Pardon the topic...

[Guest Pieter]

Hi Flight UnlimitersLong time absence... Still hope the ol' crowd is as lenient as ever...Anyone bought the latest MSFS 2004 CoF? Would you like to voice an opinion (not a flame war about which is the best sim again please). Money down here in my pocket is as slow as ever, so I usually don't just jump out and buy yet another wall flower. This forum is usually the best one to ask for the usually less biased opinions, as I see most of the names of you all still in many subjects posted.RegardsPieter

[Hans_Petter 1]

If you liked FS2002 you'll like FS 2004, provided you have a system that can run it properly. The stock scenery looks better and so does the weather. The autogen models are placed more intelligently but they're rarely accurate. The AP has been improved. There's less pitching and hunting as an altitude hold is being engaged. The new Garmin GPS looks great. The flight model has been changed and the pros seem to think that it's been simplified rather than enhanced. You'll find some interesting threads on Avsim's MS aircraft and panel design forum. While MS claims that they have cleaned up the code the flight dynamics pros claim that key aerodynamic parameters have been culled. Time will show whether the new code includes the parameters needed to create very realistic flight dynamics. Even though most simmers can't tell the difference and couldn't care less as long as the latest jet repaint looks stunning a lot of developers are worried.The MS Flight Simulator still lacks proper ground handling. The wheels experience no lateral friction. In FU3, if you land with a sideslip the wheels will screech and the aircraft jerk. If it's bad you'll topple over. In Flight Simulator you'll just slide sideways. It's like having aircraft with castor wheels that will roll in any direction. Further, rudder control seems to be very touchy in their latest sim, at least on the ground. If you use rudder pedals for steering you'll find that they're overly sensitive even when you turn the gain way down. My guess is that MS never implemented a separate ground handling code -- the aircraft is basically flying all the time, even when the wheels are touching the tarmac.Provided you have a system that allows you to crank the scenery and weather sliders up you'll get nice effects as 3D clouds, water reflections, glare and realistic shadows. best regards,Hans Petter

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Hans,The MSFS planes actually FLY ? :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Allan_D]

Pieter,If you liked FS2K2, you'll love Cof, It installs more autogen material and is more frame rate friendly then FS2.The stock Airplanes are about the same as far as how realistic they fly, but some of the add on planes in FS2 were as close to the real things as I've ever found in a game, and I'm sure it's just a matter of time and my Cof will be at the same level.If you have a good set of controls and they are set up correctly you'll never get closer to the real thing from a flight game.Fu3 is easier to add 3D models to, the Fled program is the best add on thing I've ever used, and I've never had problems with it.You have to add 3D models to FU3 or it looks like your flying over a road map.Comparison shots Western private FU3, Remember this airport wasn't even there in the original FUhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/31629.jpgLeaving same area in Cofhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/31636.jpgOn final at flying B in FU3http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/31640.jpgThe same area from Cof, but you have to remember that there was nothing there in the stock FU3 eitherhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/31643.jpgCloser to Flying B with FU3http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/31646.jpgThe way I look at this, I enjoy FS2K2, Cof and FU3 all for different reason's, If you like to expand your horizons you should have them all.Have Fun :-newburnAllan and Puppyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest R_Driscoll]

In your Cof picture, is the yellow plane a Cub? It looks very nice - I still enjoy Captain Bazza's cub in FU3, esp for mountain climbing when its poor climb performance makes a bit of planning important - its the closest you can come to gliding with the engine running I think! - the plane rises fast on the lee side of mountains and sinks like a stone on the other (does MSFS model wind/mountain interactions yet?). I don't think I can support more than one flight sim on my computer. Its not the space - its just if I had another I couldn't get to the same depth with either. I get little computer time these days since my son teenaged. And there's also the horrible danger that I might switch allegiance, start flying MSFS, and get eburned elive at the estake. And since Glidernut (who is otherwise very gentle) threatened to stone me some time ago, I am very cautious now. RobD.

[Guest jonpoint]

Yes, it seems strange that they would remove some of the characteristics. One wonders if they simply did this to make aircraft building quicker and simpler or if there were strange interactions. Or, did half of the factors really do nothing? Looking through many MSFS aircraft configuration files, there's lots of zeros!Also, I was just reading that someone has released a new L-13 Blanik for MSFS02. It would be interesting (if anyone has it - I believe it's freeware - it was on a Czech site) to see how it compares with the L-13 for FU3. Apart from the lack of wing flex (and the lack of metal-tearing noises whilst flying), I believe it's pretty close to the real thing. Not that MSFS models ridge lift I hear - you'll be stuck flying on sunny days over flat ground ;)Anyone keen to try it? Let me know and I'll send you a pre-beta copy.Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Guest Pieter]

Just want to thank all who responded! Pardon me that I didn't respond immediately, but I was 2 days in bed with a strained back muscle.>The MS Flight Simulator still lacks proper ground handling.Sigh... this will never end I presume.RegardsPieter