FS2k4 got it right this time!!!

[Dillon 2,197]

I know I've posted some topics about this new sim that some don't agree with but I have to give credit where it's due. The flight modeling in FS2k4 seems to be better than ever. Turbulence, icing, etc. are modeled wonderfully. FS2k4 is the king/best ever for low level flight, frame rates are solid and better than what we saw with FS2k2. I think this new sim was designed for bush pilots because 32,000ft flights just don't cut it if you can't get a complete overcast or once above the clouds framerates take a nose dive do to the effect of the 3D clouds. For me I'll have to keep it below 10,000 because this sim is awesome at that altitude. I think X-Plane might have a run for it's money with this new sim....

[Geofa 108]

I have always contended that msfs has been built as a serious GA sim-not a jet one imho. Speaking of the new effect-try flying around mountains and watch what the turbulence does! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Guest]

I'm really confused why everyone is talking about not being able to get a complete overcast.I have flown several flights with clouds from horizon to horizon, without any gaps. All it took for me was setting cloud coverage (surprise) to 100%.I think the problem is that FS2004 starts out with 100% 3d clouds and a low percentage of coverage. Swapping these settings gives you complete overcast and better performance (though distant clouds won't look as nice).

[Guest]

>I have always contended that msfs has been built as a serious>GA sim-not a jet one imho.I think that is especially true with the last two versions. I have never really flown the big iron, and I am really starting to loose interest in even learning how because GA flying is becoming more and more compelling.Though I think the DC-3 will be fun to play around with. I flew an approach in a thunderstorm in the DC-3 last night that was a heck of a lot of fun.Worst. Landing. Ever.

[Guest BobKK]

I still don't have my copy yet (picking it up tmw) but from what I've read, the overcast problem occurs when your ABOVE the cloud layer. It goes from overcast to broken or perhaps scattered. Has anyone flown on top of an overcast layer and it remains, overcast?Bob

[Guest CargoMun]

Well I got cloud coverage set on 100% and also the 3D depth for testing it. Plenty of gaps in there. Was just a bunch of those silly little puffy ones smacked together (maybe using stratus clouds will be better ??)Ok so I tried adding a second layer of cumulus. It gave me bottom one beeing thunderstorm black/grey and top one normal. Still gaps - and I had around ridiculous 3-4 FPS with no AI and on the ground in default B737.Somehow I expected more on a 1GB RAM machine with XP2000+ CPU.While on giving credit where its due - without clouds or just flying with the simple "fair weather" scheme I do get 2-digit FPS at least around 15.Still cant hide my extreme dissapointment with how big a toll the weather takes on framerates. I havent even bothered trying real weather or updating it every 15 mins :-roll

[LAdamson 240]

he,he....... :)At least 40 to one positive.......... just like I said! Of course my preference is low altitude mountain/backcountry flight anyway.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

stratus & cirrus might be a ---- whole lot better---But I have still got some very descent frame rates with lot's of white & big puffy cumulous, but it all depends what the surrounding scenery is. I never use those ugly little cumulous like are present in the default startup! :)L.Adamson Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRram

[Dillon 2,197]

That's the problem!!! When you fly through and above the clouds no matter if there was a major thunderstorm going on around you, POOF thunderstorm vanishes when you reach around 12,000ft. Very unrealistic, that's why I call this a bush pilot's simulator. I guess it's to be expected with all the old vintage aircraft released with this sim (I know, that's no excuss).I can't understand how the beta testers missed this one. Maybe too much of the OOOH AAHH going on about all the new features that they forgot to try flying above 12,000ft in heavy weather conditions...

[B777ER 2,485]

Well that sucks for us iron drivers. Overcast on the bottom and what, 5/8 to 6/8 coverage on top...how MS screwed this up well never know.

[Guest]

>That's the problem!!! When you fly through and above the>clouds no matter if there was a major thunderstorm going on>around you, POOF thunderstorm vanishes when you reach around>12,000ft.I just selected the thunderstorm weather theme and put my poor little Cessna at 19,000 feet. The view below me was nearly totally obscured by overcast ... with only a small break or two.According to the knowledge center, FS2004 dynamically scales cloud cover based on what your system can handle. THis is probably what is happening to you. You might want to adjust some of your settings to get a bit more performance headroom to deal with the clouds.I used to run Fs2002 at 1280x960, 4xAA, and 4:1 anisotropic filtering. In order to compensate for the demands the clouds in FS2004 put on my graphic card, I had to drop to 1024x768, 2xAA, and 2:1 filtering. This allows me to set my clouds to 100% overcast (at around 50% 3d or less 3d clouds) to get nice, thick cloud layers at any altitude.

[Guest Paul_W]

>The flight modeling in FS2k4 seems to be better than ever. >Turbulence, icing, etc. are modeled wonderfully. FS2k4 is the>king/best ever for low level flightGreetings. I have nothing comprehensive to say about the flight modeling, and I'll leave that subject to people who ought to know, except to say this: In flying the Lear the other day it didn't seem to take much to get that jet to "whip around" rapidly one way or the other in the sky. To me that apparent capacity to make sudden, exaggerated changes of direction didn't seem particularly realistic, and to that extent I wasn't impressed. I also thought the virtual cockpit didn't look at all realistic.On the subject of low level flight, I personally think it's the weakest aspect of the sim largely because of the generic means of creating land cover and scenery, but also because of coloring and textures; before buying the sim I saw many screenshots anywhere from treetop level to about 500 feet that in no way could be mistaken for reality, and now that I've used the sim I feel the same way. Of course, to its credit there are many situations in FS--I'm thinking especially about views a thousand feet or higher near a busy airport--that appear to come close to reality. And while the low level scenery--over an urban area for example--is a vast improvement over FS 2000, when compared to reality it's not very close for me at the moment.I've read opinions and discussions about FS 2004 extensively, but when all is said and done I personally didn't find much difference between its look and feel and that of the last version. The raindrops looked outstanding though, and clouds in the distance (using the building storms theme) looked pretty persuasive.My impression at this point is that FS would be an outstanding learning tool and procedures trainer for those serious about aviation and flying in the real world. At this point though I'm a casual user who simply wants the most realistic representation of flight over the most realistic world that can be generated on a computer, and it looks like that's going to have to be in a fighter jet in LOMAC.

[LAdamson 240]

In these pics, my Lear is above 28,000'. Overcast isn't totally solid, but still very dense, with breaks as in second pic. Frame rates are between 9 & 12 which is a lot lower than my usual preference of 25, but I didn't notice because realitive movement is slow anyway. I was surprised when I turned on the fps counter.L.Adamson --- Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRram

[LAdamson 240]

Then you'd better catch some more pics of backcountry mountain strips----- especially with add-on scenery.......... because this sim is un-beatable in that catagory. FUIII included. With dense covered forest, it really is impressive. I'll just assume, you've neither seen nor visited these areas. Or had the auto-gen turned up.L.Adamson

[Guest]

First of all I have been around here for years but have recently had to reregister because I was deleted. So here is my post to keep my account active. FS2002 works just fine for me. I've read too many negative things here to go out and pay full price for FS2004. I like to fly the airliners so I might not like FS2004. I have a friend that works for Microsoft and he can get me FS2004 for $10. When he does I'll install it and give it a try. But as for now I'll probably keep flying FS2002. With FS SkyWorld and Active Sky, 2002 works fine for me. I am one of those nasty people that think FS2004 is just a patch for FS2002 that Microsoft decided to charge us for. Good luck to everyone no matter which version you choose to fly.