FSCOF? ...do I need it? My thoughts (long)

[Mike S KPDX 597]

It has been interesting reading all the followup postings. It does seem to make good reading and I appreciate all of your responses. For what its worth I would like to respond to the individuals who have posted. I do only in the spirit of conversation and to let you know that I read and appreciated what you have taken time to say, so here goes...Chris Willis-I have deep respect for your knowledge of the FS wx parameters and skills. I would also like to thank you right now for all that you have provided. I wholly agree with all the assessments you make. A few comments: 'xyz rendering' - not sure exactly what that mean - your current clouds look great to me. 'sky color' - good point. 'snow/rain' - I find the images for these element to be far to large (fixed via freeware currently) and the screenshots for FSCF also show these to be to large. Do you agree about the 'dynamic sky' being driven via online metar is not going to be in this release or were you able to discern differently?Brewmaster-Cost is/was never part of my comments, in the overall simming experience the box cost of MSFS is not a consideration for me. However, I do think of the 'expense' of, shall we say 'hassle' to be worth something?SoarPics-My response, Do I need it? Nope; Do I want it? Don't know yetMA717-You bring up an interesting point that seems to be predominantly 'software industry' centric. New FS bugs and problems? It will be interesting to see what these are thus I may be waiting a bit before purchase along with you.Shaka-Thanks for the limited agreement, appreciated. I also don't what to fiddle around or buy add-ons, I have just done that with FS2k2. Thus my post, I think I already have most of this stuff.Ahinterl-Your comments and mine seem to match. I am sure everyone here would like to see competition within the flightsimming community. To bad about ProPilot, FLY and FU, I have 'em all.Michael-'beating my chest'? man, I have many post that far exceed the discrete tone that I tried to present on this posting. I can imagine what you thought of those ;-) 'First in line', probably not. 'Sooner or later', probably.JohnCi-Thank you for your support and clarity. The landclass update is something I was not aware of. I have downloaded freeware landclass updates that currently seem to work well. This will be an interesting feature nonethelessUnited-Your statements about RC are very true. I also think that this 'integration' aspect of your argument is well said. Definitely makes me rethink the issue of MS ATC.N247BK-'New flightsimmers', no doubt and no argument there, this is a good thing.PaulVR-All comments well taken. The idea of seeing clouds and formations in the far distance I also think will be one the great items - question; framerates? I don't know, but I do know this, I have a AMD2100. What will be the cost of this effect? Can I use it? If not then why purchase? (thus my original post). Just thinking out loud, thank you for the response.Paul_W-I also fly within cloud systems but my experience is a bit different, I am not sure why. When I get close, my screen starts a slow fade to grey (varies) and I can periodically get subtle hints of movement 'within' the cloud (very realistic) and then a slow fade out of the clag. Maybe I must pay more attention during the transition, I will give it a go. I did not mean to step on one of your suggestions to MS on the preset wx. For me personally, utilizing online wx I just would not have much use for it. Same goes for the log book, actually I don't think I have ever used that one, not once. I should probably go search it out.Frantzy-Mike of PDX thanks you :) Given me more food for thought.Seev-39-The long terms effects are always good to look at. I distinctly remember in 1986 (summer) talking with a friend of mine about 'the 20 years from now' theory. I used almost the same descriptors as you have. But alas it appears that even that will not come to pass. Your comments about the private vs. commercial sims I think has occurred though.David Vega-Great response. Fortunately I am able to get all my stuff to work together, has taken a bit but it is done. I am just a bit shy about starting over again. Understood that this is a cycle, maybe we should think about the process of tweaking the sim as enjoyable as the sim itself? Maybe I should look at it that way.Eric-Eric, Eric, Eric - if I could only be a child again :) I can only make a few comments here; has MS stated anything about a base 'engine' revamp? (I do apologize if I have missed it). $500 worth of add-ons and your in serious trouble! - wholly agreed.R5D4-Nice criteria and well stated. I quite like my FS2k2 also even I will probably update after the dust settling. Is this true about the 'serious overhaul' stuff?DannyBoy-For $60 I think MS has delivered a great product, I sincerely believe that. I actually am surprised that it has come down in price from the pro version (at least what I paid)

