View Full Version : FS2002.....Post your likes and dislikes!
10-19-2001, 06:30 PM
Have you got FS2002? If so,please post what you like or dislike
regarding the new version.
Happy Simming All!!!!!!!
10-19-2001, 07:58 PM
Got it today. For some reason I can't see any AI traffic. I have all sliders maxed and dynamic scenery on. ATC is pretty good. Oh, one more thing...the view out of the 747 is pretty lame. other than that the beech baron is sweet. havent checked out all the others. i'll keep tweakin through the night and see what happens.
10-20-2001, 12:26 AM
Likes: almost everythin'
Dislikes : the Learjet is 'zactly the same!
10-20-2001, 12:57 PM
I love it ...!! It drove the FS2000 version price down to $29.99 with a $20 rebate.
I picked up FS2000 for net cost of TEN BUCKS!!
Thanks Micro$oft and the "patience of JOB".
Drake1999 over and out
10-20-2001, 05:20 PM
I have fs2002 Pro. The first fault I noticed was when AP is selected wing leveler is activated and no manual turns can be made. In fact, you can't even deselect wing leveler.
10-20-2001, 05:45 PM
First the likes. The sim is much smoother and I am using a PIII 450mhz with 128megs ram. Landmarks in the upstate ny area specific to Schenectady County airport are there that were not in the previous edition.
The inertia of the stock Skyhawk seems to be realistic. Cessnas were designed to handle a hamhanded pilot and do not roll or pitch like their aerobatic cousins
Dislikes....the heading indicator has a very bad case of precession. You have to readjust the H.I. almost every ten minutes and it seems to be off by more than 10-20 degrees. Better have the A&P take a look at the gyro or vacuum system. Could ruin your whole day on an NDB approach.
Flaps seem to create too much drag on the Skyhawk. 20 degrees of flaps feel just like full flaps on the real thing. Using full flaps reminds me of the older C172 that had one more notch of flaps to 40 degrees.
10-20-2001, 06:47 PM
I like the "40*" flaps - they help me get into my home base!
Anyway, I got FS2002 Pro last night and it is pretty much running fine (got 5 hrs - no hangs/lock-ups or erros, etc.!), or at least as good as could be expected, on an AMD K6-2 450 MHz, 128 MB SDRAM, 16 MB 3DFX Voodoo Banshee (thinking of getting a $100 GeForce2 MX 32MB - any comments? It needs to be 'modern' but have an economical price. My old card doesn't seem to support half of the lighting/water effects. However, I plan on getting/building a new comp. around Christmas, so maybe I should wait?).
With mid-range sliders, except for AutoGen and Scenery Complexity (the biggies) at "Dense", looking straight at downtown Chicago yields 5 - 10 fps; which, by the way, is still flyable in FS2K2.
More veteran users of FS may notice the sound of the 182RG from FS5 and FS95 in the background while in idle and low-power settings in the 172(S?) SP. Not meant to be derogatory; in fact, I think it doesn't sound too bad.
Something else to enjoy - you can hear the electric gyros in FS now! When you turn the Master on, you hear them 'winding up' (albeit quietly), then when you turn the Master off, they "whine" down - at least this sound effect is the case in the 172S SP (I've only flown the 172 and 182 so far).
Beware of Compact Installations! I tried that first, but it leaves out all choices of paint for the 182 except that drab green on white (I prefer the 182T - the 'zig-zag' one - and 182S - the red/maroon triangle on the doors - colors).
ATC is pleasing, though, like everyone else, I wish I could ask for a different altitude. However, I have yet to fly under the IFR system in FS2K2, so my opinion about that is forthcoming. I really wish you could select your own runway - especially at an uncontrolled field and it 'picks' a runway for you: I was going to land on rwy 3, but what my pilot on the CTAF kept saying was rwy 18.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't have a recent 3D card, so I don't know what the sky 'really' looks like, but it is reminiscent of FU III, but with better haze. It doesn't get quite so dark as you look up, but it's good enough for me. I don't plan on flying SR-71's to 70,000 ft., either, so I don't have to worry about seeing the deep blue bleed away into black.
