Is FS2004 the last MS FS that mattered?

[Geofa 108]

Tv-I'll give you a couple reasons. I know where you live it is pretty dry but where I live it is covered with lakes. Fsx has them all depicted, fs9 has a crude representation of only a few of the biggest. Even with water add ins for fs9 I could not duplicate in fs9 lakes as well as fsx default-and that is an important "tool" for vfr flying where I live. The 3d cockpits in fsx are much clearer, and you can zoom in on instruments with no loss of sharpness-important at least for me who is used to sharp looking rw instruments and not blurry messes. With fs9 I was never able to use the 3d cockpits because of this and the hasbro look that ruined the immersion for me-fsx has converted me to 3d and tracker ir, and very realistic looking virtual cockpits.As Jeremy pointed out above-the increased resolution of ground textures allows a sharp looking texture almost to the ground level. I don't find the blurry look of fs9 very realistic-especially at the altitudes I fly.The increased resolution capability of fsx allows for add in clouds like Rex, and Fex that allow a much more realistic rendition of clouds for ifr flying.The mission capability adds a whole other dimension that is just beginning to be taken advantage of.As far as aiports-the default of mine in fsx is great-it even has my hangar. Sorry yours did not work out as well.In any case, I am glad you are happy with fs9. I was happy with ift pro in the early 90's also, and it was great as a tool. However in addition to tools, immersion also counts in my opinion-otherwise I'd still be using ift pro, pro pilot, and fly. When I takeoff from my home field and have to avoid a flock of birds just like almost every real flight I take it just adds another depth (and certainly the USAir river landing calls attention that it is a live world out there). Yes-I agree with xplane9, and I don't like the activation stuff either....

[LAdamson 240]

There is nothing that FSX does that that FS9, X-Plane, Fly! do not do, in using them as a TOOLS.

Perhaps as tools...But as a sense of reality, FSX does it best... L.Adamson

[gman! 1]

Don't know if anyone read my first post, because it only took a few minutes before we were on the second page, but I outlined just a little bit of what SM 2.0 did for FSX and how it increased realism, by better visuals. I would also like to add that ACES put HDR in FSX (they call it "light bloom") which made the lighting in FSX worlds better, only problem is it kills the framerate, but does this is the case for every other game with HDR (cough...Crysis...cough) :(. To the guy that said the the sunrise or sunset looks terrible? I do not know what you are thinking, dawn and suk and FSX is just absolutely beautiful, and with the right add-ons (FEX, X-Graphics, REX) etc, even freeware textures, you can have it looking even better. Remember, location of your plane in the world, temperature, season, and many other things affect the sunrise and sunset, so you will never get the same 'results if you fly as you do in real life (real world date, real world weather, etc.)Watch These:

