FS2k2 100 Steps forward FS2k4 20 steps back...

[Geofa 108]

Thanks for the nice words-I don't know why you would be getting what your are getting except for the video card difference, as your setup is superior to mine in every respect except for the video card.3rd party aircraft can make a huge difference however (old gauges, custom gauges etc.). Maybe try some tests with default fs aircraft and see how you do. Fs2004 is very sensitive to old gauges. I am sure all the 3rd party aircraft will shortly come out with updates-but see how it runs with default before trying 3rd party?!There do seem to be issues though with the ati-will be interesting to see if you install the other card if there is a big difference (a pain I know-but what a service to all the flight simmers -lol)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Guest edrutl]

Tom,My system is similar to yours (intel 865/800 fsb mobo, 1 gig of ddr ram, Radeon 9500 Pro).There has to be something with your system, but I'm not sure what it could be. I bumped up the default settings it gave my system and the frame rate is locked at 24. I'm usually right around 24 in all situations. I've flown several flights in the Eaglesoft Beech 400A with little impact on framerates. Like many others, my fps are similar and more fluid than fs2002.The menu flickering is an ATI issue which will hopefully be fixed with a driver update. FWIW, I'm using the 3.2 Catalyst drivers.ed

[BladeLWS 0]

Ok this is to settle this argument here once and for all. If FS2k4 does not look better than 2k2 thats because you have an old PC. Get a new one. Remember minmum graphics on 2k4 and max on 2k2. So yea its gonna impact you. I get a steady 20-30FPS ON 2k4, sometimes jumping up to 40 and 50 but I keep it locked at 15 so I have seemless gameplay. Also you need to have a bit of tweaking knowhow with your vid card. This is what I have 2k4 settings at, see below. Thats all I have to say on this topic. But one thing I'd like to show everyone ranting on 2k4. Mods I know this isnt the screenie forum but this is to prove a point. http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26227.jpgNow tell me 2k2 is better than THAT? Well tell me.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26230.jpghttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26231.jpg

[Guest brewmaster]

Well said (or shown). Whoever posted this original thread is either a troll or smoking crack. That or he could be a troll who smokes crack too. Anyway, fs2k4 is a huge step forward simply put. So his crappy computer cant run it. What does he expect. The improvements come at a cost. Good for microsoft for pushing the envelope of what current machines can handle. IT means we get the most advanced and realistic game currently possible. Not only does the game look good too, flight dynamics are much better in my opinion. This is the first version of FS where I get nervous flying into a storm, especially in light aircraft. Same ol crap by same kinds of people...Brew

[Guest rcoultas]

Great pic there Eric,I think FS9 is also very nice. I only wish the level D simulators we use at work had such nice graphics. Best Regards,Randy

[spotlope 0]

In your message, you wrote:"3) Suggestions to "wait it out" mean what? Microsoft's position of late has been "no patches" and I don't expect waiting it out will fix FS2004 (although many of the community's add-on developers may fix some of these problems via improved FS cfg settings, better clouds, better scenery, etc.)"This is hardly supportable. Microsoft patched FS2000 -- which badly needed it -- and they patched the recent CFS3, which also was direly in need. They produced no patch for FS2002 because they didn't see any show stopping bugs there. From all the people who are now bellowing that they're much better off staying with good old FS2002, it seems they were right.I've seen postings from a whole lot of beta testers over the last few weeks, and they all positively glowed about this new version. But I know from experience that it takes a few hours or even days to get a new sim set up and running the way I'd like. I don't expect perfection out of the box from software as complicated as this; I know I'll have to tweak it to fit my particular hardware configuration and style of flying. And I'm reasonably confident based on their recent performance that if indeed there are show-stopping bugs to be found in this new version, MS will do something about it.

[Guest]

Three things. Reviewers are up the backside of developers. When was the last time a review on the big 2 sites panned a release? Second. That screenshot is meaningless. There is no scenery or autogen in view. Last. Just what is wrong with 2002, with the right add-ons it is a brilliant sim, and you don't have to wait for upgrades or pay $35 for FSUIPC.Robert

[Maxis 1,857]

