FU III Why Use when FS9 Available?

[Guest Stanner1953]

I had FU III and took it off my system when I got FS 2002 and now FS 2004 (FS9). Why whould someone want to continue with FU III when FS 9 is available? FS 9 has better scenery, covers the whole world and has more realistic aircraft, weather and ATC. I do not understand. Stanner

[Guest R_Driscoll]

You are probably right that the new FS2004 is better - and has moved ahead in graphics etc. But it has taken them a long time to get there. Advertisements for FS2002 were full of praise for new features (such as ATC, floatplanes etc) that had been standard out of the box with FU3 for years previously. The big factors that kept me away from FS2002 were: - poor ATC - lack of detailed scenery (even FS2004 can only do 5m/pixel) - poor flight simulation (look-up tables rather than proper parts aerodynamic modelling - lack of volumetric and variable weather - poor support of GA (seemed to concentrate on heavies) - no support for gliding (esp wind/hill interaction) - feeling of flying over photographsNow FS2004 may have fixed those problems - I don't know, because after FS98 I tend to ignore the hype and wait for a considered opinion by people I know have the requisiste expertise. Moreover, I am perfectly happy with FU3 - it provides all that I need with a realistic feel of flying that MSFS always missed. Now we have the ability to create models as good as MSFS, why change and lose the installed database?I know that in the long term, all competition to MSFS gets choked out - only a few like X-Plane (which also has genuine flight modelling) have survived. So eventually I suppose we will have to move over to MSFS. You are certainly correct in the long term that this is the correct way to go. But for the moment, FU3 is enough.RobD

[Guest jonpoint]

Stanner,Trying to start a fight huh? Rather than simply echo Rob's comments, I'll go straight for the jugular :-eek Like schoolkids arguing over whose father's car is faster, your comments appear to simply justify the removal of FU3 from your HD!If you really like it that much, good for you! If you actually have FU3 but don't like it then you bought the wrong software and piddling on FU3 here won't alter that.As you can tell, MSFS02 was a bit of a disappointment to me. I don't care about flying around the world - FS4 did that just as badly ;) I'm not that interested in playing flight captain either and flying heavies on instruments for hours - you call that fun? Good for you!At the end of the day, FU3 cannot be easily compared with MSFS. Like MSFS, it is a game. Unlike MSFS it was designed to convey the feeling of GA flight - the type of flying most likely to be done by you and I. BTW, I have flown commercial & military sims too (and been involved in their development), if you want an opinion on flying heavies. You cannot compare apples with oranges...:-waveJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Before I start, I would like to apologise to Tom Wunder for replying to this. Unfortunately, it was like a red rag to a bull, and I really couldn't stop myself :-)Right, where to start ? OK, let's talk about FS2002. I still have this flight simulator, but it isn't installed on my PC. To be honest, I intend to sell it on eBay UK (assuming that anyone wants it). That means that I can compare FS2002 with FU3, and the following list shows those attributes of FU3 that are superior:-1. TERRAIN GRAPHICS.......far superior to the default FS2002 graphics. There really isn't any comparison. However, if you like weird looking ground textures and low resolution coastlines, then fine.2. FLIGHT MODELS........In my opinion, FU3 simulates low speed handling characteristics far better than FS2002. It certainly feels more realistic, since I get the distinct feeling that the plane is reacting sensibly to control input, and it also bobs about in turbulence far more realistically. The planes in FS2002 might as well be on airborne rails.......no, make that rollercoaster tracks, since they have a habit of flying in parabolic trajectories....a bit like a long period comet's orbit around the Sun. The problem here is that comets travel in a vacuum, and FS2002 does a remarkably good job of simulating this. Unfortunately, FS2002 is supposed to be a flight simulator, not a comet simulator.3. INTERFACE........FU3 has one of the easiest (and best) interfaces in any flight simulator that I have used. I don't need to cycle through a stupid number of alternative viewpoints to get to the one that I want. I simply have to press ONE key. I don't have to put up with that ridiculous pissing around that the SPOT VIEW provides. Instead, I press the F5 key, and then use my joystick to move the viewpoint around the plane....smoothly, and in a far more controlled manner.4. VFR COCKPIT PANELS........One of the best design decisions ever in a flight simulator. With all of those magnificent terrain graphics to look at, I like to be able to see the world around me, rather than a screen full of dials, switches and coffee cups. This also makes landing approaches easier, since I have a clear view of the runway and terrain ahead of me. Of course, if you're using the autopilot and GPS navigation, then I guess you don't really need to see the outside world. It is kinda nice though, don't you think ?5. WEATHER.........I am well aware that FS2004 has improved considerably in this area, but the weather in FS2002 was nowhere near as convincing as that in FU3. Yes, some of the cloud models looked better, and you could access real weather from the internet.......big deal. The weather engine in FU3 simulates active fronts far more convincingly, the storm effects are wonderful, and the rain and fog effects are amazing. It certainly isn't perfect, and I'm prepared to accept that FS2004 might have surpassed FU3 in this department.6. FLOATPLANES.........Yes, FS2002 simulated floatplanes, but FU3 does it better.7. FLYING ENVIRONMENT.........FS2002 simulates the entire world, which is very impressive. FU3 only simulates two small, highly detailed areas of the world (San Francisco Bay and Seattle). However, the overall feeling of being in a flight environment is superior in FU3 (in my opinion). FS2002 feels very sterile and empty, despite its admittedly impressive AutoGen scenery. FU3 may have a limited area in which to fly, but that doesn't matter when the scenery looks this good, the ATC environment feels amazingly realistic, and the planes are actually flyable :-)I can't really comment on how much of an improvement FS2004 is over its predecessor, but I remain sceptical. Yes, the aircraft look fantastic in FS2004. Yes, there are some magnificent scenery packs available or under development. But this counts for nothing if the underlying package is so awkward and unattractive.Don't misunderstand me here. If MSFS included all of the attributes that make FU3 so special to me, then I would be ecstatic. I would love to be able to fly many of those impressive planes, and land at fantastically detailed airports (the ones that you need to pay extra for in expansion packs). Unfortunately, I just didn't enjoy the "flying" experience in FS2002 at all. I didn't enjoy the complex interface, which has basically not changed since FS98, some rather ugly terrain textures, the weird flight physics of the planes........Well, I get far more enjoyment out of the Flight Unlimited series than I have ever done with MSFS. In fact, the last version of Microsoft's Flight Simulator that I enjoyed was FS4....way back in 1992 !Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Just a quick note to say that the above comments are unequivocally my own personal opinions. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AVSIM Online, the forum moderators, any other FU3 forum members, Microsoft haters, or Postman Pat.So there :( Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Robs]

