Is Megascenery for FS8/9 as good as FU3?

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Tom,You're right. It isn't possible. Microsoft would have to do some major redesign work before I would like their flight simulator. Why I persevered with them in the past is a mystery to me. Maybe it was because Flight Unlimited 2 didn't appear until Christmas 1997, but that still doesn't explain FS98, FS2000 and FS2002 :-lolI'm being very serious when I say that I still consider FS4 to be better (and more enjoyable) than FS5, FS5.1, FSFW95 and FS98. I agree with Robert regarding the latter. It was little more than FSFW95 with support for the first generation of 3D accelerator cards. I still remember that advert that Looking Glass used at the time......."Flight Limited....Flight UNLimited". Sheer class, and absolutely correct. :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

You're welcome, Tom. :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Allan_D]

Mister Low,Please don,t feel like I,m having a run at you, Your Uncle Tom will ban me forever if I pick on you again,Here's a shot from Cof taken within your fantastic FU3 area.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/36402.jpg I have been in many small Planes and have flew lots of them from the right hand seat, That is the way the ground looks from a small Plane for me, And please trust me I don't need new glassesI also like to enjoy the full use of my 500MB computer so I enjoy exploring other area's, In the CaribbeanScenery adds for Cof ( these are pics added by the scenery builders but I can use this scenery and add some pics that look as goodhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/36403.jpgIt almost looks real doesn't it :-lolhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/36408.jpgYou have been such of a authority over the years about how the Planes fly in FU3 verses FS 2K2, or Cof, please tell me what type of Planes you have flew or what you have at least rode in?Have Fun :-newburnAllan and Puppyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Allan,Thanks for the questions !We all have a different opinion about what looks "real" in a flight simulator. I personally cannot understand why some MSFS users suggest that the San Francisco scenery in FU2/3 doesn't look particularly real. Toi me, it looks almost identical to the San Francisco Bay area that I visited in October 1995. I can't imagine that the Bay area has undergone any kind of drastic upheaval since then.Your first screenshot may look real to you (and I'm not going to argue the point), but it doesn't look as real to me as the scenery in FU3. To be honest, it can't. FU3 uses satellite mapped terrain. That means that what you are looking at is generally a rather good representation of what is there. Microsoft's use of generic textures is obviously necessary in a flight simulator that covers the entire world, but it is the look of some of those textures that I don't like. They may look (sort of) realistic at altitude, but I personally find them rather ugly at low level. Yes, this argument could also be directed at FU3 in places. I certainly won't argue against that.My point here though, is that I don't criticise the terrain graphics in MSFS because I just want to find any excuse to criticise MSFS. I really DO NOT LIKE THEM ! I really DO think that the terrain graphics in FU3 and FU2 are considerably better than those in FS2002. I haven't seen FS2004 yet, so I won't mention that here.That final screenshot does look pretty good. The buildings look great, the plane looks great, the water and trees look great. Even the textures don't look all that bad here. Unfortunately, the textures DON'T look good in far too many areas (at least, in FS2002). Of course, that is my own opinion. Yours obviously differs.Now, to the crunch question. How many planes have I flown in reality ? I think that you already know the answer to that question. The answer is NONE. However, that does not automatically preclude me from stating what I think about flight models. This is because I am aware of the laws of physics. I know what a plane SHOULD do, and the ones in FS2002 just do not do this at low speeds. They seem to fly in perfect parabolic arcs (like in a vacuum), and this is something that NO real plane would do (due to atmospheric drag). I am referring to increasing and decreasing power here WITHOUT altering the trim. Yes, I know that you would question me doing this, but I have my reasons when flying around the FU3 world.Turbulence is also modelled far more convincingly in FU3. The plane moves around very relaistically, providing a sense that I really am flying a plane. Flying in FS2002 is very sterile in contrast.Anyway, I don't expect you to agree with me, but then we all have our own opinions....and I respect yours.Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest qvdg]

Hi, I have been watching this debate (well resurgence of an old debate) from the sidelines for while but I wish to put in my two cents worth particularly relating to the question regarding real-life flight experience. What I find great about FU3 is that I can take an aeronautical chart (VFR) and navigate as I would do in a real light aircraft looking for those typical waypoints ie. towns with railway road configuration, forests lakes etc and of course relying on the VOR where appropriate. Along with what I find to be a more than satifactory flight model particularly with the PA28 I can practise my general VFR navigation skills with real data (ie. sat imagery (4m) and charts). No generic scenery solution will give you this. I have flown at least 6 types of GA aircraft for the past 7 years (that long already !) both in Australia and Europe. I also particpate in aerial navigation rallys. I have crossed the channel (I live in France so that is La Manche) twice and on the last trip planned and flew the itinenary on FU3 to familarise myself with skirting around Gatwick and getting to Biggin Hill. It is of course more fun in a real aircraft but it is not too bad either in FU3. I may have a very limited aviation experience compared to yours but I just wanted to say for our community FU3 offers somethings that we can't find anywhere else - an opinon shared by desktop and sunday pilots.Now Chris you been out long enough playing, get back to your scenery creation before bed.Cheers, QvdG

