I find myself still firing up 2002 over COF

[Chris_CYWG 0]

CoF has the "eyecandy" I guess... but when I look at the overall picture right now I'm going back to 2002 all the time...Why? Simple all my good addon purchases work flawlessly right now... until those are working (if they ever will) I'll probably be spending more time on the older version... it really only is an IFR sim for me to keep the skills up for the real world anyways... Its always nice having the latest and greatest, but sometimes the latest isn't always initially the greatest! (Just my opinion, and I am sure that in time the developers out there will make COF as good as 2002 was once the SDKs come out and fixes for products are issued)Anyways, both sims are installed on my system, new stuff for CoF, the working stuff for 2002!!Chris

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, " (Just my opinion, and I am sure that in time the developers out there will make COF as good as 2002 was once the SDKs come out and fixes for products are issued)"It is normal you can't compare a mature 2 years old with a brand new sim, but COF have way much more potentiel than fs2002 on 3rd party, fs2002 have reach the limit with the addons for fs2002, and developper area already start working with fs2004 as well for the commercial for fs2004 product.But the weather/sky/environment is very limited/buggy in fs2002 which remove all the realsim in the sky, also the ground/autogen is better then fs2002.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

With respect Chris, So COF is just a gravy train for developers ? It seems anybody who made a name for themselves with the 2002, now have a legitimate excuse to charge what ever they like to make a program work the way it should have in the first place ? If COF has so much commercial capability have Microsoft not sold every user without the programming skill down the river by relying on others (at great cost to the end user) to make COF any good ?If this is the case, for me Microsoft have just lost a long loyal customer forever....sorry, but it stinks.Ash

[Geofa 108]

I am curious:If you look at the thread:http://forums.avsim.com/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=128885&page=You will see the scores of improvements made in this sim from fs2002 that users have already noticed-and that isn't all of them.therefore how is:"relying on others (at great cost to the end user) to make COF any good ?"a valid statement?It is obvious that there are scores of improvements that make it very good. A third party developer adding to this already huge bag of features doesn't diminish from what is already there....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

The basic program get's more real, the addon's get more real, and half the flight simmers are just as "cheap".............. amazing!L.Adamson

[1mikel151 71]

With respect...Unbelievable, you see so many posts with simmers crying about how this doesn't look realistic, that is wrong, the real world has it like this, why isn't is like this... we finally get a step or two closer towards the realism...at a price, and it is still criticized!The real training simulators cost an arm and a leg, I think we have a pretty good deal with what we have for under $100. Granted, alot of our favorite addons don't work yet, but we didn't even have them to begin with when FS2002 first came out, give it time! I am pretty content with the default at the moment!As far as the payware arguement, I encourage and look forward to the addons, they are becoming more and more "as real as it gets" and with the NEW, enhanced platform that MS have provided for us, it only gets better!!! (THANKS for the new Active camera guys!!!!!)I love all the new scenery enhancments in FS9, the telephone poles, the new autogen, the different object textures, the new buildings, the vehicles and boats, etc. I can see paying $10 for addons to enhance areas in FS2002, matter of fact, I have, just 6 places alone pays for the new sim, you can argue over payware, it is all how you look at it. I had TNCM totally redone with many different freeware packages and addons in FS2002, looked pretty good,, BUT..... it don't come close to the version in FS9!!!!If you want to stick with what works for you and what you know and love, more power to ya, I love FS2002, but after going back to re adjust my sceneries to fit FS9, I have no reason to fly in it, only keep it around for design purposes and testing new aircraft and utilities for now. Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

[Chris_CYWG 0]

I agree, the weather is a big improvement, and there is potential there... for me its I have a few products I always go back to and use religiously, and those products won't work right now :(

[Guest ba747heavy]

I admit to being put off a bit by the addons that wouldn't work 'out of the box' with FS2k4. However, my favorite 'old timer' works well enough, admittedly with a touch of ugliness added(767PIC). The only addons I care about are 767 PIC, RFP 742, and 737NG, all of which now work in FS2k4(well almost). I know, for others, there are more addons, but rest assured that the developers will get it working in the new sim.I have other payware addons, but for the most part it doesn't bug me that I can't fly them(well, so close to the release of 2k4 it doesn't). Of course, obvious, your mileage may vary :)