Hi guys,Havn't been here for quite a while.This is not to start another flame war or hear a tiriad of opinions about which is better or who is whining or claiming a just cause.I am simply interested if I am kind of a strange species (am I menatlly sane?), or if someone is with me and who.Rgds,Alex

Read the flaming thread just below yours, to find the answer..http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=145703&page=

I don't even HAVE the new version. Actually I just downloaded and installed a great new scenery from Leon Luis (sorry if I got that wrong) -- the Maine Lobster Fest -- near Bar Harbor, Maine.My FS2K2 runs well; I almost never fly with weather anyway; I have lots of personalized liveries and sceneries (Lindy's Flight Service) that I don't want to lose (and a friend is creating a new one for me as we speak :-jumpy). I simply have no overriding reason to run out and spend $50+ on a new version, then spend all my time downloading and installing.So Alex, you're not alone. :-beerchug-Lindy :-wave

Am perfectly happy with FS2002 -- tons of sceneries, planes, utilities and months of tweaking makes me a very happy user.Besides I have an antiquated Machine so to actually enjoy the major advances in FS2004, I need far more than the cost of the software to reap any significant benefits.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

These forums tend to give the impression that if you're still running FS2002 at this stage, you're a dinosaur. Those who must be at the leading edge at all times even dumped FS2002 before installing FS2004. That's amazing to me. My own FS2002 is an very complex, highly developed simulation for me now, painstakingly assembled, and much of what is in there won't work in FS2004 yet anyhow, if ever.Out there in the wider world, there are many keen simmers who will not give up FS2002 for a long time yet for those and many other reasons: most VA's will be slow to change, for example. Sure, FS9's weather engine is glorious but it's unsusable for many people and there are other well-documented shortcomings. The cost of FS9 for many will be a new system; we should bear in mind that there are many, many people out there who cannot afford to upgrade every two years. I'm one, which means FS9 is simply not as flyable for me as FS2002 at this time.I am disappointed to see some developers say "I shan't be supporting FS2002 any more now". I know we must move on, but I'll do my personal best to satisfy both camps.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Hi Mark,>I am disappointed to see some developers say "I shan't be >supporting FS2002 any more now". That was what got me thinking if I was a dinosaur. I bought Georender 6 the other day. It said for FS 2002/2004 but there was no installing routine for 2002. I called Lago support and they said it won't run in FS2002 (technical reasons). Of course, you know me, I copied all the files from FS9 to FS8 and it works perfectly. I got the sounds, active scenery everything. Only need an additional exclude switch. So all they would have to do is make a different installing routine for 2002. If that is asked too much already...hmm.Alex

I'm still enjoying PIC in FS2002!Before yesterday I was having a hard time flying FS9, but since I got a new Radeon 9800 Pro I've started to enjoy the stutter free flying a little more. I'll slowly make the transition, but for now FS2002 is my preference.

Like a lot of people in here I fell for the old Microsoft spin. Went out and bought the product, FS9. Immediately I was wowed by the clouds and thought yeah this will do for me and so got rid of my FS2002 installation. I then installed my VFR UK Photographic scenery and my woes began. I lost clarity, color jerkovision on landings and a whole bunch of other problems occured. I havent got loads of downloads but I did have FS2002 running really good and could fly anywhere in the UK using VFR rules with high framerates and could even identify my house, see attached image.Last night I spent 2 hours tweaking FS9 and still not as good as FS2002 was. My kids have left home I have agood job with a good salary, but why should I bin a machine that I only built at the begining of th eyear for Bill Gates satisfaction. No way, I'll take the product back to the store get something for my XBOX and go back to FS2002.Wycliffe

OOps I should explain that the image on my previous post was taken from my PC, an AMD 2000XPcpu, Nvidia Gforce4 MX440 64meg graphics card with 256 meg of ram, and is pretty damn near perfect, with FS2002 and VFR UK Photographic Scenery. The main road junction is about a mile from my house. And for those of you who live in Cardiff. Wales it's Culver House Cross roundabout.Wycliffe