Well I have had all versions of this sim since version 4.00 for dos when Bruce Artwick had a hand in it. From my point of view the only "bad" package for its time was fs 2000 and that was due to framerates. The guy who posted about honda and toyota i really find hilarious. Last time i cheked i didnt have to secure a loan to buy this product and i certainly am not making monthy payments. Obviously theres a higher expectation there. BTW The sim hasnt crashed out on me either. Now im the type of person who likes to throw caution to the wind. fs2k2 came off my system without hesitation. After installing 2k4 i realized that some things didnt work right.HOWEVER, after reading around i managed to get em fixed or am in the process of wating for the relevant fixes that were promised. Now i cant say that i have seen the cloud from earth scenario but a couple of my addon panels did not work. Gee, i wonder why.. guess what?? un updated drivers. Downloaded em and the panel probs were history. Yes the Ati flikering can give epileptic siezures but I really dont see why so many people write off the game for a few MINOR problems. Microsoft DID not promise Vault like or car like reliability and EVERY piece of software from most if not all software houses comes with its own bugs. Yes the software isnt going to run at full blast unless you have alienware but if you really expected that type of performance on a meagre system you need to take your head out of the sand. Its not too difficult to see that the software is future trended. Do you wonder why direct x 9 is included? Does FS 98,2000 & 2002 initial framerate probs ring a bell?? Where you guys able to run those flawlessly right out of the box? For the majority i didnt think so.PLEASE NOTE THE READING ON THE TIN OR BOX:"The above are specifications a computer must have to run this game. Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems."Its not too difficult to figure out that the specs microsoft posted are the MINIMUMS ... NOT the medians or the maximums. Essentially this sim is heading in the right direction .. im locked at 20 and the sim stayed between 20 & 8 in dense areas and even at 8 i got no stutters.. finally i can get turbulence which was painfully missing from fs2k2 and the mesh looks decent.I dont like to fiddle with or purchase big scenery addons so i had not installed any in 2k2 and dont intend to in 2k4 and the diffenece in default scenery between 2k2 and 2k4 is quite obvious. If you dont believe go take a look at princess juliana (TNCM) in 2k2 and 2k4. The water textures need work i admit and im sure that someone will fix it as Ed Truthan did in 2k2 (Hats off to you Mr Truthan). If MS was to cater to every whim and fancy we would probably paying thousands if not millions for a simulator program that would need its own zip code (Yes i know that its an exaggeration).Dont really care if you guys think if its fs2k2 service pack one or a brand new version. In my eyes its fs9/2004 A Century of Flight and its a whole of a lot better than fs2k2. MS hasnt let me down yet especially from where this sim is comming from. I wonder how many of you have seen fs4.0 running on ms dos 5 or 6? using the pc speaker? Its was a joy to fly then in those circumstances as it is to fly 2k4 now. It also helped to be cheaper than fs2k paid 70plus bucks for 2k pro and got this for 58 plus an unexpected 10 buck rebate in the tin. BTW if we were to say .. fs2k2 is good as it is now we would never get any progress at all. Didnt all the previous sims start this way as well without addons. It was even more acute when 2000 came out with a whole new graphics generatorover 98. Count your blessings that a good amount of the addons can be transferrable or upgradeable with a patch. I dont know of any 98 to 2000 addons patch. If you do congrats. Yes its a shame that fsuipc went payware but you need to read the licensing agreements regarding the program and draw your conclusions from there and if thats the reason your not buying 2k4 oh well.Take a bow FS developers. Job well done. I like it. Just my 2 Jamaican cents which aint worth much but its not zero cents either.

[Naji 5]

Hi, Tom. I have the same setup as you and the frames are rock solid in the range 17-20; I've locked them at 20, as per the default value. This is with COF scenery and autogen at max and weather sliders at default.Try resetting all values in COF Options to default; I keep COF AA off; in the graphic card driver options, I use AA at 4x, AF at 2x. Try again with a stock plane, the Cessna or the Baron. If still bad, I would remove completely the ATI driver and re-install it (I'm using the 3.6).Cheers.

[Guest]

Very well said. I remember FS Ver 3 on the IBM 8088 With the PC speaker and DOS 3.3. It was the greatest sim I had seen at the time. Made me get rid of my Commodor 64 running Sublogic FS ver 2.0.I spent a lot of money upgrading my current system to the latest hardware. Its a fun hobby for me and Im glad Microsoft is creating a program that will push it to the limit and show me what is really capable of. If you don't have, or can not afford to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware, turn down the settings on FS2004 or stick with 2002 or 2000 or 98 until you have the resources to upgrade your system. Its that simple.Rob

[Guest]

Why not go the whole truck load and just say that some people are never happy! What exactly do people want from the simulator before they are happy? I love the new sim, I think the weather, although FPS consuming is amazing but I guess that's only because I have a PC that will run it... I dunno...Regards,Adam Nardone

[Guest cwright]

>The result will not means as a sucess product either, remember the complete new engine from flyII, fs2000 and cfs3, not great compare to their previous engine.Good point, Chris. I'm a great believer in that old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I think the new engine in CFS3 is little short of a disaster. I think the terrain (particularly the terrain shadows / shading) is inferior to CFS2 and the middle distance textures are far more blurred (using default settings). In fact I can't think of a single advantage in the CFS3 engine compared to CFS2. Certainly the scenery has far more variety than CFS2, but I think that's due to the scenery design rather than the scenery engine. To make things worse, the new engine meant that CFS2/FS2002 scenery couldn't be used in the sim. And to crown it all, CFS3 stutters far worse than FS2000! (and that's with the patch). A prediction: CFS4 will use the same engine as FS2004, or an enhanced version of it. Best regards, Chris Wright

[Guest]

In the past people have commented in the screenshot forum about the terribly blurry textures and poor visibility of FS2002.The pictures were later revealed to be actual photographs and not screenshots.People expect the new sim to work with all the options turned to max at a higher performance than their old sim with all options turned down.New software requires new hardware. If Microsoft were to release a sim that would not push the limits of what hardware can do people would complain that the sim could have been so much better if only they'd pushed the limits of the hardware...

[Guest Gordius]

Why do I sometimes feel that perhaps some of the simming community is often too critical. "The nose is too rounded", "The wings are too big", "Max speed should be Mach 0.80 but I can only get Mach 0.795", .....I paid

[BladeLWS 0]

Well something just popped into my head. As you can see MS makes the best and most complete flight simulators in the world. You want more? How long do you think It took to add all the new "eye candy" to FS9? How long did it take to write the new code? No one is perfect, but FS9 is huge step forward from FS8. Right now you can't find another sim more complete, advanced, or user friendly. So basically you can live with FS9, which is perfect for me as its a huge improvement over 2k2. Stay with 2k2, thats fine but you won't be able to take advantage of all the new goodies. Option three, if you're still going to complain about FS9, send it back, get a refund, reinstall 2k2... But I'm sure within a week you will the thinking, OMG what have I done...