if not FS2004, then what?

[Guest]

I know this forum is bias to fs2004 but my question is, if one had a choice of a PC based flight simulator program, and money was not a concern, what else is out there? I use to be a big FS2002 fan and then stopped flying for 6 months or so do to time constraints. Now I'm looking to get back in but am weiry of buying 2004 because of all the negative comments on this forum. So my question is, what other software is out there. I'm looking for the most realistic flight experience, and by realistic I mean a good combination of flight dynamics and scenery. I like flying commercial airliners around the globe and my current fav is PIC767 w/fs2002, so if not FS2004 then what? morph

[JimmiG 244]

There's nothing wrong with FS2004. it had some issues initially and still have some on my system, but they are related to bugs in ATI's videocard drivers. I have contacted ATI and they confirmed that they are working on a solution to these problems and they will hopefully implement those fixes in the next set of drivers (no more than a couple of weeks away).If you have a lot of FS2002 addons you want to use in FS2004, you'll probably have some problems with some of those.Apart from FS, I also play FU3 a lot. However, it is more suited for GA, because of the small terrain areas, though there is available a Learjet, Boeing 747 and a Dash8 for it. The biggest seamless scenery for FU3 is the UK-South scenery which covers, well, southern UK.I know a lot of members here also play Fly2. I don't have it so I can't comment on it but it looks good judging from screenshots.

[Vulcan 14]

If you like 767PIC and FS2002 why not stay with it, at least until FS9 settles down and add-ons are produced?I have FS9 and the weather effects are great, as are the other improvements, but they do have an impact on frame rates, at least on my system.I also prefer to fly add-on airliners which are not available yet for FS9,and fly with Vatsim, so I am keeping FS2002 and will use that for most of my flights until I can upgrade to fly FS9 with the details I like and the add-on aircraft are available.So, why not keep FS2002 ;-)

[Guest]

I guess I will stay with FS2002 and PIC767 until PIC is compatible with 2004, I just thought that with all the interest in simulated flight that there would be more competition for MSFT then FLY, or at least some kind of professional software out there?

[Guest]

PIC will NEVER be compatible with anything newer than FS2002 for the very simple reason that Wilco stopped supporting it several months ago.The product is end of lifecycle, end of support, end of maintenance, dead.The entertainment Flightsim market (and especially the civilian one) is actually extremely small.There is a worldwide core of maybe 20000 people (about half of them active in some way here and at the other portal sites), and a total userbase of maybe a million installed copies.The "professional" market is even smaller, consisting of flightschools and extremely dedicated students alone buying packages like Propilot or Elite costing thousands of Euros while offering nothing the average PC simmer wants (i.e. graphics and options to enhance and add aircraft and scenery).At the high end of this are of course the full motion sims operated by airlines which cost millions.

[michal 44]

Very good reply. Nothing to add or subtract..Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Vulcan 14]

Interesting reply JW.From that very expert (as always) analysis I assume we can forget about any future 'advanced' aircraft from the various add-on producers as the market is so small. Wonder why PMDG bothered?Still your analysis does perhaps show why the default aircraft in MS Flight Sim are the way they are.

[michal 44]

>Wonder why PMDG>bothered?PMDG once stated they are not in it for the money. The same is probably true about Flight1 or DreamFleet.People do things for variety of reasons and it doesn't necessarily have to be a clear profit motive that drives them (climbing the Everest ?).Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[JimmiG 244]

What we can do to make sure we continue to get great addons for FS is to encourage developers.I know some people are angry with the payware developers because they ask for money, but you should still support them by buying their products. It's better to pay a little for addons than to have no addons, and $10-50 isn't the end of the world. Don't insult or otherwise disrespect freeware developers either, this will only either make them go payware, or stop development alltogether.;)

[jagabom 21]

Nothing in life is free!JimCYWG

[Guest pagotan]

Hi folks,Let's assume that there is 3% of the flight simmer community which has an appetite for sophisticated flight decks and also has the financial means to afford a well developed product. Then we are talking about roughly 1500 potential users/buyers. I am taking the pessimistic approach here.A further assumption is that for market reasons Microsoft is going "visual" rather than "real simulation". Nothing against it but it does not serve the purpose of those guys who are more interested in flying an aircraft rather than enjoying the clouds outside and the toilets inside. It is clear that MSFS has demonstrated with FS2004 which way they have choosen. Another fact is more and more freewares are getting so time consuming to develop and update that there is no other alternative for the developers than to go shareware.If you add the cost of FS2004, three to four reasonably good addon aircrafts (Boeing, Airbus and one GA aircraft) half a dozen addon utilities for weather rendition, flight planning purpose etc. Then you quickly arrive to a price bracket of $300 - $500. This exercise must be repeated in average every two years or at each new version of MSFS. I will assume in the following ideas that at least 1500 flight simmers are willing to spend $500 every two years for good products.OK here are some of the fact. The list may be more exaustive but let's assume this is the base for now. So what can be a good alternative for those of us who use flight simulation to as pilots rather than as passengers enjoying the outside views. Can we imagine aircrafts developed the way PS1.3 from Aerowinx was developed? that is stand alone programs which can, if so desired, be linked to MSFS for better "visuals" but whose primary functiona are to reproduce accurate flight desks? how many aircrafts are needed? 2 or 3 Boeings, a couple of Airbuses, 1 or 2 commuters and 1 or 2 GA aircrafts. This would satisfy most users. Is it a viable solution for the developers? I do not know. But certainly it would appeal to the group of flight simulation enthusiasts I was trying to define at the beginning.One last thought, if developers are concerned about piracy which is the cancer of this hobby can we imagine the high quality flight decks be accessed and flown via internet only by accessing the cockpit from the developer's site instead of the developers selling their products. Kind of pay-per-use solution.What do you guys think about it? a pure dream or can we convince developers to look at this non negligeable minority of simmers? which seem to be more and more ignored by Microsoft.Michael