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, "A few comments: 'xyz rendering' - not sure exactly what that mean - your current clouds look great to me. Hi , they may look good, but never able to get the resulat that't I want, I consider them as beta 1 :-lol.The rendering system in fs2002 , X, Y, Z on the clouds is limited, you can't get CB without the stretching anomalie, line in the horizon, limited clouds type, "paper thing" remove all the realism and fun for WX, clouds that's disappears cirrus to cumulus, can't have many "3d clouds" layer at the same time etc. 'snow/rain' - I find the images for these element to be far to large (fixed via freeware currently) and the screenshots for FSCF also show these to be to large.I find them more realsitic, specialy the snow on the video and shots.Do you agree about the 'dynamic sky' being driven via online metar is not going to be in this release or were you able to discern differently?"From whats I have seen and read, in the video and preview dynamic weather engine with clouds that's form and dissipate, this is mean dynamic system.All details are very very important on the weather visual/ sky environment, it add completly new visual to the sim.If you seen in fs2002, the ground scenery is superior than the weather for the details visual.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Tabs 2,790]

Anyone who thinks FS2002's weather modeling is good needs to go outside and look at some real cloud fronts move through. I HATE the way you can suddenly go from driving rain and near zero visibility to having not a cloud in the sky in a matter of seconds in FS and vice versa. I can't tell you how many times I've been on a visual approach on VATSIM only to have FS2002 weather mess up at the last second, put me in IFR condtions and force a go around. I've seen it happen many times as a controller as well. FS2004 is gonna change all this and actually make weather as big a part of flying in the sim as it is in the real world.I just can't believe people are saying they're not going to upgrade to the new version when, as someone already stated, it costs less than 2 or 3 payware addon planes. Everything that comes out addon-wise from July on is going to be directed at FS2004, not FS2002. The interactive virtual cockpit thing, from all acounts I've read IS in fact what the original poster was saying about being able to change the altimeter, radios, FMS, etc right in the VC... This will revolutionize the sim if it works properly. How can you form "an opinion" on what FS2004 is not going to do for the genre when none of us (save for a few testers that can't talk) have even experienced it? Weren't people saying this stiff about FS2002 as well before it was released? Is anyone still running FS2000 however because they still don't think FS2002 offers anything new?Ryan

[Mike S KPDX 597]

Larry, it would just be the shear volume and complexity of doing this. Then again, I am assuming here as we really dont know. Actually the beta testers would know and it would be nice if that item was reportable. On the other hand, sincerely asking here, would that be somthing you would use? exclusivly?

[Mike S KPDX 597]

nt

[Mike S KPDX 597]

>Anyone who thinks FS2002's weather modeling is good needs to>go outside and look at some real cloud fronts move through.I think it is the best we currently have :-)>I HATE the way you can suddenly go from driving rain and near>zero visibility to having not a cloud in the sky in a matter>of seconds in FS and vice versa. I dislike that too, however it is minimized greatly with FSMeteo (that is one of the top 3 reasons why I purchased it)I can't tell you how many>times I've been on a visual approach on VATSIM only to have>FS2002 weather mess up at the last second, put me in IFR>condtions and force a go around. I've seen it happen many>times as a controller as well. FS2004 is gonna change all>this and actually make weather as big a part of flying in the>sim as it is in the real world.Actually, here is where I disagree. I dont believe it will change the VATSIM (i.e. online) weather experience. It is not uncommon for one reporting station to vary greatly from another close by, espcially if the reporting times are staggered. I say this because of the wx interface (posted via screenshot) of the wx page. There appears to be no variable to accomodate 'transition smoothness' ala FSMeteo or similar. Have I misunderstood?>>I just can't believe people are saying they're not going to>upgrade to the new version when, as someone already stated, it>costs less than 2 or 3 payware addon planes. It is interesting, I do suspect that their minds will change possible after awhile.>Everything that>comes out addon-wise from July on is going to be directed at>FS2004, not FS2002. The interactive virtual cockpit thing,>from all acounts I've read IS in fact what the original poster>was saying about being able to change the altimeter, radios,>FMS, etc right in the VC... I have not found any accounts of what you state, I will continue to peruse as many of us will though. I assume the FMS statement was in error, no problem.>This will revolutionize the sim>if it works properly. agreed 100% >How can you form "an opinion" on what>FS2004 is not going to do for the genre when none of us (save>for a few testers that can't talk) have even experienced it?I form an opinion on what I have read and seen to date exactly as you did in your 'weather' statement above. Just what this forum is best at and I endorse and promote - good stuff. >Weren't people saying this stiff about FS2002 as well before>it was released? Is anyone still running FS2000 however>because they still don't think FS2002 offers anything new?I dont know, I think a few are running FS2k, I am not sure. I personally purchased 2k2 within several weeks after reading a multitude of positive comments, remarks and reports on its fantasitic qualities.