No. Well all I can say is the resolution of the textures has greatly been increased. The mesh is also very good and the real world weather is awesome. The feeling of inertia in FSX compares to no other commercial simulator on the market, its just that good. Even though on many youtube videos on the 747 for FS2004 you can "feel" the weight, it is more refined in FSX and even better. The inertia and simulation of weight and size in FSX is what makes it very real and it what distinguishes a small C172 from an A320, B737, etc. In a C172 when I accelerate the screen moves back into the seat a bit, but try that with a big heavy plane with lots of inertia and powerful turbofan engines and it makes you feel like you are there. Take off with a B747 and it will move a good distance back in the seat, then when you turn onto your legs you move in the seat and your head pans a bit due to the g-force. That is what I call attention to detail! :(. The visual features are also majorly improved. Shader Model 2.0 also plays a big part of the visuals of FSX. Lemme tell you this, visuals does not mean less simulation as some think (cough... Speedbird ..cough....). More visuals means more simulation as it is closer to life, and a better representation of what you will see in the real world. One example of SM 2.0 in FSX is plane models. Look at many planes released for FS9 and FSX. Take screenshots of the PMDG MD-11 for instance. The PMDG MD-11 in FS9 does not have bump mapping which makes the parts of the plane such as the tail and the fuselage look less real. When you look at screenshots of the PMDG MD-11 in FSX you can see the bump mapping clearly. You can see where the surfaces reflect and diffuse light, you can see where the plane reflects light well, etc. Also SM 2.0 really makes the water a lot closer to real life. For example in FS9 even though the animated water was OK in FSX it looks magnificent. You can see the crest of the waves and you see it reflect in the sun. You also see the water animating a lot better, and sometimes it even changes with the weather. The water in FSX also reflects many objects now because it does not use just a reflection map. When you fly over the water in FSX with settings high enough, you'll see the reflection of clouds, the reflection of planes, the reflection of SCENERY, the reflection of runway lights (depending on the airfield location) and many more. SM 2.0 helps improve precipitation effects as well because when it rains or snows you see those really nice reflections on the taxiways, ramps, runways, etc. and the world reflects on it. One more thing, which is not even the last of the many features of SM 2.0 is the smoke effects. When a plane lands in FSX the smoke is a more soft and real, also when you fly in industrial areas such as New York and see factories with smoke rising it looks like a real life representation. I know I'm saying a lot but I want to elaborate and show just a small amount of features added by SM 2.0. In FSX reflections on ground scenery objects such as autogen and airfield buildings is a lot nicer then FS2004, specifically because of the amount of reflection features you can do with SM 2.0. Remember all this is just only on SM 2.0, lots of cards such as most Geforce 7 series and ATi X series have Shader Model 3.0 and cards above that (Geforce 8 series, Radeon HD 2 series) have Shader Model 4.0 depending on if they are certified for DX10. If FSX was programmed using SM 3.0 or 4.0 we could have had a simulator looking like Crysis! Seriously, but sadly, when FSX was being developed we were still in the SM 2.0 era.FSX did look good and still does today, and I can always fool some people into thinking that some shots are real world shots (as long as they are not 1 inch away from the screen :().I will try and find some screenshots on the forum here and compare the FSX model with the FS2004 model.FSX:Here is the FSX PMDG MD-11. Look at the bump mapping and specular mapping on the body of the aircraft, specifically the belly, and look at the bump mapping on the vertical stabilizer (the tail) which is awesome:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...;hl=PMDG+MD-11Xhttp://forum.ivao.aero/index.php?topic=89039.0FS9: Notice the lack of bump mapping on the planes.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...;hl=PMDG+MD-11Xhttp://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1536042

[3Green 80]

Is there any reason to start this whole silly debate once again? Flight simming ain't religion and hopefully for sure it isn't politics.Seems we can settle it there and not let this thread degrade into another of the countless others of this ilk?I continue to shake my head in amazement why there seems to be a periodic need to either justify or convert why a particular sim may fit one's need.

Silly debate eh? Geofa :( Awwwww debate is good :( What it boils down too, is how each one of us uses "Flight Simulator". VFR? IFR? 3D? 2D? crash & burn home built cockpits? B) No matter how much you convince me, or I convince you which sim is better, what counts is what makes YOU happy.The bulk of the ppl buying "Flight Simulator" being it FSX or FS9 etc, install it, fly the default aircraft, and then crashes them into buildings for fun.After a few flights they say, "this is boring you can't even shoot anything". Then, theirs "'us" B) BobbyJack and I both agreed, the biggest danger to flight sim,, is our wives...Heck,, I had to sneak in my new PC into the house last month.. Anyways, Geofa, forget what I just said, bottom line, you should be flying FS2004.:( Just kidding RJ

[Geofa 108]

"Anyways, Geofa, forget what I just said, bottom line, you should be flying FS2004."Actually-I am flying xplane now-haven't touched any of the fs's in a month-xplane just does multi's better. :(Doesn't make xplane better, or the last-just different..

[Guest vtx]

i use FS9 1 major reason is i had a compuer built just for it..and with 85 to 100 FPS im very happy with that sim than fsx...as many said here some only fly fs9 and some fly fsx...i can tell according to polls most simmers do fly fsx...HOWEVER more people flew that sim(fsx) and went back to fs9 than people who when from fs9 to fs 2002....most of the problems i read is preformance ..I.E low frame rates to the point that is was just unflyable...and the second largest problem had with fsx waS for the more serious flight simmers was they felt fsx was more eye candy than a more real feel to the planes...fs 2002 2004 and fsx will be used i feel until we get another msfs....that will be awhile im sure..as far as fly and others i dont know ....for me however fs9 with a sick frame rate is all the eyecandy i need and the planes i fly have been tweeked out by me and a real world 757 300 pilot...so i got the best of all worlds..and to close it really dont matter what sim is used ..as long as we all stay in the air..that after all is what its all about... :(

Am I the only one who still prefers FS2004 over FSX? Will FS 2004 remain the sim of choice for some time to come for most simmers? or will X-plane displace MSFS eventually as the sim of choice for the majority?Macs

[LAdamson 240]

..and the second largest problem had with fsx waS for the more serious flight simmers was they felt fsx was more eye candy than a more real feel to the planes...