[Guest CapHavoc]

Howdy,Geeez, no one has even mentioned FlightGear. It is GA, but it is free ...http://www.flightgear.org/

[Rakham 0]

>>What do you guys think about it? a pure dream or can we>convince developers to look at this non negligeable minority>of simmers? which seem to be more and more ignored by>Microsoft.>>Michael >>Michael,I agree 100% about your fine analysis of the present situation.When I first saw a little red plane with a panel and needles moving left to right and up and down, radios etc, I thought this was just a joke for a little game. This was more than 10 years ago.In fact, the little plane was already far more than just a repetitive game, like most of those games for PC at that time.I became more and more interested. There was hardly anything to look at outside. Of course, it was a "Flight Simulator" and not a Sightseeing program! I went through all the saga of the MSFS until this recent one FS9. Besides, I started about 3 years ago with Fly!1 2K and Fly!2. Thanks to a marvellous team, the ROTW, I have learned so much in 3 years about navigation that today, I feel more hungry to go for the real big thing. Thanks to your personal precious advices, I have now ordered PS1 1.3 which is on its way and should be installed perhaps no later than this coming Wednesday on my PC.I am a 57 years old, agronomist, and I want to have all the available matters for "Navigate" a plane. I can careless if there are cows in the fields, kids swimming in pools, car running on highways. Most of the times, when I fly in my area, I see the same farms than in the US. Strange for Indonesia, no? :-)And the trees are oak, apple and pine trees mixed with some palm trees.:-)Perhaps, somebody could tell me how to get ridd of all those fancy sightseeing buildings and vegetation.What am I looking at is indeed just few very sophisticated planes, most of airports on the program with taxiways and their full indications to find my way around. A very precise flightplanner with most SID&STARS(please), very realistic weather, and few more things very essentials to learn that GREAT JOB of yours, Captains!Best RegardsRakham

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I really wish that there was more competition in the civilian flight simulation market. To be honest, we could do with it. A lot of people love Microsoft Flight Simulator, but there are quite a few of us that don't. That isn't because we dislike Microsoft. It's simply because there are numerous aspects of the product that don't meet our requirements. I personally love Flight Unlimited 3, and would therefore like to see an expansive flight simulation that is based on everything that is good about the FU series (detailed, uninterrupted satellite mapped terrain textures, high resolution mesh, easy to use interface, single keys for different viewpoints (rather than the daft method used in MSFS), VFR panel views for great visibility, superb simulation of turbulence, and more convincing flight models....in my opinion).I don't have anything against MSFS, except perhaps the monopoly that it has on the civilian flight simulation market. It's about time that flight simmers who don't particularly like the product were provided with several different alternatives. Maybe the flight simulation market isn't big enough for this, but I would still like to see them all the same :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest cw1011]

FS2004 has a few problems, but for me they are not life threatening. I find the program much smoother at 20 fps than the previous version ever was and the new skies are really beautiful. A lot of folks have said that the add on clouds in FS2002 are just as good - they are not. Visually, the new sim is an improvement - especially at 10,000 feet. Colours are sharper and more vivid, roads and rivers follow their valleys much better, the new night textures are outstanding - really outstanding and the new detailed airports are nice. I've been flying the Frontier Airline DC3 route over the Monarch pass - and there are areas there that look a lot like the real mountains. For you, it may not be a good choice. PIC will not work and neither will the Dreamfleet 734. I think that Phoenix is going to update their A320, but I'm not sure. So, the only FMC equiped airliner available is the PMDG 736, which is also going through its own teething pains and efforts to curb its hunger for framerates. Right now, FS2002 is your best bet if you have to fly the heavy metal - not because FS2002 is better, it's just that there are many more options. I can't comment on flight models because I've never flown a jetliner in real life. I do know that the smoothness in FS2004 makes all flying seem much more lifelike and real. Your only other option is X-plane, or an old copy of the 744 PF1 simulator. Xplane also is extremely fluid and the planes in it feel "right" (again, I don't fly in real life so I can only compare them to a few "discovery flights"). The second gives you system fidelity second to none - but not much to look out the windows. Hope this helps. Colin