While the weather engine is really superior in fs2004 whereas in fs2002 it isn't as good fs2004 is not exactly what I had expected. The ground textures on the most part seem better but I really don't like the flight dynamics especially the learjet where when I turn off the autopilot the plane will just simply dive into the ground. I also don't like the fact that older planes and utilites don't work as well or at all for that matter in fs2004. Maybe in 6-8 months I will begin to appreciate the sim with new planes, maybe the sdk whatever that is I could install to make it work better.But in the meantime is it possible to carry over the highly detailed airports like PHX, DFW, DEN MIA,JFK, and the others into fs2002 without causing problems?I also tried an older MD-80. I know I was warned about older planes but this had very little or no animation and that's what seems to be effected with older planes in fs2004. The whole front section was taken out of the plane and also doesn't have wheels. I believe it was a fs2000 American MD-82. I found the file in flightsim.com a while back and it looks really nice. If anyone has tried it let me know. The zip file: aamd-82.zip or search American MD-82.I don't know guys. While the scenery engine as gotton better, I just think that fs9 or Century of Flight was really made for games and not taken the seriousness of flying to the maxium which I have to regret is not good. I guess I expect to much, but putting your time and effort in doing something as massive as this should be taken alot more seriously. In other words if you were to set out to do a project for yourself, school, work etc. Nothing is worth doing if it isn't done properly in the first place.Forgive me for ranting over this but it just seems that Microsoft hasn't had enough competition out there for a better product so of course they are not really going to improve very much on their goods. Maybe when the Gulf war ends and the economy picks up Microsoft will soon see a different outlook and try to improve to please their valued customers.Maybe I should try to get a job with Microsoft and improve on the flightsimulators. I don't know much about programming but I am willing to learn. I do however know alot about flying and what it should look and feel like.I don't want to cause a flame war but comments are welcome.

>While the weather engine is really superior in fs2004 whereas>in fs2002 it isn't as good fs2004 is not exactly what I had>expected. The ground textures on the most part seem better>but I really don't like the flight dynamics especially the>learjet where when I turn off the autopilot the plane will>just simply dive into the ground. Certainly NOT my experience with the Lear! I wonder what you're doing "trim" wise before setting the auto-pilot?The FS2002 Lear, which was just a "hand me down" from FS2000 suffered from excessive pitch sensitivity. The new re-vamped model for FS2004 is a cinch to trim for both speed & pitch during climb without any auto-pilot at all. For about the last 5000' after "trimming" for climb, I set the auto-pilot to 21000' msl, 265 kias, and my desired heading. Flipped the auto-pilot switch & the Lear handled the job perfectly. And then switched the auto-pilot OFF, and the aircraft maintained these settings until eventially catching up with my exact throttle settings. No tendency to "dive" at all.I do have a feeling that many are using auto-pilot to "fight" a very much out of whack trim. In a real plane, you'd easily sense the trim problem before even attempting to use the auto-pilot. But sense, it's much harder to detect on a home PC joystick or yoke, I can see problems. I "feel" trim problems ahead of time, because my real pilot "brain" transfers to the simulation. It's a matter of what I see on the screen as well as the plane's reaction which seems to form a sense of "feel".L.Adamson

A SDK is a Software Development Kit. It allows developers like myself to create utilities, applications, and add-ons for an application like MSFS2004. Installing the SDK will not, by itself, improve anything in the simulator.Just wanted to clarify.When Microsoft releases the SDK for FS2004, you will start to see more utilities and applications for FS2004 quicker - as opposed to what is going on now (basically a lot of reverse engineering).http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"Ah, the Luftwaffe - the Washington Generals of the History Channel." - Homer Simpson

