Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest silverheels2

FS2002 and FS 9

Recommended Posts

Guest silverheels2

All:First of all, I would like to thank the guys who responded to my questions on FS9.config settings. Those suggestions were very helpful. I have been trying to make the transition from 2002 to ACOF due primarily to the add-on aircraft like GA 727, LVLD, etc. I have invested years in my 2002 set-up with scenery, aircraft, and so on as most of you have done also I am aware. Well after tweaking my FS.9 set-up for about two months I have concluded that FS.9 really doesn't do much for me except access to add-on aircraft. I have so many scenery add-ons in my fs 2002 rig that I don't remember actually what I have but whatever it is, it looks better than my fairly straight stick FS.9, although I have installed FreeFlow Florida and it is good, but not really all that much better than what I have. The big thing though is that my FS 2002 is smooth as silk with FR pegged at 30 at altitude and no worse than 10-15 at dense airports. In order to make reasonable approaches at dense airports in FS.9 I have to knock the traffic down to zero to keep FR above 10. (I am running Ultimate Traffic)I find that with FS9 I cannot completely eliminate the stutter and texture loading issue upon changing views at altitude. And I find the delay in response to Alt to drop the task bar, or change views to be very irritating. I have no texture loading issues in 2002 and the respnse to Alt or view changes is instantaneous. Granted the clouds are better in FS.9 but I had to install the various alternative cloud textures to eliminate frame rate problems. I have a pretty high end system (3.2/1 gig/radeon 9800 xt/XP) and it runs 2002 great, FS.9 OK as I have it configured but I just can't completely eliminate the aggravating glitches. So, my approach now is to fly 2002 with the DF 737, 767 PIC, PSS Airbus and move over to FS.9 when I feel like flying the GA 727.Sooooo, just a few thoughts for consideration. I sort of feel like I did when FS 2000 came out and I was flying FS 98, and I just skipped 2000. Maybe FSX will be like FS 2002 in relation to FS 2000.Thanks again and cheers.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that. FS9 ran better on first install than FS2002 ever did for me. If you are able to run up the sliders I feel it looks superior than FS2002. the one area I did like about FS2002 was it ran better in heavy weather although it didn't look as nice.Hope you get more out of FSX.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International


Best, Michael

KDFW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest silverheels2

I think the difference is that I have so many add-ons in 2002. Landclass files, terrain, etc. When i am at altitude on a nice day in FS9 the countryside looks very repetive and boring, and the snow covered ground is the worse. Also, the water doesn't look right, even though I have installed the latest freeware files for water improvement. All that aside, my biggest issue is the texture loading delays on view change and the delays on changig views or accessing the task bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have completely skipped FS9. There are 300 planes in my FS8 folder, plus numerous add-on sceneries. I have tweaked FS2002 over the past four years, and I am very satisfied with it. Clickable VCs aren't everything :)FSX looks fantastic, and I will buy it straight away!


Quote from MS Flight Team Lead: "We’ve made some guesses"

VOlWMAlS.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe FS2004 doesn't do that much for you if you're flying the heavy's. I take it that the thing you want most of all is a smooth framerate. Detailed large airports and lots of AI traffic.In my opinion FS2004 strong point lies mainly in low flying GA traffic and its great for Bush flying. Get some Georender airports or fly in Alaska with Misty Fjords (stil have to get that one). Some add-on mesh (fsgenesis) . Ultimate terrain to get all the roads and water. And you have all you need for acurate VFR. If you still have monety to spend you can also get the BEV textures to make it complete.Now if you take your FS9.1 LEVEL-D and fly over this terrain you wil get little or no benefit from all those add-ons. You see some of the terrain enhancement during take off and landing but you will probably be to busy to notice it.


simcheck_sig_banner_retro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetfan

Sounds like we're on the same page JS, I use 2002, skipped FS2000 and pretty much the rest of what you said. I have FS9 installed on my rig in addition to FS2002, but when I go in there, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. The sky looks a little nicer, the scenery doesn't really do anything for me and the frame rates do less. I don't really care that much about flexing wings or tilting bogies, hate having to put in a CD in to run it, and I would have to dump a lot of the work I put into FS2002 over the last few years.If FSX is a major change and smooth, I may take another look at flightsim, but for now, I think this is the last roundup for me and FS. It's been a fun hobby though, and a great group of folks to chat with.Cheers,Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Michael

Hey guys, I'm glad I'm not the only onr still using Fs2002- mainly for the same reasons scenery addons and other stuff.I don't think that FSX needs to be the'last round-up'. If anything, this thread shows that there are a few of us who are satisfied not to up-grade.BUT I also still have FS98 on my F drive; the scenery is not much to look at,but some of those early innovations with guages and panels; Ijust didn't have the heart to euthanize FS98. So what ever happens, we'll all keep flyin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest silverheels2

With me, its about the flying. I work hard on flight models to perfect the handling, feel, and performance to the numbers. To enjoy the flying I need smooth and high (set at 30) frame rates. I like to look down and see reasonable scenery (I don't need to see my home). The main reason I don't prefer FS9 is the texture loading issue. I do fly it occasionally for the DF 727 or LVLD 767, but I always go back to FS 2002. I do indeed have FS 98 on my hard drive and I did skip FS 2000 completely due to similar issues as FS 9.However, life is good and I never tire of flightsim.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...