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

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, "I call the one I mentioned about 2D panel fps this is fixed by adding two line in the fs9.cfg, see the readme first post on this forum."and the one about blank screen after minimizing both very very major "It's the driver, I have tried the others then official nvidia, and you will get this problems, I have reinstalled the 44.03 nvidia official driver and no black screen on minimized.See this post also: DRIVER ISSUEhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=131467&page="I would not be surprised if there are more bugs in this version of FS than there is in both FS2000 and FS2002 combined`Not at all.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest]

Hi, all. I don't have FS2004, but a few things stick out for me when I read over this stuff before making my purchase->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 MSAnother problem with this is the payware "fixes". I don't mind paying for quality payware addons (and no, I'm not about to go into payware vs. freeware here), but how fair is it to have to pay for a fix? >2) 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. IMHO (and we all have 'em) this isn't unreasonable. People compare MS with other game developers take into account the "little" things for patches, but what they fail to mention is how all the latest and greatest games require newer hardware, too. A simple fact is that more eye candy, more behind-the-scenes features, more realism, etc. requires more horsepower. In fact, I find it completely laughable that some people with a system under 1 GHz even complain. Sure, the box lists minimum requirements at 600 MHz, but I defy ANYone to show me a game that ran well on the Mfr's suggested minimum system. It's more or less common knowledge that in order to run a program reasonably, you need to AT LEAST double the minimum requirements. It's good that Flight Sim enthusiasts are still generally well-mannered folks. Had a complaint such as this appeared on a Quake message board, numerous flames would follow.>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??This is a good point. People seem to think that the whole of MS is working on this sim, when it's only just a limited number of people, able to test on just a limited number of configurations-- hence beta testors. Even still, you can't replicate EVERY user's situation. There are quite a few other games that didn't work right for some hardware straight off the press. But, given adequate time for the hardware guys to develop and test updated drivers, those same drivers fixed the problems.>My conclusion is FS2004 is great for me, and for me only.And that right there is the bottom line. It's the individual experience that counts. It's unfortunate that some are having the problems they're having, and that there are glitches in the sim that need to be addressed. Based on what I've seen-- from a pit in the middle of Arkansas (as reported in the scenery design forum), to eastern Long Island's missing tiles, to the piling up of autogen bridges in one spot, while landmark bridges in others are missing, I believe that a patch should be issued. This, of course, is my own opinion.Cheers!Jon

[Guest]

>>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? Hmm. That's a good point Si! Before I got married almost a year ago, the "sex" program was working quite well. However, since I got married, it seems as though the "sex" program has slowed to a crawl! Perhaps to the point where it's totally, "unplayable"! Now I don't bother to try and run the "sex" program much at all since all I usually get now are the typical, "Not tonight honey, I got a headache" errors! I wonder if there is a patch for this? Or perhaps a "hardware" upgrade is in order?? Nah! I think my equipment still runs efficiently after a year! I think a patch should do the trick! Where can I find one I wonder? ;-) Let me know if you hear of any!Just kidding of course! I had to jump in on this one...For the record, I too am enjoying this sim enormously! Although I am not running the most powerful machine out there (Athlon 1.4, GF4 Ti 4200, 512MB DDR, WinXP), I have my settings at a point where I can get the best of both worlds until I can persuade my wife into getting an upgrade. Hmm. Perhaps if I tell her that I will delete the "sex" program, she may agree to the upgrade? ;-)After following some of the great tips at the top of our forum on how to maximize FS2004's performance, I think I have hit a point where I can honestly say I am extremely happy with the sim! And I believe I have found a new love in aircraft to fly with the new DC-3!A very big Kudos to Microsoft for a job well done! Now, where's our patch?? :-) LOL Just kidding!Best regards folks! Enjoy the sim!"Flash" Gordon NoseworthyNewfoundland, Canada (CYYT)Edited in order to add my sig. For some reason my signature did not append to the original message.