The older planes with animation issues--I'll tackle that first... Those were created with FSDS 1.x, which dates back to FS2000. There were fantastic aircraft created with it. Sorry to say, they weren't updated to comply with the FS2002 aircraft SDK. Whose fault is that? Microsoft's? I don't like saying it's the author's "fault", as some have retired from aircraft design, flightsimming, or simply couldn't spend the funds on newer design programs. But ultimately it's the aircraft author who controls whether their program, aircraft or gauge will remain compatible with future releases.Still, you have a very valid reason for sticking with FS2002 if you've grown to like such aircraft. I love Yannick's Robin--I don't know if you've tried it, but I'd argue it's one of the best and most overlooked private aircraft (and free) in the hobby. I can "smell" the new aircraft feel in the virtual cockpit, the detailing is so good, down to the pattern in the seats. But it has issues in FS2004, since it was designed with FSDS 1.x and never updated by Yannick.Flight dynamics can be tweaked... FS2004 is too new yet for all the adjustments that the FDE gurus can make. But they will get done--that I can promise you.I'm sorry that the airports can't be ported to FS2002... They are in a different format (the AFD data is contained in the ap*.bgl)You have another valid viewpoint--COF is made for entertainment first, wannabe pilots second, and real pilots or hardcore hobbyists....last. I'm sorry to say it has to be this way for the franchise to survive. The casual gamers or kids who want to brag to their buddies they can "fly" a 747--they subsidize our addiction to this hobby.X-Plane, which is popular with flight model enthusiasts, is a product I've tried. I'd argue that a well done FDE in COF or FS2002 flies as well as the same effort in X-Plane for someone like me with less than 100 hours of stick time. One sim may exceed in the numbers, another in "feel"...I'm not the best person to argue that. But using X-Plane as the example of competition, I think Microsoft has offered the best compromise of eye candy and a reasonable impression of flight.Now having said ALL that, I am flying FS2002 more than FS2004. FS2004 is the sim I choose when I want to watch the sun light up the clouds--and I don't knock that at all. For me, that's what "seat of the pants" flying is all about--so I spend an hour or two a week in FS2004. FS2002 is the sim I choose when I want to fly in a propjet, or in a Lear, or in a '320. There's less eye candy around the airports, and thus better performance. The slight edge in fluidity (ironically caused by FS2002's inferior airport graphics) is something I require to handle a bigger jet (where part of the sim's reaction to stick response "counts"). I understand what your saying, and I hope you feel my response was fair. About all I can suggest is in FS2004 the fundementals are there--you just have to wait for the 3rd party market to "Catch up"....-John

Hmm--Lear flys much better here. Easy to control without autopilot etc.Noel

>Now having said ALL that, I am flying FS2002 more than FS2004.I DO fly FS2002 at least as much as FS2004 myself. Just because that's where most of my favorite freeware & payware aircraft reside. I just havn't gotten around to doing many aircraft up-dates for FS2004 when they're available. I guess I'm not "hardcore" either! :)I also must not care about having two MSFS sims on the HD at the same time. At least I'm not "going back", as I've never left...L.Adamson

Hi Kurt, You will have to wait little for 3rd party and the new function in fs2004 and SDK. I don`t think you have seen all the great aircraft and must files available after 1 month from the fs2002 release, it take little more time. At this point most commercial are focused and works with fs2004 exclusive.Now I am waiting for the Intel P5 should be available at december that`s fs2004 will run at his near capacity :) I am wonder how will looks these Intel 2 ghz low end system now :-shy"I just think that fs9 or Century of Flight was really made for games and not taken the seriousness of flying to the maxium"Well fs2002 at the release was the same with the default fs2k2 aircraft and most of the default stuff= not realistic (except the ground terrain texture), better result and joy happend after couple of month fs2k2 start to grow with 3rd party not before. Now you have better VC in fs2004, better atc then fs2002, 100x better environment, better terrain ground and texture than fs2002 + others misc things; better airports environment etc. -I don't think there will be comparaison after when the 3rd party and full function will be available.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Kurt,And why do you insist on flying the Lear ?Are you bound by chains to the aircraft MS gave you ?Why don't you download a free Bill Grabowski's ERJ-145 that was just adopted for FS9. It has infinitely better panel, more realistic systems, flight dynamics, autopilot - all very good. Why don't you liberate yourself from this Lear .. ;)Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Thank you for the replies gentleman. I guess I waited 6-8 months before I got fs2002 running when I got my new system, Therefore there were more addons. Maybe and like you say I hope that will be the case with fs2004. That would be great with all the new addons. Is just that the fsuipc and active camera are now payware and it seems to be that freeware is at a dismal level. If if picks up and gets going that will be great. I am by the way looking forward to the new FFG 757 though. I also like flying some of the older jets like MD-80s that American has over 2/3 of their fleet is that. Perhaps I should check the Historic Jetliner Group to see if plans are on the way to Develop DC-9s and MD-80/90s.And why do you insist on flying the Lear ?Are you bound by chains to the aircraft MS gave you ?I never said I was bound by chains to the aircraft. I do fly IFDG's 757s and Project Openskys wonderful 767s, Meljets 777s.I happen to like the learjet but I may try to find a Bombdair Canadair Regional Jet instead. I also like the Canadair Challenger or CL60 I believe.I will also try to find a panel for my Project Airbus A320 that doesn't require fsuipc to. It's just depressing but I guess I will wait and see what happens. I hope things will turn out for the better.Like I said before, before cutting out all of the old planes MSFS should have kept the availabilty to do that as well and when new planes came along then great, you could delete the old and bring in the new. As for navigation I guess I will look at Reality XP for the GPS. I will also fly fs2002 and fs2004 and keep both on my system. I just may use fs2002 more until the new things come about.Thanks again for reading my post and the feedback.