loaded question - but I haven't been around for some time

[Guest flyt4tmn]

I used FLY2 for some time while I was getting my IFR ticket a few years ago. Used it together with Jeppesen FlitePro because I liked the concept of a non-microsoft flight sim and had issues with x-plane at the time.The question is this; does anyone here have any input on the comparison between FSX and Fly2?For sentimental sake, i'd prefer fly, but need to get back in the cockpit and do some simming for IFR and wonder if MSFT ever caught up?All opinions are welcome. Just looking for some guidance.Cheers.Tracy

[LAdamson 240]

RealAir Simulations, who's originator (Rob Young), perfected aircraft for the Fly series, have done wonders within FS9 & FSX. I'd say it's caught up and then some.But being an FSX fan these days, my judgement may be somewhat biased... :-hah L.Adamsonedit: PMDG, who produced excellent commercial aircraft for Fly, have built some good ones for FS9 also.

[Guest 3cffts]

Hello Tracy:I have both FS-X and Fly II. I did try FS-X for a short while but found the act handling/response to be much better/more realistic in FlyII. Also, maybe because I am more used to FlyII, I found the cockpit arrangement of FlyII cockpit and the operation of radios and nav aids to be much more user friendly in FlyII. I found the audio ATC instructions are better and more varied in FS-X than FlyII with C4TO. I have not done any long range flights with FS-X so cannot comment... just did local IFR. In FlyII minimum weather (< 200 & 1/2) the viz is not as realistic, but since I am happy doing night flying, it is good enough .... if not on course and on glide path you won't see the runway in time to make the touchdown point!Cheers, Brian.

[KenWood 5]

Hi Tracy,Well, I have to admit, I bought FS X to check it out on my meager system. The Demo had run rather well, so I thought what the heck. Although I do not get all the "stunning" visuals as I cannot afford the latest and greatest graphics card, and can't get over 1GB of RAM into my current computer, I will say I am somewhat impressed (wow- - never thought I'd say that for a MS product again!). Although I rarely get much over 12-15fps with my current setup in the full blown sim, a couple of the planes actually work rather well. I enjoy the fact that we can drive boats more realistically than in FS9. MS has done an OK job of adding more major roads into the USA, but one would still need an add-on product like USA Roads and better landclasses to really see improved VFR. IFR, well, the clouds are lacking IMHO - but again, its more likely as I don't have the 400USD plus graphics card. So again, an add-on would be required to bring it to more realistic looks. And I've been seeing in the library here fixes for ILS and such. But we had these issues with Fly! II also. Granted, one has to get add-on cloud sets for Fly! II, but heck - Free versus 30 or 40 USD add-ons is far more in my budget range these days! ;-)I think what I am most liking in MS's program for the moment is - the VC camera will "move" - simulating speed increase / decrease and turbulence from one's viewpoint. This certainly brings a bit more realism to the sim. IF you get quality payware aircraft, then the VC and 2D panel layouts are readily acceptable. MS stock planes and several of the freeware planes I've tried have fallen a tad short. So I feel Fly! II still out does MSFS for panel realism. Systems modeling is catching up, but still needs more work. One thing I do not care for is the new ATC window. Even when transparent, it is more gaudy looking - but that is my own opinion. Nice feature is - you can now choose to fly with ONLY the 2d panel or virtual cockpit, and a couple new camera perspectives for the outside views.I suppose one should say it is still a matter of preference which sim to get. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. MSFS is still more for eye candy, IMHO, but getting better on plane simulation. More needs to be done for the systems modeling and the creators are becoming better at panel layout for the virtual cockpit (VC). But one really needs a very good computer and one snafu for me - to REALLY enjoy FS X - one would need to upgrade to VISTA, since the sim was really "built" for that OS. But I can say on my below listed specs, the sim performs about as well as FS9, except with a lot of AI and heavy clouds. But then - Fly! II slows for me in certain heavy scenery and some cloud combos, and I rarely run more than five AI planes in it. I myself still prefer to use Fly! II. I am most comfortable with it - virtually every plane in my "Hangar" was lovingly created and given to the community without thought of profit - and trust me, a couple of the programs many of the plane creators use are not cheap ones! We don't have hundreds of the same repaints and plane types from different creators (many are very good, don't get me wrong!) - but overkill is still overkill. We don't have the people creating programs galore to do a lot of what MSFS has seen, true - but what programs have come out for us as end users has been quite useful to us, and in several cases, far less bug-ridden. I love the fact I can "create" my own VFR scenery with a wonderful freeware program - albeit the data is no longer easy to get online - and is far less painful to do than MSFS stuff seems (this I conclude after reading through the SDKs for FS X). The Fly! community remains *one of* the best communities around as we create and share for the love of the simming experience - not for any kind of profit of it - simply for sharing the enjoyment of simming with a terrific sim. I really think Richard Harvey would be pleased to this day on how his dream child remains alive - even with a group as small as ours is now. Note - not the only - as MSFS, Flt Unlimited III and even ProPilot (recall that one?) also have terrific people and very giving creators. So it simply comes down to a matter of choice. Which sim fulfills what you most want from it? ALL sims have their pros and cons... it is just a matter of which one fulfills the experience for you the best. I want more (for me) realistic flying I choose Fly! II (clouds its Fly!2K). If I want to "sight-see" and experience some wonderful scenery creations (Misty Fjords and Georender's Orcas Island come to mind, even though these are FS9 items), then I choose MSFS. If I want to kick some tail - well... I pull out my DOS machine and fire up US Navy Fighters or better yet - - - - - > X-WING versus Tie Fighter!!! :-hah Those last two are rare, as I prefer simple GA type flying. But once in a while... ;-)OK - done with the very long winded and soap box style format. If you hung in there and read all this, all I can say is - WoW!!! Give this person a certificate for longevity!!!Cheers,Ken Wood :-sun1Gateway 700X; Intel P4 2.4GHz; 512MB RAM; NVIDIA Ti4200 4X AGP 128MB; SB Audigy; Thrustmaster TopGun Fox 2 Pro Shock

[Earl_Buice 0]

here here! Well said Ken.Take care,Earl

[Guest flyt4tmn]

That's exactly what I'm interested in hearing - no soapbox thing at all.I ordered another copy today.Tracy