Can we now have an "intelligent" criticism of FS2004.

[Guest wathomas777]

I must admit, having FS2004 for over a week, I was at first starstruck but now the honeymoon is over, and it is time for us to band together and discuss some issues that need to be discussed.First of all, the "p" word. Microsoft never released on for FS2002, FS2000 did have one, but only after constant nagging by the FS community. Plain and simple FS2004 needs one too. Lets address some of the more egreious issues and please helpful posts such as issues and suggestions on having them solved. Posts that tell me to "upgrade" or "works fine here" are just as a big of waste as, "this game sucks" type comments.Now on to the issues.1. Both ATI and NVidia Video cards have some "Serious" graphics issues that can prevent the ATI's from going full screen, and AA issues that cause the screen to black out. This is unacceptable. Of the major brand video cards that are out there, most of all the video card GPU's are manufactured by one of five companies. Intel, ATI, NVidia S3 and Matrox. In gaming cards there are really only two choices, Nvidia and ATI. It is therefore unacceptable that we should be having the "full screen" or menu selection issues with AA on. I mean can Microsoft tell me that they developed this program with non-WHQL certified drivers!!!??? What is the point of WHQL certification if Microsoft develops using beta drivers? This error should have never been there, and to pawn it off of the manufactuer of the cards is cheap.2. Does ANYONE get good frame rates (above 15) with the AI weather on anything but minimum settings? Having a 600MHz machine, I can understand why it is too much for me, but my friend has a 1.6 Mhz machine and gets similar low frames in the clouds. I am purchasing a new computer soon, and am concerned that even an Athlon 2400+ is going to have a hard time 3. Missing bridges: While dynamic bridges are a good idea, the mistakes made in deleting "real ones" The missing of the Coronado Bridge in San Diego Harbor is but one. 4. Autogen mistakes in runways like houses intercepting runways.5. S/U issues and install issues regarding the New Copy protection being used on it.Some of these issues are minor, yet some of them are extremely a big problem.While FS2004 is amazing in many respects, but using uncertified drivers to develop and then relying on the perspective drivers to be released by the manufactuerer is plain silly and a mockery of the WHQL process since MS doesn't even adhere to it. FS2004 currently has some major performance and appearance issues that need addressed. If we don't discuss these things, there is little chance to get these issues heard. An update is needed. 6 FPS using a 600Mhz machine is one thing. 6 FPS on a 1.6 GigHz machine is a bit ridiculous.I am not trying to bash the product or claim how bad it is and try and get a refund. I desparately want FS2004 to work, But I think that MS definitely needs to patch this, and I feel that if we don't begin an intelligent dialog, that Microsoft will not patch 2004 at all, and we will all be experiencing those beautiful clouds.One Frame at a time Here's my vote for a patch..

[yellow5 0]

Maybe I am of a select few, but when it comes to a patch, I don't think it needs to come from Microsoft. I would expect a lot of issues to be solved by the video card manufacturers. I am using an ATI 9500 pro and am getting 25-30 FPS settings on max except for the clouds are on medium. Granted I have a system that helps out the video card. The card does not do all of the work. I have seen many posts for people to make requests to their video card manufacture in hopes that the next set of drivers will help those that have issues. I don't see any major problems with my graphics though. The terrain is beautiful, the planes are nice and shinny when they need to be, dull when they need to be. The reflections are nice, etc. etc. I just finished a flight in the DC-3 from Anchorage to Fairbanks and I tell you it was the most impressive flight I have take so far. They all just keep getting better and better.This probably wasn't the post you were all hoping for, but I am anxious to see what ATI and Nvidia put out in their next set of drivers. I think this might fix a lot of the things people are mentioning. As for the bridges and houses in the wrong place I have not seen any. I am not saying they are not in there, but are they so few and far between that they may just go un-noticed by most....

[Guest Brent Hebert]

I just bought mine today so I haven't had adequate time to test different settings. However an initial night flight encountered black squares blinking during takeoff roll. Will do more testing tomorrow.P4. 1.8768 SDRAMGeforce 2 Ultra 64MBNvidia Drivers 44.03Windows XP HomeBrent Hebert