[Guest PaulL01]

"A side effect of my upgrade, is that FS2002 looks outstanding. I still fly FS2002 often, as it's an easier platform for me to tinker with aircraft design and landclass (which absorb 90 pct. of my simming time these days)."John,Trying to be respectful here so please do not take offence, But frankly since you run the sim at 800x600 which is a horrid back to the very old days of simming resolution, how can you even notice your -LOD and AF settings? Or speak of performance issues?Though 800x600 maybe an option, I know of not one person beside yourself who would use that setting, and if they did I am not sure I would ask them about their image quality. Please do not misunderstand, as I know you have reasons for running it that low, But if you go back even just two years ago Image quality and performance settings with GF3-64mb cards centered on high res viewing with -LOD and 4xAF running 1600x1200x32 with no AA of course so I think in today

[Guest PaulL01]

Nicely stated Jimmy, My feeling exactly,.. well today,.. I mean right now,.. for the moment,.. I'll get back...

[Guest Ken_Salter]

Actually I do too. I route my computer thru my TV, so the image quality actually does look good IMHO.http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[Guest PaulL01]

>>Actually I do too. I route my computer thru my TV, so the>image quality actually does look good IMHO.O jeshk, Great! :)Actually I have also on occasion, but to say that it actually looks good I would strongly disagree.Hey, do want some lemons? Trade you two lemons for some cheese!

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Paul....I understand your post, and you raise a good point. You have the means to answer the question yourself--go to 800x600x32, and look how changes in LOD and AF settings influence the sim. The short answer is they do, and you can see them... But it sounds like you have to try yourself--and I encourage you to try since it's been your research on the subject that has allowed me to find settings I can live with. I want you to see that your help has helped even people like myself who prefer the lower res...-JohnEdit: Paul--look for my Mirage shots in the file library in my just uploaded update of Chuck Dome's Mirage. You'll see what I mean as far as pic quality. I think it's pretty dang good :)Here's a link:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...02ac&DLID=34171And one final edit:The only point where I could be offended, if one wants to dig at straws, is your premise that my definition of "outstanding" "isn't", simply because I run at a lower res. That'd be the same as my coming in and telling everyone who runs at a higher res that their opinion didn't matter, since I have my own litmus test for what I like in the sim and for what I count as good performance. It isn't for everyone, but people have a right to try it out and not assume they're "wrong" for doing so.If someone starts appointing themselves the person to invalidate others' opinions simply because someone's setup doesn't meet their muster, then that person can become offensive in the forums without realizing it. We've seen that before, and thank God those simmers are gone now, having gotten themselves bored with their rhetoric.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

I have some screenshots in the screen shot forum if you want to take a peek ;-)http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[Guest PaulL01]

>>I understand your post, and you raise a good point. You have>the means to answer the question yourself--go to 800x600x32,>and look how changes in LOD and AF settings influence the sim.> The short answer is they do, and you can see them... But it>sounds like you have to try yourself--and I encourage you to>try since it's been your research on the subject that has>allowed me to find settings I can live with. I want you to>see that your help has helped even people like myself who>prefer the lower res...>>-John>>Edit: Paul--look for my Mirage shots in the file library in>my just uploaded update of Chuck Dome's Mirage. You'll see>what I mean as far as pic quality. I think it's pretty dang>good :)>>Here's a link:>>http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...02ac&DLID=34171>>And one final edit:>>The only point where I could be offended, if one wants to dig>at straws, is your premise that my definition of "outstanding">"isn't", simply because I run at a lower res. That'd be the>same as my coming in and telling everyone who runs at a higher>res that their opinion didn't matter, since I have my own>litmus test for what I like in the sim and for what I count as>good performance. It isn't for everyone, but people have a>right to try it out and not assume they're "wrong" for doing>so.>>If someone starts appointing themselves the person to>invalidate others' opinions simply because someone's setup>doesn't meet their muster, then that person can become>offensive in the forums without realizing it. We've seen that>before, and thank God those simmers are gone now, having>gotten themselves bored with their rhetoric.You make some Good points John. Of course if it is working for you that is what realy counts and I know you are not the type to dig at straws, so thank you for taking my reply in the tone in which it was meant. :)So I Cant say, "You are wrong and I am right" etc.But my point revolves around a few things, simply that our eyes on "average" can resolve At normal viewing distances somewhere in the region of 200 to 400 dots per inch, so 800x600 is even on a 15 inch monitor a little less than desirable. Obviously there is a reason why hardware has been designed with a higher and higher resolutions in mind.I do understand your settings work for you as well as one other person (thanks a lot Ken!) and that