I'm a little disappointed about the readability of virtual cockpit guages. As I recall, if you zoomed in on them in CSF2, they were re-drawn sharper. No suck luck on FS2002. Cannot read the time on the tach, for one. Maybe another issue with my 3D card? However, this is somewhat made-up-for with the ability to position one's 'point-of-view' anywhere in-or outside-the aircraft. You can fly from the left seat, right seat, or back seat :-lol .
As I experiment more and find more things, I'll post them, and I might be starting a poll in the next couple of days/weeks to find out which system set-ups get the best performance (for the money).
MX is a downgrade to the first GF.... it's designed to meet the needs and $ of the non-high-end card users.
I like the sim, but I am a tad dissappointed in the fps.... I have a pent III 800 w/512 ram (pc-133) and I generally run 10 fps in dence.... will go under ten when landing.. airports are a booger for fps.
Overall? I LOVE it. I turn off the water reflections as MS needs to make it better... it's kind of cheesy as-is.
I still haven't gone to Vegas to see the fireworks... I'm going to set the date for July 4th and see if the whole world has the fireworks.. LOL
Over all... thumbs up!
10-21-2001, 02:03 AM
My principal dislike is that the game has not been released in Oz yet x( However, having read just about every post in the FS2002 forum over the last 24 hours, I know that the Learjet will be a big disapointment. Maybe someone can clarify, but it sounds like the Sopwith Camel and Schweizer glider don't have virtual cockpits. If so, that is another disappointment. Nevertheless, for every disappointment, there are obviously many more improvements.
10-21-2001, 08:57 AM
Hey Ray,Check out the Inno3D GeForce2 64meg MX200 card it's
now only $46.50 at www.ocie.com
The PRO card is $107.50.
The MX200 makes a compromise that most halfway performance minded users find unacceptable. It halves the size of the interface to the board's memory from 128-bits on all other GeForce cards to only 64. Even though it has an ample 64 MB of memory onboard, this supposed advantage is almost completely wasted because it can only access that memory in a slow way.
Shoot for an MX400, or a regular MX at the very least. These cards are noticeably faster than the MX200 but still very affordable. If you want, you can save a bit of money by getting a 32 MB model and it will still be lots faster. Go for the Pro if you want a real performance card.
Not the whole world celebrates Independance day.. oh wait.. you mean your whole world http://www.smilies.nl/bounce/5.gif
10-21-2001, 09:34 AM
I bought a MSI Geforce2 pro 64mb about 3 or 4 weeks ago and makes no difference in fs2000 but that is ok because I get around 16fps there. But in Train sim it made a huge improvement over my TNT2. I am not getting fs2002 until cristmas though because I am only 14 and dont have a job and I just bought a $130 GF2 and I dont want to spend any more on FS. But until then I will just have to look at all of your screen shots.
By the way if you want a new card I suggest the MSI Starforce 831 (GeForce2 pro 64mb). It is a really great card. I got mine from www.monarchcomputer.com
10-21-2001, 06:22 PM
I want to ask people who own 2002 a question.
The most entertainment I have when I fly FS2000 is when I navigate a Cessna, Mooney or Beech by Dead Reckoning. This is really interesting in Colorado, because when you pull the sectional, the roads and mountains are actually in the right places.
This brings me to my question. The only things modeled correctly are (some)obstructions, roads, (some)rivers, and towns. Pilotage can be done effectively with only these landmarks... but I'd like to have additional simple things like powerlines and railroads and other such obvious things marked on sectionals and WAC maps.
So, I'd like to ask: did MS include either of these things (or others) in 2002?
I'm going to buy it anyway, but I'm curious.
CSU - Fort Collins, CO
10-21-2001, 07:36 PM
Microsoft used a Jeppesen database for its obstruction data. Now, what they use to simulate obstructions is interesting. If you check out the departure end of runway 4 at KSCH (Schenectady County Airport) on the west side of the runway you will see what looks like a big oil storage tank. There is a hill on that end with trees on it that are shown on a Jep approach plate. If I get enough ambition I might haul out a scenery editor and fix the oops.
10-21-2001, 08:21 PM
Oh, I have another question too-
Since ATC is active in this version, and airports are busy, does that mean that airports w/o control towers have active UNICOM's (ie: pilots calling out positions, etc)?
