no fps impact...In my reply to the main post, I noted that with the new eye candy turned off or toned down, my 2k2 performance is improved a great deal over FS2000 on an old P3/800. If I enable and max just the features that are common to both FS2000 and FS2002, I meet my targeted framerate of 25fps all the time. Also, one or two levels of clouds has almost no fps impact. In FS2000, I could meet 25fps in most situations, but turns killed the fluidity. We asked Microsoft to fix this in FS2002, and they did...

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, It will be always the same thing, the 2 years Msfs old generation will always run better,less feature than the latest one, old generation and it's been 2 years past with fastest computer available on the market, at the time of fs2000 release it was worst and not flyable, fs2k2 was flyable at the release and have 4x feature and stable performance.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest]

Hi Dewey,I believe your reply was probably right on the mark. Some interesting comments from others too. :-)Some of Peter Sidoli's comments are also right on the mark and I believe he is on the same track as I am.FS2004 will have a brand new scenery engine, no more BGL and no more backward compatibility for previous scenery. I spoke with some of the MS guys at Oshkosh. (Sorry Tom, but I cannot make the conference this time as you know).It is true about FSDS aircraft, they will not be compatible either. GMAX is the big thing now and MS want it kept that way.But again... I have to say this.. it would seem ONLY Peter Sidoli sees the same problems as I do. Poor Flight dyanamics, Virtual cockpits and 2D cockpits are not cutting it right now and engine management, hydraulics, electrical systems and oil management is not part of the picture. Manifold Pressure readings still do not act as they should with barometeric pressure or engine management? Mixtures do not reflect correct fuel usages or engine management or sounds especially at higher altitudes. And where are the Super Chargers? What about Oil management and temps? Even the fuel tank usage seems not able to be changed on add-on aircraft? What about Mag checks? Electrical systems seem not to beahve correctly or reflect real aviation types and hydraulic management is TOTALLY none existent. Prop rpm's behave strangely too? I am still not convinved either, that the turn and slip indicator acts correctly. Waeather systems are another thing.. the real master or person is not the Captain, noe the plane.. it is the weather and yet FS has the pilot in charge (not the plane not the weather). Weather is most important IMO and we seem a long way from real weather to be simulated correctly. These points I make are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for flying and learning to fly. It is not whether or not the Statue of Liberty will look 3D or be photo real. Eye Candy will not enhance or teach folks how a plane should be flown. A Flight Simulator is supposed to be a program that "simulates flight".I like MS, I like all the versions of FS since FS4.. (FS5 is still a favorite btw.. as is FS2002) but I fear that folks's expectations for FS2004 are way, way too high. It is why I am considering not buying a new PC or even contimplating FS2004 at this time.Now if I am wrong, then I guess I will eat these words.. but I have a feeling some folks here are agreeing and understanding the problems I mentioned that will never be overcome in the next version.It's all conjecture as I said before, it's food for thought and certainly worth making a noise about now rather than wait until it's too late at Beta time.(and 'Hi' to my old buddy Bob K) :-)Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.comhttp://www.douglasdc3.com/1/dc3.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>>These points I make are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for flying and >learning to fly. It is not whether or not the Statue of >Liberty will look 3D or be photo real. Eye Candy will not >enhance or teach folks how a plane should be flown. A >Flight Simulator is supposed to be a program that "simulates >flight". Sorry Trev-------------- but these points are NOT essential in a 70 dollar sim! I'd much rather have accurate topography, airports/taxiways, including grass strips, and the included navigation databases. These examples have as much to do with "real" flying as a complex sytem and engine management "sim" does. Let the 3rd parties create the complex systems for various aircraft, and let Microsoft build the basic world with data-bases like it already does. This so called "eye candy" works extremely well for simulating flight into un-known airports to get a beforehand idea of runway layout with surrounding topography etc. FS2002 even works for taxiway practice for most airportsTo say that MS doesn't simulate flight is "horse ####", if you know what I mean. You and others, seem to conviently leave out all the items I mentioned to fit an agenda. The real flight that I love so much involves all the "eye candy" of the world; the World from above instead of ground level. This is what "true" flight is all about, and not just a job of navigating on auto-pilot & manipulating controls. I learned to fly as well as building my own plane to criss cross the deserts and mountains of the west, the Bahama's and Alaska! All "EYE CANDY"!!!!!!!!L.Adamson