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Sorry Quentin. I really should be hard at work building more scenery packages, rather than trying to get better lap times in Grand Prix Legends ;-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest twsimfan]

Allen,I like your pictures.Here are some of mine that are using the default FS04 scenery... not a default plane... but default scenery.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36480.jpgThis is one that I think could be mistaken for the real thing... if I don't break my arm from patting myself on the back. This is over the Olympic Mountains in Washington.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36481.jpgI looped out over the Pacific Ocean and took a right at Cape Flattery... here I am tracking East along the Strait of Juan de Fuca for a landing in Port Angeles.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36483.jpgThe 3D cockpit of the MAAM B-25J "Briefing Time".http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36484.jpgLanded & parked.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36485.jpgThis one could also be confused with reality (IMHO). :) Notice the lowered boarding ladder/crew door.About Chris:While I share "some" of his opinions regarding FS02 he has no concept of how dramatic the changes are to FS04. His opinions are to say the least "biased". I share a bias toward FU3 but will admit to spending most of my flying time in FS04... which is at this point my default sim. FU3 will always have a warm place in my heart and on my hard drive. :) Chris means well... he just doesn't know any better. ;-)WARNING: I haven't had a lot of success posting pics in this version of the forum software... they usually disappear on me.

[Guest twsimfan]

Don,I also do a lot of my flying around Juneau... it has many advantages... rugged terrain... the airport can easily handle either a Cub or a 747... it also has a water runway.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36497.jpgThe mountains are great for flying the big jets over and it is also great for low & slow in the little ones... lots of interesting things to look at.

[Guest twsimfan]

Chris,http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36498.jpgThe Puyallup Valley.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36499.jpgSame flight over Seattle.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36500.jpgDifferent flight... different plane... a VERY different day!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36501.jpgI had loads of side wind & turbulance. :-eekhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36502.jpgYou may be right about the San Francisco scenery... but have a look at this.

[Guest andy9164]

Tom,Looking at the shots taken earlier in the post I think from FS02 and your shots taken in FS04 is the change really that dramatic.Don't get me wrong, I'm not defecting from FU3, too much fun learning to build models and airports at the moment, but there is such a big difference between the photo's in the 2 posts. Do you suffer from a big frame rate drop.Intereted.Andy

[Guest otter55]

tomi am in the process of mapping out the alaskan pipeline from valdez on northi am planning on sim flying it in one of my ga planes. havent decided which onewant to fly it in real weather, real time, a little bit each night don

[Guest otter55]

andythe difference between 02 and 04 is majori flew 04 for 15 minutes and then deleted 02 from my system and i really liked 02i get better fps in 04 than i did in 02 on the same system with MORE features added ini also have had zero (0) glitches, failures, issues with 04 in almost 70 hrs of flying in iti honestly believe after reading the complaints in the fs forum that there MUST be 2 versions of 04 out theremy son and all our local friends have duplicated my troublefree service with 04it even runs well on totally antique systems amoung my friends locallywe're talking "e" machines !have a good onedonp4 3.061 gig ramti 4600xp home

[Guest twsimfan]

Andy,The general look in FS04 is in many ways the same as FS02... but there is a different "feel" to it. I guess that the autogen & mesh are greatly improved contributes most of that.I think that FS04 loads quicker and runs much smoother than FS02. I haven't clocked my frames but it has always been smooth even over downtown Seattle in a rain storm... not that the ride was smooth. :-lolFS04 does not provide the photoreal images & mesh of FU3... but it has a quality about it that is most enjoyable. I'm not defecting from Fu3 either... but FS04 does now claim the lion's share of my sim time. Not that FS04 hasn't caused me to remove some flight sims from my system... Fly2k & Fly II went bye bye as did FS02. :) No need to keep them loaded if I'm not going to use them.I will always love FU3 for it's intimate and accurate representations of 2 areas that I am personally familiar with... and it's friendly interface.Of course the other thing about FU3 is the friendly community we have here. :)

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Tom,My opinions regarding FS2002 are not biased, since I have seen (and experienced) this flight simulator "first hand". I agree that I have no idea if FS2004 is a significant improvement, but to be honest it would take a lot more than better graphics to convince me that FS2004 was a worthwhile purchase.I know what you mean about the screenshots. Some of mine have also recently vanished into a virtual Bermuda Triangle.......Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Lars Peter 0]

Hello all!.I have also the new fs2004 installed, and this is a great improvement from fs.2002.The scenery is much better, and also the whole interface,- that means framerates/atc/weather.You dont have to have the latest upgrated graphic cards or drivers to install and have a great time running this sim.This is very good and the ms.team will have my votes for further good improvements.Todays simulators from MS. is a great game, but a bad simulator.The ivorement aroand the aircrafts is not much updated , and this a great loss,- this means real turbulence and flight behavior.You will find this in the FU-series.That said,- I wish they will do more and better addons in the future.Hey!-man landed on the moon back in 1969, so I know it is possible to do a better aircraft sim for the computer of today.If this means a flightsim that will cost twice of todays software,- I would have it.(I should not have said that,- maybe someone is listening)Best regards.Lars Peter.:-wave