Or is the AI traffic limited only to the larger airports? (Hence the airports w/control towers for Center/App to handoff to?)
So many GA questions...
10-21-2001, 08:54 PM
It seems that every controlled field has AI aircraft (that ATC talk to and which respond back to ATC; quite impressive. I flew from Meigs to western PA and there was constant chatter for traffic alerts between me and nearby aircraft).
However, no uncontrolled fields (UNICOM/CTAF) have AI a/c. I guess the AI don't quite have artificial intelligence - they need to be told what to do all the time :-lol
Hang in there buddy!... Christmas is JUST around the corner!
10-22-2001, 11:39 AM
LAST EDITED ON Oct-22-01 AT 10:40AM (EDT)[p]i am on my way to the 200hr mark with (the beta) and the official 2002 pro.i have no dislikes. love every aspect of it.
the auto pilot/wing leveler is a simple fix. found it on avsim. works fine now.
framerates are fluid on my antique p3 500 with all options set to 66%. sky/airports are full of planes.
the biggest thing i am thankfull for is that ms released a FINISHED flightsim. that's beginning to be a rare thing nowdays.
ms got it right.
10-22-2001, 11:46 AM
You mean you were actually attacked by aliens :-)
10-27-2001, 11:00 PM
Holy friggin’ cow!!
That is one drop-dead-gorgeous piece of simulation software!
I just bought and installed my copy today (no Pro version here in Vancouver) and am in-between test flights. First one was Vancouver Intl to Squamish in the Cessna 182RG with real world weather and current time. My home town and MS has done it perfect. I've flown that flight many times via FS2k in all shapes of aircraft.
My first flight felt like when I switched from video tape to DVD and S-Video. It's that good and just kept getting better.
Three words: Progressive Taxi Instructions.
The ATC inside FS2K2 is much more than I'd expected and is something you can pick up on how to use it in a half hour flight. "More" in that it was useful and helpful, alerted me to incoming or outgoing flights and includes this most excellent way of directing you from your starting gate to your point of take off. The starting positions now include starting gates for all shapes and sizes of aircraft. An awesome touch reality wise.
After the most dreamy flight in flight sim I've ever had (I started with FS1 on my $1,895 Apple II+) I switched to the Lear Jet (same instrument panel but a whole new flight model and to-die-for exterior) and after buzzing Comox (east Vancouver Island) I returned for a perfect VFR landing at YVR.
The visuals are stunning. I'm currently using a PIII 500 with 386 MB RAM and a GeForce2MX video card and my frame rates are double that of FS2K (11 to 14 fps). The new terrain model, along with the dynamic-scenery-on-sterioids really adds to that "suspension of disbelief" perspective. It felt very fluid while flying.
Once I'd landed back at Vancouver Intl. (the Lear feels, at this point anyway, much more 'controlled', easier to fly) I activated the Progressive Taxi Instruction path and followed the purple brick road back to my hanger. As I approached the final direction point I noticed another Lear stationed in the same area. I figured parking beside the sister aircraft totally appropriate and as I turned to line up beside her she started to taxi!
Naturally I followed. Unfortunately the collision detection sphere around the Lear I was following (and listening to its ATC chatter with the tower) was larger than I expected. :-) Ooops. It was like finding a new piece of flight sim – Taxi Sim. I can’t wait to follow a wide bodied jet in a Cessna. I wonder if FS2K2 simulates wind vortexes?
Next flight is my second favorite. A Boeing 777, ready to roll, RWY20, Tribhuvan International airport, Katmandu, Nepal (ID: VNXT). Just around the corner from my favorite spot in Flight Sim.
N27' 57.56" E86' 57.35" at 29,150 feet.
100 feet above the summit of Everest.
If you don't have FS2K2 buy it.
10-28-2001, 12:24 PM
I picked up FS2002 earlier last week, but due to prior commitments I didn't get a chance to really try it out until yesterday.