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, "FS2004 currently has some major performance"Nope, There was tons of post about many positif performance, on mid, lower, I am afraid major problems on performance is not true. see the pic below.Reducing the realism on weather for better frame rate, you can use fs2k2, you will have the non accurate result and all the well know wrong implementation visual in fs2002 for ONLY better frame rate. Do not expect miracle, you will not have anything for nothing.If Ms was implementing Weather a la IL2 sturmovic cotton ball with few clouds here and here and low density weather for better frame rate, it will be not realistic at all, I don't want to get back with limited layer only few clouds , and all these stuff non accurate, specialy not for a cv sim, which require all cloud type, CB,stratus, high height, dense many layers weather etc. Weather should have better room with futur newer system, tons of people have wait long time to see this in Ms, I will not start to talk about frame rate and complain about this, even if you CAN have good frame rate with some tweak in fs2004, it was well know before they works of this, "realistic" weather require frame rate, at least you know now.The 6 fps is way too low, probably he use 4x AA or overload details, we don't know about his system, you should use the search you will see about this.I get 20 fps most of the time, all to full right, except shadows, clouds ultra high 40 mil clouds, clouds % to 100. sometime the frame rate drop but still fluid.Full screen I do not have this problem with gforce. Only the 2x AA, but I dont`t use the create flight page. I go direct to the flight, so no problems, until nvidia release new driver that's will fix that's. The graphics issue will be fixed with newer driver with AA.Ps:I was unable to run fs2002 at full right at the release, why ? the best card available was gforce2 64meg , you have your own conclusion._http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/28251.jpg_ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[E 0]

>3. Missing bridges: While dynamic bridges are a good idea,>the mistakes made in deleting "real ones" The missing of the>Coronado Bridge in San Diego Harbor is but one. While this one is disconcerting, when you're "in the groove, this one also kind of cracks me up in a way.... one of the missing bridges goes to some of the Microsoft campuses. (Hey Microsoft, someone there has to have used I-90 at least once! ROFL)

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, "black squares blinking during takeoff "did you use tweaker ? Try this: but your card will suffer I thinks, you card do not support reflection, gforce2 and gforce4mx do not support fs2004 at full capability.Fs9.cfg under: (DISPLAY)TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40 <------------ to a higher value ex: 400This setting controls the rate at which textures get transferred to the video hardware. Higher numbers will result in the textures getting to the hardware faster and avoiding "popping" textures when switching view but may increase stutters and require more physical memory on the video card (and some more, not recommended for video card with less than 128Mb). ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Brent Hebert]

Thanks Chris,I would like to change vid cards, but my mobo will only support 2x/4x in an AGP card. Most newer cards are 8x.Brent HebertMEMBERhttp://www.cox-internet.com/bhebert/aopa.jpg

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Brent, I think the newer card 8x, can use 4x also, it's only the setting. Go post this in the hardware forum, this should not be a problems. And you can see with a tweaker you can set the 2X, 4x AGP etc. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi wathomas777,I'm with you. I like the sim. I am also a little dismayed about the driver issue. I would just like to see MS put out a patch to fix a few deficiencies and oversights. The game hasn't been out all that long and I have seen numerous posts concerning missing bridges and areas of scenery that are messed up or missing that were NOT broken in FS2002. Then there was this post about a fairly important part of scenery missing. It has an interesting screenshot in it. It may be fixed by someone in the community, but I think MS should be responsible and do the right thing. Here's a link to the post...http://www.forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=9856I think it should be kept in mind that some of the missing bridges and scenery are 'Landmarks' and used by VFR pilots. It's hard to expect software that comes out anymore to be perfect. Especially something of this complexity. So patches have come to be expected, imho. And a patch shows that the manufacturer cares about their customers and thier product. To re-iterate, I like the sim very much, regardless.Here's my vote for a patch.Sincerely,Jimmy Richards

[Guest emergency_pants]

>Can we now have an "intelligent" criticism of FS2004. >Here's my vote for a patch..Erm... LMAO!!!I have no doubt that the issues raised so far will be amended or overcome in time, with or without a patch (Got to applaud you for identifying and posting them! Thanks). More than likely without. As far as performance issues go, I see none. Really... there are NO issues with this version of the sim in my eyes. It's been out a week or so. Are you married? How long was your honeymoon???? Does your wife need a patch? If so... how long has she given up smoking for? :)I HAD an issue with my graphics card (GeForceFX5200Ultra) but it was fixed within 1/2 hour. Thanks to the posts here, I found the latest driver locations and had it sorted in no time! And that is just one issue of may... which will be sorted. Have faith.Thing is, you say that "works fine here" is a waste... but it's not. It DOES work fine! But then it depends on what your expectations are. I guess MY expectations work on a slightly more long-term basis than others?FS2002 was a great sim. It was out less than a week before people started to criticize it, intelligently or not, and start voting for a patch. It never came but it was NEVER any worse off because of that. I personally didn't see any reason for a patch for FS2002 and as far as I can see, there's little need for a patch for this version either.... so far. That's not to say that I don't want to push any boundaries or improve things... of course I do. I just would rather look at it intelligently.Some 3rd party developers would probably dearly like to see some issues dealt with, but as I'm not a technical developer, I can't comment on that.I vote for putting your handbags away and enjoying it more.Works fine here. I'm loving it. :DSi.:)

[Guest Kurt]

-"However an initial night flight encountered black squares blinking during takeoff roll.-"I've noticed that with the taxiway signs when using 16 bit vs. 32 bit, to ease the hit on my old GF2 with clouds.Kurt M

[Guest Jimbofly]