Just don't get it huh?Play bothIf you have flown FU3 and it is not to your taste then be happy with your MSFS - it has many good qualities.

[Guest Stanner1953]

Gentlemen:Thank you for your reply. It seems most of you think that everyone using MS FS2004 is flying heavies. Not so, I love to fly biplanes and enjoy the scenery in various places around the world, not just one sliver of the US northwest. It also seems that most of you have not tried FS9 (2004).I too loved the original Chevy Bel Aire, and two seat Ford T-Bird back in 1965. I even owned the original Ford Mustang in 1964/5. Stanner

[JimmiG 244]

FS2004 has brought many improvements that make it just as good as FU3 IMO. However, there are still some areas where I think FU3 has an advantage over FS2004:-Satellite scenery - this one is controversial and I'm still not quite sure what I prefer. I think satellite scenery looks more realistic and has more variety than generic scenery. Also, EVERY landmark will be included since you're essentially flying over a photo of the real world. However, generic scenery like that in FS2004 has the advantage of Autogen, better colours (FU3 scenery is too much brown/grey) and better textures. At high altitude (4000ft. and above), satellite scenery looks the best, at low altitudes, the autogen really helps in FS.There are some addons to get FU3-style scenery in FS2004 but they are all payware.-Flight modelling. FU3 still has the best flight modelling. You can "feel" downdrafts, turbulence, crosswinds etc. You can actually take advantage of ridge lift, thermals etc. when flying a the glider. In FS you just sink slowly towards the ground. Also, ground handling is far superioir in FU3. In FS, I feel like I'm driving my plane on ice.Try holding short while a 747 takes off using FU3. You'll "feel" the plane being pushed by the jetblast. Try flying behind a big jet and you'll experience the ride of your life :-lol FS2004 still does not simulate this. You can land the Piper Cub right behind a 747 and not notice anything.Views - FU3 has far more views to choose from, and it's easier to select a view. Great for taking screenshots or for fooling around. You can "buy" :-lol more views for FS2004 using a payware program....-Addons- FU3 addons ARE free, all of them, AND they are all high quality addons. We've got some top-quality aircraft with ultra-realistic panels and sounds available for download right here in the library. If they were for Flight Simulator, they would be payware.There's also a UK scenery in development, also freeware as well as numerous scenery enhancements for the two default regions (Seattle and SanFran).FS2004 caught up with FU3 in these areas (imo):-Weather - FS FINALLY has DYNAMIC weather, FOUR years after FU3 was released with this feature. While not as flexible and easy to use as that in FU3, it gets the job done.-Sky and haze - For some reason the sky has always looked weird in FS. Also, until FS2004, the sky did not get darker at high altitudes making the sky look funny at 45,000 ft. FU3 had far more realistic haze than FS2002. In FU3 you can see haze down in valleys while mountains are clear. FS2004 finally adds this feature.-ATC- Flight Unlimited II was the first sim to include ATC back in 1997. Later, Fly! and Pro Pilot also came out with ATC. Yet ATC did not get into FS until almost FIVE years later with FS2002. In FS2002, ATC was great for IFR, but not as good for VFR. FS2004 finally has not only caught up with FU3 in this regard but it's actually better now.FS2004 works just fine for GA. With FS2000 and before, FS was basically a jetliner simulator, but with FS2002 and especially FS2004, MS have added a lot features to make flying GA's a lot more fun, and the scenery now allows for VFR navigation.

