Last night I flew both sims back to back just as I did when I had both FS2000 and FS2k2 installed right after FS2k2

Interesting post...I know the overcast issue is often debated..... I think most complaints center around simmers not being able to get a solid deck vs. the coverage of the deck. It's especially true from above, when you want to simulate conditions where there's no visual reference on the ground.I tweaked the cirrus overcast layer so when it's applied just above or below a cumulus or stratus layer, one gets a solid deck. I made a post about it here a while back, but there was minimal interest and I still see the overcast complaints come in.I still fly both sims... It really depends on what I'm trying to do, I guess. Both sims are smooth and in part I think it's because I didn't try to match sliders--just visuals. The other night, I set the cloud draw distance to 80 miles, and set up the weather stations in England with a deck of clouds. Flying out of clear EHAM skies towards England, it was uncanny to see the approaching "front" of clouds....I'm sorry to say though, getting ready to leave the country I haven't had much time for either sim in the past several days :(-John

Hi, "I'll tell you this I feel sorry for those who can't get FS2k4 to run correctly on their machines because the difference is amazing. FS2k2 seemed a bit darker than FS2k4. FS2k4 seemed more colorful at dawn and dusk better yet in general and ran so much smoother on my rig than FS2k2 (I found this due to the fact I hadn

I loved 2002... enjoyed it immensely for two years. But there's no way I'd go back to it after flying FS9 for almost 3 months. FS9 has run well for me since the day I installed it. It ain't perfect, but it certainly is an evolution over the great sim that I enjoyed in FS2002.