Flight Simulator Poll

[ahinterl 1]

FS 9.1.Anything older doesn't really make sense (older programs=fewer features, older planes, fewer add-ons,...)Andreas

[Gavin 99]

>FS 9.1.>>Anything older doesn't really make sense (older programs=fewer>features, older planes, fewer add-ons,...)>>AndreasDepends how much money you have, or don't have, to make the newer stuff work though.http://online.vatsimindicators.net/916312/3.png

[Guest]

>>FS 9.1.>>>>Anything older doesn't really make sense (older>programs=fewer>>features, older planes, fewer add-ons,...)>>>>Andreas>>Depends how much money you have, or don't have, to make the>newer stuff work though.>Well, seeing as the newer stuff works on the same hardware and software as did the older stuff that would be the cost of the product itself :)

[Guest ponyboy]

Actually, I am probably one of the few who have all versions loaded on my system and running. FS1 thru FS9.1. It is more for nostalgia, research and for video production but I do crank up say FS95 for fun.I think a good question would be, if you knew FS10 was coming out with BIG improvements (whatever that means to each individual), but none of your add-ons from the past would work - you would have to start from scratch... would you still move up?

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Yeah, anyone who is running 2002 becuase they feel FS9 has higher system requirements is mistaken. I run FS9.1 on a P4-1.8 with an old Geforce4Ti4200 and 768 megs of PC2100 ram and it runs every bit as smoothly as 2002 ever did and looks considerably better even at the medium settings I run. It's also at least as stable - probably more so given that I've got it loaded down with way more add-on stuff than I ever did for 2002 and I've never really had any problems with ctd's at all. I kept 2002 installed for a few months after I got FS9 becuase I had a few planes that I didn't want to give up but after I got FS9 installed and got a few nice things downloaded for it I found I had no desire to fly the old planes anymore anyway so I eventually just deleted 2002 and filled the space up with more great FS9 stuff. :)I suppose if there is some specific add-on that you just can't live without or if you just simply can't deal with the initial time outlay required to get FS9 loaded up and ready to fly then fine, but unless you have a system that really struggles even running FS2002 I wouldn't let fears about performance be the deciding factor.

[1mikel151 71]

"I think a good question would be, if you knew FS10 was comingout with BIG improvements (whatever that means to eachindividual), but none of your add-ons from the past would work- you would have to start from scratch... would you stillmove up?""I agree, I think the current engine and file format is dated and from all the backward compatability (BGLs??) the performance is lost. If they were to announce a new version with a COMPLETE overhaul, meaning no addons would work, and it would give me the features that I have in FS9 and then some, plus due to the new code I'd be able to run it with at least a 40 - 50% increase in "overall (this means weather also)" performance, with future versions based on this new engine to create a new legacy - with current hardware (not hardware that they have coming out in 2007) then I'd be all over it!!I guess I could just wait and upgrade again in 2007, FS9 will scream then! LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[Guest ponyboy]

Long live FS95! Now that I added all aircraft add-ons, scenery, mesh for FS95 I can finally move up to FS98! Whew....

[Guest dpc]

FS9 onlyDave

[Gavin 99]

>>>FS 9.1.>>>>>>Anything older doesn't really make sense (older>>programs=fewer>>>features, older planes, fewer add-ons,...)>>>>>>Andreas>>>>Depends how much money you have, or don't have, to make the>>newer stuff work though.>>>Well, seeing as the newer stuff works on the same hardware and>software as did the older stuff that would be the cost of the>product itself :)I'm absolutely sure that that's the case for you but, as I said in my previous post, FS9 doesn't run as smoothly on my system as 2K2 with all it's addons. I'd love to use FS9 but can't afford new hardware at the moment.I'm open to suggestions though! Here's what I've got: P4 1.4G, 256RAM, GeForce2 64RAM, 35G H/drive about 65% free on WinME. I don't want to install XP if it means reformatting the H/D - also I'm not much of a computer expert so installing aircraft and scenery's about the limit of my skills. Any suggestions?http://online.vatsimindicators.net/916312/3.png

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Well, probably the easiest and least expensive thing you could do would be to add at least another 256 megs of ram. 256 is really below the bare minimum for FS9. A decent 128 meg vid card would help too. (I'd ditch ME too but you already say you don't want to. I think XP would install overtop of ME probably though.)

[Gavin 99]

>Yeah, anyone who is running 2002 becuase they feel FS9 has>higher system requirements is mistaken. No offence intended, but that's not true in my case. I have no doubt though that for you it's true.http://online.vatsimindicators.net/916312/3.png

[Gavin 99]

>Well, probably the easiest and least expensive thing you>could do would be to add at least another 256 megs of ram. >256 is really below the bare minimum for FS9. A decent 128>meg vid card would help too. (I'd ditch ME too but you>already say you don't want to. I think XP would install>overtop of ME probably though.)>>The extra RAM sounds like a good idea - I've heard that installing a new OS over an old one isn't always that straightforward :-)>>http://online.vatsimindicators.net/916312/3.png

[Guest rleiro]

When Flight Simulator 2004 was released, I had a both FS2002 and FS2004 initially. Nowadays only FS2004, and patiently waiting for the coming versions of FS.

[Guest ScottPilot]

FS9 only for me!Scott :-)

[MD83 1]

Poll Results:14. What is your PRIMARY simulator? MS Flight Simulator 95 or earlier 0.4% (25) MS Flight Simulator 98 1.1% (68) MS Flight Simulator 2000 0.2% (12) MS Flight Simulator 2002 7.1% (451) MS Flight Simulator 2004 (FS9) 82.2% (5256)FS2000 seems to be the least popular, according to the poll. More people prefer FS98 and FS95 :-eek. I always hated FS2000 ... floating airport lights, CTDs .... :-boomNon-FS2004 users are in a minority. However, this minority has downloaded my FS2002 A380 repaint 2000 times* :-eek. The FS2004 version has been downloaded over 4500 times*. (* uploaded to flightsim.com and avsim.com).I'm sticking with FS2002 until FS2006 arrives. It took me weeks if not months to convert my FS2000 fleet over to FS2002. I'm not going to do it for FS2004 and then FS2006 later this year :(