To me, the biggest positive impression I have from FS2002 is flying in the virtual cockpits (so far most of my time has been in the Skyhawk though I did spend sometime in the Skylane as well) and finally I have found a situation with a flight simulator which does a decent job of emulating the look and feel of flight in the real world. I must also say that I am somewhat happy with the improved flight dynamics. I can only compare a simulated Cessna 172 with a real world 172 (to date I have only flown real world 172s), but at least now (in the virtual cockpit) the FS2002 Cessna 172 reacts to the control inputs in a compatible way that the real 172 reacts. I was starting to get frustrated with FS2000's control inputs but this doesn't seem to be the case for FS2002.
Also, the scenery (ie: the major roads in your favorite metro area) have improved greatly in FS2002 and are now much closer to reality and maybe just maybe pilotage can be used in the simulator.
I am looking forward to flying a few simulated FS2002 cross-country trips now (when I find the time) and these trips will give me a much better idea towards what I may expect to experience in the real world.
So in summary, I must give Micro$oft two thumbs up for a job well done in FS2002 and I can't wait for more airplanes to include virtual cockpits.
Happy Flying whether it is the real or simulated variety.
HOW in GOD's NAME DID YOU HAVE IT FOR A WEEK AND NOT PLAY IT!........
Obviously you can be trusted in the candy store!
10-29-2001, 10:50 AM
Replay is fantastic...It finally works properly :-)
10-29-2001, 12:27 PM
That's easy ... my private pilot checkride is this up and coming Thursday and if you factor in study time, ground lessons, solo and dual real world flights in preparation for the checkride, work (so that I can pay for all of this), the fact that I play on a hockey team and went to an NHL hockey game last week. It just doesn't add up to a lot of free time to mess around with FS2002.
But I do look forward to spending some more time with FS2002 starting next week.
10-29-2001, 01:36 PM
What a disappointment the Lear 45 is. I don't understand how Microsoft could add so many great new features to FS2002 but not add some of the new features to the Lear 45. It doesn't have a virtual cockpit or landing lights visible from within the cockpit to start with.
How hard could it have been to add these features? I hope someone out there develops an add on Lear 45 with the new features. I would spend money on that.
I hope I'm not alone on this.
11-03-2001, 08:45 PM
I wish the cockpit panels were better. They're just a rehash of FS2K.
11-04-2001, 01:00 AM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
11-06-2001, 02:25 PM
I personally think that a few people are getting a tad carried away in their praise of FS2002. It's a very good flightsim, and what it does it does well, but many users seem to be going into a state of shock over it. It may be because for many users it's the first flight sim they've owned after FS2000 (which was quite poor) and so by comparison FS2002 is a lot better. For instance, they've actually used a good flight model this time (rather than the joke that was FS2000).
If, however, you're a user of something like X-Plane then the limitations become obvious. That sim may not look so pretty, but it has so many features that it compensates. FS2002 comes off looking very, very limited compared X-Plane.
But, like I said, what FS2002 does it does well. If you want to fly from A to B in a Beech Baron with realistic sounding ATC and accurate looking scenery (which looks real - the importance of which should not be underestimated) then FS2002 does seem to rule the roost. But for thrashing an F-104 through a series of manouvers, dropping in an X-15 from underneath a B-52 or being towed into the air in a glider by a light aircraft? X-Plane, for all its graphical limitations, really does excel in its own way.
So, yeah - I think that FS2002 is good, but not quite the quantum leap that many people are claiming.
11-06-2001, 05:04 PM
What I like:
I skipped FS2000 and I came to FS2K2 from FS98, so the difference
was dramatic. Other than fixing bugs, I don't see what else
might be added to the sim.
What I don't like:
Airport missing: LGAV (Athens Venizelos airport, new airport
opened last March). It is missing.
Flight Planner errors: If you want to fly from EGLL to KJFK,
you don't fly over Africa, but this is the proposed flight
plan generated by FS2K2 if you choose IFR and High Altitude
Airways. Has to be fixed. North Atlantic Tracks need to be
added (or downloaded on a daily basis).
If you want to fly from EGLL to RJAA (Tokyo), you can fly
over Siberia, not over southern China!!
ATC: If the weather conditions are bad, ATC should assing
to you an ILS runway (if the airport has one) and not a
rwy which is best from the winds point of view. ATC should not
ask you to do a visual approach when cloud base is about 200ft AGL!! In any case, the winds should be given by the tower
at the approach. The approach should be contacted earlier,
not seconds before touchdown.
there is also a bug with the video playback.