[Guest]

I cant aford it any way!!Paul.......:-violin

[Hans_Petter 1]

Stanner and the rest of you, I've currently got FS2002, FS2004 and FU3 installed. My main focus is on general aviation aircraft. I'm going to keep them all but I may delete FS2002 once I trust that FS2004 (FS9/ CoF) matches its predecessor in all respects. Flight model: The FS series has a nice "verifiable" flight model. What I mean is, you may check (or, enter) precise aerodynamic parameters as wing span, wing area etc. Flight Unlimited and X plane use a different kind of flight model consisting of separate compartments generating lift, weight and inertia. The downside to this latter approach is that you can't simply open an aircraft.cfg and check that the numbers comply with the aircraft's specifications. However, the advantage is that the aircraft "ride the imaginary relative wind" in a more convincing way.Ground model: FS never had one. The aircraft's wheels are not subject to lateral friction. IN FU, if you land with a severe sideslip you'll topple over -- in FS you'll just slide sideways. In other words, while FS wheels roll in any direction FU wheels are laterally stable.Scenery: FS gives us the world and it can be perfected by innumerous freeware and payware add-ons. FU gives us limited areas of satellite / aerial photo terrain. FS has autogen and the latest version places models more intelligently than FS2002 did. FU has FLED, the scenery editor that we love to hate. However, FLED provides us with the ability to place models in a what-you-see-is-what-you-get fashion. I've just learned to make (simple) models and you'll see the results within a few days.I use FS for long range navigation and FU for local "flings" in a GA aircraft. I'm going to keep them both :-)Hans Petter

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Hans,Your comment regarding the FS planes "sliding sideways" on the ground is an interesting one. My experience of FS2002 planes seemed to indicate that similar behaviour could be induced IN THE AIR. At times, it seemed that putting a plane into a steep climb not only increased the altitude, but also seemed to result in the plane flying forwards....tail down :-eekStill, I totally accept that FS2002 (and now FS2004) provide a great deal of enjoyment to thousands of flight simmers, and that's great. You may be surprised at this comment, but I would love to be able to do the same !Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[JimmiG 244]

"At times, it seemed that putting a plane into a steep climb not only increased the altitude, but also seemed to result in the plane flying forwards....tail down"This is actually quite realistic and it's what I would expect to happen, given what I've read about your "flying techniques" ;)

[Christopher Low 5,332]

JimmiYou cheeky ******* ;-)I'm talking about a plane pointing directly up, as opposed to simply a high angle of attack.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Allan_D]

Hi Stanner,Hey I like a lot of flight games for different reasons, Do you have a hard drive space problem? We all try to buy computers with lots of hard drive space, a few of the folks brag about how fast or how big that is :-lolIf you have room why not enjoy all the games you have bought?There's some things that you can do in FU3 (Maybe if if your a good armchair Pilot) that you can't do in Cof. Try landing on a Bridge in Cof, The pavement is soft, You'll sink, That doesn't happen in FU3On the Tacoma Bridge, with a King Air FU3http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/32080.jpgTry landing on one of the carriers in Fs, If you miss it you will not need a float plane, The water will be hard, frozen in California middle of summer, Must of been a cold snap.That's only one of the reasons I enjoy FU3,However I also enjoy Cof for the realistic way the ground looks as I fly over ithttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/32081.jpgIf I had this many 3D objects in FU3 my little 500 couldn't handle ithttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/32083.jpgThe way the Planes fly? In my opion FS has it closer to the real thing for the Planes I have flown in real life, I have flew a 1952 450 HP Beaver on floats in the real world, MS has the best because of Fred Banting.You'll never get get any closer to the real thing in your flight game.This is how a real float plane looks on take offhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/32085.jpgI might add that that if your ever in a float plane that starts throwing water up on the windsreen when your landing like FU3 does,Please insure yourself :-lolI need to add the fact that I realize they are all just computer games and I have fun with FU3 and FS2K2 and also Cof, plus lots of others, If I had to buy this computer to run just one game it would truly be a bad deal. I tend to fill it up and enjoy all the gamesHave Fun :-newburnAllan and Puppyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest Robs]

Allan,Is the piper float plane a FS2002 plane or FU3 plane....?Could you point me to the avsim download....I would like to download for either FS2002 or FU3!!!Robs