I have this intense desire for "eye candy". In fact, as I flew my real plane around real mountains yesterday; I was thinking of all the excellent "eye candy", I get to see from an altitude that's lower than commercial jets, and much more panaramic than from a car. It looked great! Since I do live in a mountainous state, FSX just does much better at producing mountains, because of it's higher quality resolution, and shawdowing. The mountains take on more of a photo-like 3D look. The built in sensation of air currents around these mountains also seems more real than FS9. So it appears that FSX is giving me better eye candy, as well as an improved sense of flight. However, I do find FS9 better for purposes such as large airports, and some excellent 3rd party airport/scenery additions. Therefor, I still have both. L.Adamson --- FS9/FSX, X-Plane 8 & 9

Actually-I am flying xplane now-haven't touched any of the fs's in a month-xplane just does multi's better. :(Doesn't make xplane better, or the last-just different..

Make's you wonder how the RealAir multi engine "Duke" will be; if it ever get's completed..L.Adamson

[Guest vtx]

and thats whats so wonderfull about fs...there is something for everyone..you enjoy the eyecandy...i enjoy my 757...someone else will love to tool around in a cessna IN FS 2002...its just like motorcycles...the younger crowd zip around on the rockets..the middle agers are on the crusers...the older crowd are on there gold wings...its .. all good...love it...P.S I say older crowd with respect so no hate mail...LOL..

I have this intense desire for "eye candy". In fact, as I flew my real plane around real mountains yesterday; I was thinking of all the excellent "eye candy", I get to see from an altitude that's lower than commercial jets, and much more panaramic than from a car. It looked great! Since I do live in a mountainous state, FSX just does much better at producing mountains, because of it's higher quality resolution, and shawdowing. The mountains take on more of a photo-like 3D look. The built in sensation of air currents around these mountains also seems more real than FS9. So it appears that FSX is giving me better eye candy, as well as an improved sense of flight. However, I do find FS9 better for purposes such as large airports, and some excellent 3rd party airport/scenery additions. Therefor, I still have both. L.Adamson --- FS9/FSX, X-Plane 8 & 9Make's you wonder how the RealAir multi engine "Duke" will be; if it ever get's completed..L.Adamson

[bobbyjack 61]

Hey ,RJ. Just what kind of new rig is that? So we'll know just how much trouble you'll be in. You know, us real men (cough)don't have to be sneaky (cough)about our computers(cough, cough).Bob

[3Green 80]

Hey ,RJ. Just what kind of new rig is that? So we'll know just how much trouble you'll be in. You know, us real men (cough)don't have to be sneaky (cough)about our computers(cough, cough).Bob

:( Which computer? I have 8 pc's :( All but one are (no name) home brew, so can't really answer that question.. As for sneaky, I think I snuck this one in here :( The new rig is just a Intel E8500 on a asus P5Q mb, with a BFG 9800GT video card, housed in a cooler master case. Why is it, whenever I ring the overhead "flight attendant" call button, I still have to get up out of the pit, and get my own coffee?RJ

[bobbyjack 61]

You can still get coffee? Services are getting cut back. Wait until you have to supply your own toilet paper.I guess that beats the five I'm trying to keep running. Of course, it's not a compition. But I could count my old Windows ME box which I use as a backup, and the Windows 98 rig, which works but doesn't get used much. And then there's my wife's Mac. But that is like Greek to me. What if Mac was the only computer that mattered.Bob

[tf51d 284]

You can still get coffee? Services are getting cut back. Wait until you have to supply your own toilet paper.I guess that beats the five I'm trying to keep running. Of course, it's not a compition. But I could count my old Windows ME box which I use as a backup, and the Windows 98 rig, which works but doesn't get used much. And then there's my wife's Mac. But that is like Greek to me. What if Mac was the only computer that mattered.Bob

Close, Southwest just announced they are going to charge to use the lavatories!!

[bobbyjack 61]

That's right. Well, keep your legs cross.....I mean, your fingers crossed that it won't get worse.Bob

[3Green 80]

That's right. Well, keep your legs cross.....I mean, your fingers crossed that it won't get worse.Bob

:( Well,, if it gets worse, guess we can always swtich to ship simulator!!! :( We've all had a bad flight, right?

RJ

[Jeff 0]

Does it really matter which one mattered at the end of the day? WE have record unemployment and people losing homes everyday here in the States and we are on a forum debating on which sim "Matters" I say be thankful for what ever sim you have and the only thing that matters is that you can enjoy it because there are people out there that cannot. :( Just enjoy whatever you have.