Excellent product overall.
11-06-2001, 11:46 PM
Overall, I have already put hours, for several days, into drooling over all the obvious goodness. This is a huge leap, I love it. Things I would like to see changed or added:
-Some of the planes brought over from FS2000 havent changed a bit. Some with no virtual, no reflective paint, etc. That's a rip.
-Manual on the disk is an obvious cost cutting technique, but they charged me $70 for the sim, and I didnt even get a proper CD case.
-Default planes look like crap, dull weird colors.
-2D cockpit uses uglier virtual left, right, rear views.
-No simple fly-by view.
-Map view still stops the simulation.
-Changing airports while flying still drops my plane on the runway, crashing or bouncing and flying away at last throttle.
-Changing the time, requires a long reload wait.
-ATC is limited, cant declare an emergency, request vectors to alternate or instrument approach, request other altitudes, and so on....
-It takes an act of congress to not list add-on planes in the 'unspecified' category.
-Taxi to gate...what gate?
-Clouds pale in comparison to FS000.
-crash/ damage sequence non existent, without downloading a file or making changes. They looked great in CFS2 right, same engine here right?
-landing lights reflecting off runway are too sharply triangular.
-Nobody has radar, windshield wipers, seatbelt/ smoking bells, aargh, give me something to play with on these long flights!
-Airports have no static vehicles, etc...too clean.
*MS, enlist ,(hire), someone from each state to design scenery particular to thier state and send it back to you. Then put it together on one sim. That way all the 'little' things that people fly over to see in thier state will be there. That would be amazing. Unprecedented.
Bob 'Wolf' Hayes
Easy on the Stick!
11-06-2001, 11:56 PM
Nice comparison to Xplane, FS2002 could increase the technical capabilities of the sim, but then it would have to lower the eye candy side to compensate. Hey you gotta have the trade off to run on as many computer systems as possible out there. Guess its best to just own both sims!
Bob 'Wolf' Hayes
Easy on the Stick!
11-07-2001, 02:50 AM
I just bought the Professional Edition, and I'm very pleased with the result. I love the virtual cockpit views, and some of that effect is even available on converted FS98 aircraft, like the Bristol Brabazon. The eye candy has been well worth looking at, but what I like better is that it is reasonably reliable. Not perfectly so, mind you, but better. Also, some of the old FS98 panels look better than they did in FS98. I was also surprised to see decent fram rates with my computer, which I didn't upgrade one bit for FS2002. Same K6-2-500, same 32 MB Creative TNT2 Blaster video card...
However, there's several things I didn't care for. The first is the NAV2 radios, or lack thereof. The fix I downloaded only rendered all radios non-adjustable. I've also had heavy jets accelerate down the taxiway at idle, some planes lock up the system if I start or end the simulation with them. The airports still have the same textures, though at least 2002 acknowledges PHF's new terminal building, though neither the new or old terminal buildings are accurately modeled. Looks like lonewulph was right there, the airports should be designed by someone who lives there. After using FSNavigator forever, or so it seems, I've little patience with a map view that stops the simulator. I've never liked the added complexity of the scenery library functions of FS2K, and this doesn't improve that at all. Indeed, we've accepted more complex scenery installs with each generation of FS. I recall simply dumping all the scenery files into one folder in FS5, and having few problems.
The autogen scenery could at least take into account local zoning. The area at the near end of PHF's runway 7 is dominated, if not by trees, by large stores (Lowe's, Home Depot, Wal-Mart), not by a few houses. Seeing accurate roads, and buildings that relate to them wouldn't be too much to ask. In fact, sitting on the ground at PHF, I'd see lots of trees and no houses. I've never seen the dynamic scenery.
Despite all this griping, though, the feeling of having nearly found the promised land is there. It may not be long before I finally retire FS98, though I'll keep that trhough the completion of my RTW with Noble Air.
11-07-2001, 12:57 PM
Likes...I love the improved scenery..it is great ...better than great for me..
Dislikes...everything else that all the others who have responded about...I am returning to fs2000 until the developers can get fs2002 more "bug free"!
11-07-2001, 06:57 PM
Autogen is the best improvement for realism in my opinion.
The roads, though, generally look awful.