I do not yet have a copy of FS9, but from what I've heard of it and read, it seems quite amazing. If it is half as good as from what has been said in the reviews and people's experiences with it, then I'm already sold!!!I'll let you know in about a week (when its released here down under) if it requires a patch, but I'll probably be too distracted at the fantastic weather and visual effects to remember!Happy flying!James

[Bray 1]

FS2004 needs a patch but I doubt if one will be forthcoming.1) On the matter of missing bridges MS will say wait for 3rd party scenery developers to make better scenery with bridges. Trouble is, as we all know, not all parts of the world will get fixed, but it will not sway MS2) On the matter of slow performance MS will say fly with simple clouds or upgrade your system to a Pentium 6...oh thats not released yet. Well get a P4 3.x anyway, it will do for now. 3) Video card drivers. In all fairness to MS they cant control this. So Video problems will in fact have to wait on better drivers. And some are quicker at fixing than others..right ATI? you hear this??My conclusion is FS2004 is great for me, and for me only, for the improved ATC and a very nice Garmin GPS. Now when I do my VA flights I dont have to worry about getting slammed into mountains. I fly a lot in Central and South America for my VA so this is a positive improvement. My downside is my lowly Pentium 4/1.9 flies like a slide show with 3D clouds, so I have to use simple clouds like MS said in 2) above and all is well. FS2002 patched.sorta!!

[Guest wathomas777]

3) Video card drivers. In all fairness to MS they cant control this. So Video problems will in fact have to wait on better drivers. And some are quicker at fixing than others..right ATI? you hear this??So what video drivers did the develop on. Did they develop on WHQL drivers and then just say, well, we'll wait for NVidia and ATI to release the beta drivers?How can you "test" your programming if you are getting the dark screens, or not being able to get full screens.My issue with microsoft is that they DEVELOPED using unapproved drivers. Development should occur with drivers that have passed WHQL. Plain and simple, otherwise what is the point. WHQL says "Microsoft has put their seal of approval on these drivers". If it's not WHQL certified, we should be using them. So what in the heck is Microsoft using them for?Had Microsoft used WHQL certified drivers, they would have seen the same issues, and if that's the case, how were they able to adequately test that it WAS a driver issue.See my point? If you are using approved drivers, and your program malfunctions, is it the driver or you? If you use beta drivers to test the program, then why are you using unapproved product to develop on?The point is, WHY ARE YOU DEVELOPING USING NON-WHQL DRIVERS, AND IF WHQL IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY NOT USE THOSE DRIVERS TO DEVELOP ON. I don't buy that I should have to wait for drivers that MAY or MAY NOT fix a problem because Microsoft developed the program using non-certified drivers. It's Microsoft's program, THEY certified the drivers. Make sure YOUR program works with drivers YOU certified. Plain and simple. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.Secondly, What good is dynamic weather if it slows my computer down so much that I can't sim? If I am practicing an approach and I slow to 6 FPS, what good is that? Did I buy a flight simulator or a weather simulator.Entire computers are dedicated to "simulating weather". Perhaps since machines are so cheap, Microsoft could have "packaged" a weather module that you could add on to a dual processor machine or link it to a second computer and run some network cable between the two. But even if it were limited to dynamic weather, I would be cool with it. However, If I start a "theme" and then make the rate of change ZERO, I am basically loading a static weather scenario. I still get huge hits. This tells me that not only does dynamic weather cause an issue, but the clouds themselves are not optimized.I just don't buy a 2 GHZ or greater machine as having to dip into single digits. And if you are going to offer an easy "2D" alternative, at least offer them the same quality as you had in the previous game.I love the add-on community, but one thing it is doing is giving the developer an out. If something doesn't work, wait for third-party. If something is missing, wait for third-party, If something needs tweaking, wait for third-party.I certainly don't buy that from any other "vendor", why should I buy that from them. Brakes don't work well for your 2004 Ford Mustang, wait until someone develops better ones. Sorry, that doesn't fly.And it shouldn't fly for us either.

[Bray 1]

>>>I certainly don't buy that from any other "vendor", why should>I buy that from them. Brakes don't work well for your 2004>Ford Mustang, wait until someone develops better ones. Sorry,>that doesn't fly.>>And it shouldn't fly for us either. I see your point for sure and feel your pain. Most of us do. I know I do. I really dont know the facts on the drivers used for testing, but I agree with you to some extent that MS could have done a better job. I have never been a beta tester and I do not know how testers report problems, and to what extent they have any "control" over items getting fixed. I suspect little or nothing. Therefore the beta program seems very ineffective. As an example I clearly recall a beta tester on the FS2002 team said 3D clouds was in the final beta release and was working well. It was then yanked before public release for no apparent reason. Well FS2004 clearly shows the reason. MS cant get it right with the clouds...In closing I dont buy Ford products anymore for that very reason :-) :-)