[Guest]

I have a strong feeling that FS2004 will be a letdown like FS5.1 was for me. From what I

[B777ER 2,485]

The future for MSFS.....SRTM. What does that mean? It means Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Couple years ago the Space Shuttle spent it's entire in-orbit time mapping the entire earth via radar. It is said to be the most accurate topography yet of the planet. It is just now coming out for the public to use. I hope that MS uses this as the new main feature for FS2006 as we would have already heard by now if it was in FS2004.

[Guest]

Whatever floats your boat, man. I for one am extremely looking forward to it. As a real life pilot, after watching the cloud documentary video on the MS site, there's no way I CAN'T buy it. I MUST HAVE THIS PRODUCT!

[erict 9]

I don't care about all those who choose to bash FSCF before it's been released. Chances are I'm buying it no matter what anyone says. I've been simming since SubLogic FS 1.0 and nothing is stopping me now. =)So whine & moan all you want. It's the same thing every 2 years. I could care less if you don't want to buy FSCF or upgrade your computer, that's your problem.EricFlying Tigers Groupwww.virtualATP.org

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Eric--You posted exactly the same comment in another thread. I don't think the author of this one was "whining and moaning"--just playing devil's advocate. Are you trying to make a point, or just look "cool".... Most of us here have been flying FS as long as you have, buddy....

[erict 9]

You know what's funny. I bet he's going to buy FSCF as well. Even if he's seems to be so thrilled with FS2002 and all his addons.Tell me I'm wrong.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I think he will Eric... I'll probably do it to, even after having seen the screenshots posted today. One shot, taken from a 2.4 Gig machine, showed 16 fps (shot #56, I think). That means on a P3/800, like mine, the clouds will slaughter it. I doubt I'd get more than 5-6 fps, given that the shot had so little in it other than clouds.I think that's the one concern I have with the package--that Microsoft presents the specs fairly. There are many people who don't browse forums who will see the graphics on that box, then go out thinking they'll know what it's like to fly. We're serious hobbyists--we talk about investing 5-600 every few years to support our passion. Many others who buy these titles in Walmart have their parent's PC, or maybe they are pensioners on a limited income that see something that sells the glory days of their first contact with aviation. Many of these people will have PC's at the bottom end of the specs posted on MS's website. Will they be happy if they get 2-3 fps? I know we were when FS was first released 20 some odd years ago. But would anyone be today?

[Guest]

Guess I've been in a cave judging by the length of this thread, but I'll have to agree with most of what you're saying Mike. After 12 years in the hobby, I'm getting tired of forking out money upgrading computers every two years to run the program. I think FS2002 is a fine program, I myself don't have any buggy issues, I'm running great third party add ons, utilities and aircraft and it all works well for me. I see a few here expressed the same thoughts about performance specs with the new COF. I already have an excellent third party weather program and utilize Squawkbox as often as I can. As far as the "new" aircraft, so what. Nobody can beat Jan Visser's DC-3's and I really don't care to fly a Vimy or anything. Just personal taste of course, but I don't see much improvement over FS2002. Bottom line is Old Betsy (at 1.5ghz and 512 SDRAM) is strained to the gills as it is. I like what I have and will probably stay with it and pass on COF.Carl

[LAdamson 240]

> After 12 years in the hobby, I'm getting tired of>forking out money upgrading computers every two years to run>the program. I'm not planning on upgrading anytime soon. Upgraded to the Athlon 1900XP for FS2002, and figure it will make it through FS2004. That should be good for about four years, although I make no promises regarding dishing out the "bucks" for improved CPU specs.I prefer working GA aircraft VC's which makes FS2004 worth it.L.Adamson