11-09-2001, 04:57 PM
I love the sim, despite thew fact that it need some tweeking.
I would really update the lear jet (big dissapointment) and fix the slower tan hell panel on the 747, the guages run really slow for some reason no matter what you do.
The choices in ATC need to be expanded such as altitude and destanation changes in flight would be nice.
11-09-2001, 06:56 PM
Very interesting thoughts and points. I haven't bought it yet but have been flying it on a young fellas computer. At its present stage, I would have to consider it a "Beta".
They young fella was awed as was I with the scenery. He went from FS98 and I fly FS2K. Visuals along with frame rates are the only two "pluses" in our opinion. He has reverted back to 98 and I am going to continue with 2K. I'm not going to 'pay' to be a Beta tester.
I fully expected more of MS in the release of this version and I honestly feel that it is the worst release to date and I have been simming since the days of Commodore 64.
I have been in contact with several of the Beta testers and alot of the problems being encountered by the new users were brought up. MS's reply was that they would be fixed in the next update---never happened. What good is it to have Beta testers if MS isn't going to listen to the expert (the end user)? Also some of these testers were third party developers and MS still didn't listen.
I'm afraid that my over-all opinion is "thumbs down". Also some of the blame needs to be placed on the simmer. After the tragedy of Sept. 11, when MS announced a delay in release, simmers screamed and hollered. I always look anxiously to a new improved release of FS, but I can wait for it to be right or close enough to it.
11-16-2001, 02:49 PM
i really cant find a fix for it
I have a G2 64 Ultra
I got my copy on Tuesday 13 Nov, but I had to wait until today to see what it was like (I replaced my ATI card, which was 8Mb!:o)
I love FS2000! :) So much so that I completely uninstalled FS2000 for good :-lol I have the following system:
GeFORCE2 64Mb, MX200 (it isn't that bad:-lol)
Plenty of HD space :)
17" Panasonic screen
Here are the points which make this the best ever general flightsim :)
1) Smoothness: Even though I have a slow processor there are no st-st-st-stutters(:-lol), and 15fps is more than adequate :) I reloaded FS2000 today, and the same frame rates are terrible. Microsoft have really done well on that issue :) 10/10
2) The sky: The blue is much nicer, and in the evening/morning the sky isn't like that Mars (as in FS2000!) 10/10
3) Aircraft: The reflective surfaces, lifelike strobes/beacons, and the landing light pools make for a great sight! :) The tyre (tire) smoke is great, and watching the default Cessna's gear struts shake while moving on a rough surface...:)... it puts the icing on the cake! :). (9/10)
4) Panels: Hooray! Hooray! Woo Hoo! All panels have full night lighting, and you don't have to be a panel guru to create it! :) FS2000 was a complete joke - you couldn't see where the switches/gauges were, and this was a crime to me! :-lol (8/10)
5) Scenery: Gone have the shimmering textures and airports that stick out like a sore thumb: The textures are beautiful in comparison to FS2K :) The autogen is an added bonus (very smart), and some of the scenery is breathtaking! :) (10/10
6) Water/Sea: The reflective/moving water surfaces are brilliant! :) (9/10)
7) Crashes/incidents: This is modelled in a more realistic way than FS2K's "sink the plane halfway into the ground" way :-lol. very good. If you know how to activate it, you can enable visual damage! (8/10)
8) Weather: the clouds are a big improvement, and I don't even need replacements (yet!). The dialogs are flawless, and I can "create a flight" like in FS98. FS2000 was diabolical! :) The weather effects are cool :-cool (8/10)
9) Flight Models: They aren't as bad as I feared, but there's room for improvement. (7/10)
10) Default airports: The improved taxiways e.t.c. make the default airports look acceptable, and there are no missing (hidden) polygons this time! (7/10)
And now.. the not-so-good-bits:
1) The landing light pools are not visible (from the cockpit) on anything larger than a Cessna - maybe this can be sorted :-hmmm.
2) The runway and city lights are too dark at night: There are replacements, though (try http://simflight.com/fsw/) :)
That's all I can think of :-lol
Bye, and thanks for reading :)
11-23-2001, 10:30 PM
I DO NOT CARE FOR THE BLURRY TEXTURES.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.