Is FS2k4 that much better?

[Guest wathomas777]

Possibly a cheat, but it may give you the ability to display more clouds with less FPS hit.Also, since you are "supposed" to be INSIDE the plane when flying, from that perspective I bet you would not even notice. It's only when you are outside the plane that you notice. And just what are you doing on the OUTSIDE of your plane ;-)

[Guest]

Keep us updated on how FS2004 operates with your new PC.Thanks,Robbie

[Arklight1 140]

>>But unless you have a monster of a machine...you won't>enjoy>>them...>>How true and when this is your main hobby, you got to spend>the bucks to get the most out of it. The machine I am getting>from Dell is in excess of $4900 but with a 3.2Ghz P4, 2GB of>RAM, a 21" UltraSharp flat screen monitor and 120GB HD,>surround sound 5.1 system and finally an ATi 9800 Pro card,>every slider in FS2004 and dare I say, FS2006 will be able to>be maxed out.I doubt it. The 3.2 is going to be outdated very shortly. Remember, the X1800 I believe was considered a Top of the Line system 2 years ago...and look at it now. The 3.2 GHZ will be the same. That's why I'm hesitant about spending my money on one.But to each his own! :)

[B777ER 2,483]

True Shane, but when do you upgrade? Do you wait for the successor to the 3.2 or wait for the one after that one? It is never ending. By the by, anyone know what is coming after the 3.2 and how soon?

[Guest Milio_B]

All I know is processors can reach the 15, maybe 16 GHz and then they'll stop as it would be really hard to make faster ones (I read it somewhere and it made sense when I did, I can't remember the exact reason now), although with nanotech that might change...Anyways, when computers reach 15 GHz I know updates will be less frequent, and if each update only adds let's say 100 MHz then it won't be worth it that much :(It is VERY hard to keep up with technology these days...what's important is not to feel that if ytou don't have the latest, FS won't run right. When GHz processors came out, everyone was saying how fast they were and how well FS2002 ran. Then why suddenly, 2 years ago, if you don't have a 2 GHz minimun PC, your FS performance won't be right? After all, it was great when the GHz processors first came out wasn't it?If you can afford it, update, but remember you'll ALWAYS have to do further updates.

[Guest]

They said 10MHz was the limit, then 100MHz, then 1GHz...So now the limit is 10-15GHz? Hmm, I see a trend developing here :)

[Guest CargoMun]

>What is your cloud setting in the display menu? There is a>range of imposters to 100% 3D.I have cloud setting at 70-80% around that. Mind you the spinning isnt taking place so obvious when looking out the window of the cockpit. Its more when looking straight down (5-key) - i know i know its not normal to do that either from a plane - but i like to look at mesh from that angle :DI tried flying over totally overcast sky with 80% thickness it does look a bit silly looking down seeing 100's of little clouds spinning as i go over them heheOh, and even on 80% and with cloud draw at minimum 60 miles it still chops up my sound and chokes my machine (FPS 10 max), on a XP2000 1GB RAM GF4 machine that is :(Having said this, game does looks great all in all, flight models of the GA planes MUCH improved, and airports: wow :D

[Guest jcomm]

Hi,fs2k4 is indeed a step forward in many aspects, ranging from default flight models (a lot more convincing, although we all know that tallented FDE designers can allways do even better...), weather not only from the graphical standpoint but also and for me very specialy because - AT LAST!!! - they've tweaked that awful turbulence model, and it now feels just great!I have also noticed, here and there, many unexpected features, such as, for instance, the effect that turning ON engine anti-ice has on the turboprop Beechcraft Kingair. The new helicopter is promissing, although I haven't yet found a way to modify it's CFG file in such a way that it behaves realisticaly, at least in terms of comparison to X-Plane, my other preferred flight sim, together with IL2-FB ;-). Autorotation, although possible, is way too difficult to attain, and the helos in MSFS still behave unrealisticaly when the engine is shutoff (they should require considerable amounts of right anti-torque because, opposite of when you hover or increase collective, the helo body wants to rotate to the left...).I haven't really performed a full ATC conducted flight, but from the few demo flights I flew I am also very well impressed by the new features!!!

[Guest otter55]

i've seen none of the spinning you mention.i consider the clouds to be beautifully done (and i fly daily in the real stuff), greatly adding to the realism of this sim.the weather is not an upgrade. the new weather alone is worth the price of this sim.other aspects of this new sim are too numerous to mention with many, most likely not even explored at this early date.after 10+ hrs running on the same 'puter as fs2002, with far more detail,features ,etc i get the same fps, no stutters, no probs (yet).donp4 306ti 46001 gig ramxp home

[Toys_R_Us 0]

The upgrade is nice, and worth the price for me.But it falls short of my expectations in a couple of areas. Landclass and mesh are not noticeably improved. And, the Garmin's have limited screen resolution and range/pan controls.FS Genesis and FS Navigator were awarded a two year lease on life, for sure. They'll have my money !For some, FS 2002 still remains a great option, as it gives most of the fun, at no additional cost. Frankly and objectively, on two routine flights I usually take (Crystal River Florida, to Inverness, Florida.... And Vegas east to the Grand Canyon), I see very little difference when compared to FS 2002. Yes, the clouds are nicer.If you have not got the bucks for the upgrade, don't be bent out of shape. You've still got 90 percent (or more) of the fun, and a great sim to boot.That's how I see it.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

[Guest lalo lolo1]

Well, I can say I am really happy with the weather I have in my FS2002. Of course the default weather is not the best and clouds were not either. But after I got the FS and discovered the good freeware you can find in the Internet. I downloaded FS Sky World which improves the clouds and makes them look real; Active Sky, that combined with FSUIPC gives really good (or bad if you want) weather conditions; and even the Real World weather that comes originally with the FS, combined with the downloads gives you excellent weather conditions.For the airports I got another freeware (don't remember the name) that changes the way the runways and lights look making them more real and nicer.Surely the new FS2004 must have improved a lot compared to the 2002 version, but in my experience the best of FS comes after developers make new planes, scenery and utilities, and this is after a while. I hardly ever use any of the FS2002 default planes and it would be really frustrating to get the brand new FS2004 and discover that there are not any add-on to get in the Internet. I will buy it in the year that gives it its name.

[Guest]

"640K [of RAM] is all anyone will ever need." - Bill Gates, some time in the mid 80's.

[Guest ucanfly]

Thanks for all for your replies. I was expecting to get raked over the coals from a lot of a really excited user, but such was not the case - for the most part. Mostly I am just reacting to my perceived notion that the jump in quality and innovation between FS2000 and FS2002 seemed much greater than between FS2002 and FS2004. It does seem that the details is what makes this version a step ahead and well worth it to most if not all. Fair enough. I 'll probably wait until my next system upgrade to purchase, however, as FS2002 is barely making it on my machine. Nonetheless I will definitely stay tuned.