[Guest]

You took this to the extreme..By "eye candy", I mean whether or not the grass moves and makes sounds. Not placement of runways, or taxi-ways.Take AS2 or ATP for example.. accurate airport toplogy without all the fancy stuff like skid marks on the runway etc.FS2004 will supposedly have moving passengers and people that talk in the airports. Sorry.. this is useless to me. It's just eye-candy.Give me realism with engine management techniques instead.Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.comhttp://www.douglasdc3.com/1/dc3.jpg

[Guest]

Give me the eye-candy and yes I want the damn skid marks ;-)go manage your engines in a real simulator at 250/hour!

[Guest Rob]

FS2004 won't fail...I'm confident about it.

[Guest]

"I am still not convinved either, that the turn and slip indicator acts correctly"That's THE example of the problems with FS. It's been wrong since at least FS95 and it is one of the most basic instruments. There are only two possible explanations: Either the gauge itself does not what it is supposed to do or it just reflects problems in the flight dynamics.Sierk

[erict 9]

Hogwash.....FS2004 will not fail. I don't care what anyones says FS2004 will sell many many thousands of copies.Erichttp://www.flycpva.org/images/msgbanner4.jpghttp://www.flycpav.orghttp://www.flysva.orghttp://Thai.virtualATP.orghttp://JAL.virtualATP.org

[Guest Rob]

Yea!Listen to what Eric has to say! I'll be stumping up my $70.00 (close enough) first day out.

[LAdamson 240]

>You took this to the extreme.. >>By "eye candy", I mean whether or not the grass moves and >makes sounds. Not a "bad" idea!! Then I can tell which way the wind is blowing for my forced landings!!! :)L.Adamson

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I put that in the category of baiting folks Larry. Knock it off.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Trev, I will revert to my Philosophy 101 crib notes...You can stand on the fence and speculate how many teeth a horse has in its mouth all day long and never really know what the actual number is. Only when you jump off that fence, walk up to the horse, and pry its mouth open and do an actual inventory of teeth will you know. (Anyone know what school of philosophy that approach represents? Get the right answer and you get 42.5 AVSIM Attaboy points!).From my "you were a sailor once" crib notes:"Opinions are like arse*%&^'s. Everyone has at least one. Mine stinks just as bad as yours."Finally, my Business 101 Crib Notes:If FS200X will be a failure, let me fail! Oh lord, let me fail just like them! Heck, let me be just half a failure!!! :-lol

[Guest]

I concur. FS has about as much competition as Windows (what's the market share already? 98%?).About the flight dynamics, I would also add that I personally do not find the models easy but hard (not talking about the Concord here). Probably because of bizarre behaviors (like on the rwy) and because of almost total lack of inertia. It's not heavy it's sluggish and unpredictable (OK it's better than on a Spectrum 48K).The above is probably not true for Adamson, who apparently has an exceptional computer and exceptional fingers, trained by countless hours of r/c.As to 2004, it wont fail because it cant. There always will be millions of X'Mas sales. Perhaps minus a few thousands unsatisfied GA amateurs who, btw, are to the flight simulation world what actual pilots are to Breitling watches.And I really cant see what the deal is about the price of the sim... ( I refer to the comments like : What do you expect for 70$ Duh...) I would bet that the bulk of the investment on FS2002 was on scenery (the whole world...). Hypothesis supported by the fact that the engine is still in the vault whereas the others have been released. It's a choice. The choice of giving priority to one aspect over the other, rather than to invest over the long-term (indeed, why would you want to do that with no foreseeable threat to your market share?)Bottom line, the choice is between making good business or frankly yank the thing forward. Of course, good business will prevail, with just enough innovation to generate and maintain the appeal. A few % of a product will suffice.