I posted this in the other forum just a minute ago. Thought I'd post the same thing here, maybe it could help someone...I'm just really glad FS2k4 runs perfect on my system. I still have FS2k2 installed for all the reasons mentioned but when I compare performance FS2k4 beats out FS2k2 on my system. FS2k2 gave me stuttering problems when I came down from altitude during a long flight and when autogen scenery started displaying again because the ground was closer on final approach. I always had to push the 'Windows' key in the middle of an ILS approach and return to the desktop and click back into the sim in order to refreash the scenery to get my framerates back to where they were when I took off. No problems like this with autogen in FS2k4.FS2k4 has many much needed features added into the ATC sytem such as requesting higher/lower altitudes while in flight, use of multiple runways at all major airports, and the ability to open a flight plan in the middle of a flight (or change destinations). The weather system is awesome as well with the new updated FS_Metro. Using FS_Metro you actually see a storm front develop in front of you as your flying into it, this is just amazing to see. Last but not least interactive Virtual Cockpits is hands down the best added feature. No more switching between 2D/3D when setting up for a landing. I only fly planes now with fully interactive Virtual Cockpits...I originally had many problems with FS2k4 until I did a few simple things: 1. One was to max out all sliders in my 'Video Card Settings' except for AA. That option I left at it's lowest setting (THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT)...2. Used FSW's (Chris Willis) weather and scenery update which corrected the problem I was having flying above the clouds. Those clouds used to kill my framerates.3. Downloaded the latest FSUIPC (of course).4. In FS2k4 made sure AA was turned off and set all my other settings to my liking. I found setting your 'Target Frame Rate' is very important as well...I have had nothing but a great time with FS2k4 every since I did the things above. It really bothers me to see so many that can't really see this sim in all it's glory. I used to think it was just a GA sim while FS2k2 was for the heavy iron but that's not true. I assure you FS2k4 is great all around.Dillon--Dell P4 2.6gig 800FSBATI Radeon9700Pro160gig HD 1gig SDRAM

Hey Tavendal,Thanks for your post. You have a monster of a system and yet had to go and get a very heavy duty video card to run FS9 well enough to enjoy it. I have enough hard drive space, I am keeping FS2002 and will continue to use it. All my other software runs great on my systems. Why can't FS9! Yes I have done months of tweaking.FS2002 is cool! Why trade it in! Just say no to tweaking and frame rate counting. Say yes to flying!Tony

"My own FS2002 is an very complex, highly developed simulation for me now, painstakingly assembled, and much of what is in there won't work in FS2004 yet anyhow, if ever"Same here! :D It's taken me two years to assemble, modify, tweak etc, and now I have a good sim! :)I have numerous FSDSV1 planes which won't run in FS2004, and the authors may never update those planes! .....ALL MSFS planes are FS2002 compatible, as long as you have the gauges for the panel etc!FS2002 will live for a VERY long time!http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.ph.../AAV_banner.jpghttp://www.aavirtual.com :)

If you like flying the heavy iron, then FS2002 is still the best sim as FS9's flight dynamics leave much to be desired. Once the PIC team releases their newest PIC767 package, then I will go to the new sim as PIC has by far the most realistic FDE and I'm sure the team will implement that if at all possible in FS9. The newest PIC package will also be unique as it will have network gauges and that means one can fly online with a buddy acting as either Capt or first officer, so if your first officer sets up his fmc, you will see those changes on your fmc etc etc...I can't wait :) Dreamfleet is also working on several packages (B727, B732, B734) that may sway me as well.Regards,Van LatendresseYeoDesigns/AFG GroupPanel/FDE Designer

I was planning on keeping FS2002 on my system for a long while, simply because of PIC. I can't live without that addon! :-hah Now they've said they're doing a PIC v2 for FS9 I am happy. I decided to bite the bullet and blow $605 on a new videocard, boy I'm glad I did!Even the late release FS9 betas ran awful on my systems. I could run it okay using a Ti4800SE, but I had to drop the resolution down to 1280x960 and switch down the AA which I didn't like.I completed my first FS9 flight today in the PMDG 737-700, it was great. :-sun1 But, FS2002 still has a lot of offer, its still a great sim!

I'm still with FS2002 and satisfied for now, not having seen the right cost benefit ratio in upgrading. It's not the money cost rather the time and effort in installing and tweaking all the addons (like UK VFR photo scenery) which inhibits me. Now when I get to replacing my hardware I guess it will be with FS2004...Yours dreamily, John.4m NW of EGHI (Southampton UK)FS2002 Standard on Intel PIII 733 MHz, 256MB with 32M GeForce2MX graphics and Windows ME