[1mikel151 71]

Otter55 and TonyB, great posts! I agree 100%! I have no major problems, bridges missing is NOT an issue for me, if a tree is in the runway I will remove it with an exclude switch, excellent detail, even at 800x600! LOL, no driver issues, very fluid on a low end 1 gig system with sliders maxed!To say that MS let the problems slip by and not address them is to assume that everyone is having the probl;ems you are, obviously not the case, perhaps all the beta testers had good experiences, or worst case, not the problems you are having, how could they know then.It upsets me that PAKT has walls of water clinging to the sides of the land, I haven't posted that MS sucks and they should be shot for letting this slip by.I truly feel for those that are having problems and I hope they do get it sorted out as this sim is an awesome experience!!Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

[Guest crashing_pilot]

.>>Mmmmm, I thought sim's were about realism, I guess I'm in the>minority.gee...here i am,thinking it was about having fun......thanks for enlightening me.:-erksget a grip,its a game for col!!

[John_Cillis 2,406]

It's funny you mention the monitor issue, as I'm sure that comes into play as well. My monitor is going on something like seven years old, and I purchased the cheapest--not because I'm a cheapskate, but because I looked up and down the row of monitors touting dot pitch and the like, and found my no name, no brand monitor beat them all in where it counts--the end result. Little did I know that a $175 no name monitor would also last seven years.... It is only fifteen inches, so you are right that any improvement higher res's offer is probably negated by the monitor's limitations.Still, every time I fly, I'm amused at what a corner I box myself into vs. MSFS expectations. Rare do I see anything resembling MSFS at 8x aniso and a -.5 LOD... Usually I see something that's muddy compared to MSFS's blurriest textures. Ground haze, mist, smoke.... Most times, I can only make out detail within 10-15 nm of the aircraft. In the deep south, forget it....so much dang humidity down there that the water seems clearer than the air when you're in the flight levels... My last flight to Florida, I hardly saw the ground in "clear" skies....Back to 800x600--I was surprised that I was able to tell a difference between 2x, 4x and 8X AF... Remember, I started FS2002 w/a Voodoo 3, so I was begging for any improvement... Another way to put it--without AF, 800x600 would be intolerable, IMHO....-John

[Guest White Hawk]

Chris, thanks but the 44.03's is what I was using first that was doing the black screen thing, and the ones I'm using now, the Omega version of those same drivers do it too, and I already have put in those two lines (If you mean: TextureAGP=0 and PanelAsTexture=0) in my cfg and it makes no difference at all for me.Crashing Pilot, I have a grip thanks all the same, more than you know, a lot of the "fun" in FlightSim "is" the realism I mentioned, and the more FS makes it a game, the less FS will be a sim and the more people it will lose who buy it, still, I can talk, I haven't flown a FS version since FS2002 which I uninstalled a year and a half ago as I have more important things to do with my time now, but still, I don't like wasted money.

[Guest Pardue802]

Well, let's just grant the fixes with the autogen bridge and massive sinkholes all over the place.I think it's odd that you can see an aircraft's landing lights through a cloud, no matter the cloud cover, but its red label fades behind the cloud as visibility is reduced. The lights should fade too.AI Aircraft still taxi funny, though this isn't a bug, its an area that needs improvement.I've noticed the flaps on the C172 are often messed up soundwise. Every now and again I'll hit the flap switch and the sound of the flaps retracting/extending doesn't stop... I just have a constant noise until I hit the button again.There are SEVERAL issues with the lessons which I've noted in other threads. They aren't consistent, Rod doesn't know how to fly the plane (he nearly stalls it during some lessons, and I'm not talking about the stalls lesson! Not to mention asking me to descend at tremendous rates of descent in order to maintain a certain airspeed. That bugger drops WAY below 90 knots very quickly! There are inconsistencies in the documentation, too. The PAPI at Bremerton is listed as a VASI in one of the lessons, and on an unrleated note, the ATC documentation has missing material (at the uncontrolled airports part of the doc, they have one section that has "Crest ??" listed where something else should be, and another section where a list should be listed as a bullet point "List is missing". Should have been checked.Oh boy, there are a number of lil' problems. Nothing too major though, all in all MS did a bang up job on the sim.Kenneth