Re: FS2002, is it worth it?

[twc]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Yes

Trevor

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob


Yes! Ignore the frame rate data (for the most part). I've been enjoying it
immensely!
Art

[oldtimepilot]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims.

Jesse

[bonneville455]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie

[oldtimepilot]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse

[rlf]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



Be sure to get the Professional edition though! It's worth the extra $20 if
thats what it takes!

Bob F.

[mallloyd]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

As long as your system supports it Bob. If you ran 2K you can run 2k2 but a
low end system may disappoint you. I had PIII 650mhz, 128mb RAM and Voodoo3.
The performance with that card was very poor so was replaced with a TNT2 32mb
which is still less than optimum but a big improvement, and RAM up to 512mb.
With that I run with all sliders at mid positions - those with better machines
max them out and get much better scenery effects, but I'm still very happy with
what I get. Be prepared to do a bit of tweeking (see the tips pages) to get
things the way you want them.
If you fly mainly IFR, not interested in scenery, traffic or ATC you may be
just as happy with 2k, but if you like those things you'll love 2K2. I
certainly wouldn't go back to 2K. If you do it GET THE PRO VERSION!

Mal

[ghhughes]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie,
Think I'd just not use ATC......
George

[oldsrocket350]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie,
Think I'd just not use ATC......
George

If that were the only disappointment, I might well have done that. But there’s
also a principle. The ATC is one of the prominent new features used to sell the
product and was the main draw for me to "upgrade" from FS2000. It should work
as it is supposed to and be good for something beyond flight following! I found
FS2002 to be a let down in a number of areas.

Charlie

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife
was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -
I'm genuinely curious.
Art

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



I added a TON of flights using Traffic Tools. Some of the traffic downloads are
a bit cumbersome (adding planes, airports, etc.), but on my own I've been able
to create quite a bit of GA traffic at several of my local airports - at least
the controlled ones. Certainly makes that look a lot more realistic.

Yesterday I crashed in Alaska. I was slewing and the darned plane suddenly just
took off by itself. Out of curiousity, I let in crash in the river. There was a
big splash (not just the word, but a big splash!) and then some ripples and big
wake coming out from the origin! In most places where there is water, you can
see the "surf" lapping at the shore. At least with the graphic settings I have.

Art

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie,
Think I'd just not use ATC......
George

If that were the only disappointment, I might well have done that. But there’s
also a principle. The ATC is one of the prominent new features used to sell the


product and was the main draw for me to "upgrade" from FS2000. It should work
as it is supposed to and be good for something beyond flight following! I found


FS2002 to be a let down in a number of areas.

Charlie

I realize the default flight planner is somewhat cumbersome (and prone to
error) but at least you *can* file a flight plan and use ATC that way - can't
you? I mostly use Radar Contact or Flight Shop, but I think I have flown a
couple of IFR flights with the default ATC. I didn't think it was *that* bad!
Art

[oldtimepilot]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



I added a TON of flights using Traffic Tools. Some of the traffic downloads are


a bit cumbersome (adding planes, airports, etc.), but on my own I've been able
to create quite a bit of GA traffic at several of my local airports - at least
the controlled ones. Certainly makes that look a lot more realistic.

Yesterday I crashed in Alaska. I was slewing and the darned plane suddenly just


took off by itself. Out of curiousity, I let in crash in the river. There was a


big splash (not just the word, but a big splash!) and then some ripples and big


wake coming out from the origin! In most places where there is water, you can
see the "surf" lapping at the shore. At least with the graphic settings I have.



Art

I've landed wheels up several times in Lake Michigan just off Meigs and the
effect is spectacular. The aircraft leaves a bit of turbulent water, floats for
awhile and then sinks completely out of site with the water swirling around
where it went down.
Jesse

[ac103010]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



I added a TON of flights using Traffic Tools. Some of the traffic downloads are




a bit cumbersome (adding planes, airports, etc.), but on my own I've been able
to create quite a bit of GA traffic at several of my local airports - at least
the controlled ones. Certainly makes that look a lot more realistic.

Yesterday I crashed in Alaska. I was slewing and the darned plane suddenly just




took off by itself. Out of curiousity, I let in crash in the river. There was a




big splash (not just the word, but a big splash!) and then some ripples and big




wake coming out from the origin! In most places where there is water, you can
see the "surf" lapping at the shore. At least with the graphic settings I have.





Art

I've landed wheels up several times in Lake Michigan just off Meigs and the
effect is spectacular. The aircraft leaves a bit of turbulent water, floats for


awhile and then sinks completely out of site with the water swirling around
where it went down.
Jesse




Has anyone gotten around the problem of FS2000 and FS98 wheels not showing with
those aircraft added to AI Aircraft. Otherwise, there are so few (relatively)
relevant aircraft in FS2002 that, to have the correct livery, one might be
flying a 747-400 from Cardiff to Aberdeen, on a scheduled fligh.

Allan

[bonneville455]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife


was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -


I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much
greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed
to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing
the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find
that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks
that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.
Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program
as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation
of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

[bonneville455]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie,
Think I'd just not use ATC......
George

If that were the only disappointment, I might well have done that. But there’s
also a principle. The ATC is one of the prominent new features used to sell the




product and was the main draw for me to "upgrade" from FS2000. It should work
as it is supposed to and be good for something beyond flight following! I found




FS2002 to be a let down in a number of areas.

Charlie

I realize the default flight planner is somewhat cumbersome (and prone to
error) but at least you *can* file a flight plan and use ATC that way - can't
you? I mostly use Radar Contact or Flight Shop, but I think I have flown a
couple of IFR flights with the default ATC. I didn't think it was *that* bad!
Art

See my reply to your other message.

Charlie

[captbala]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife




was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -




I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much


greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed


to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing


the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find


that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks


that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.


Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program


as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation


of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie


Having returned to flight sim after a long gap , I tried the Fs2002 only a few
days back and that too in a hurried way and so cant really comment much. But, I
just took a trip along the grand canyon at low level and I must say it was
quite good.Scenery out there at least seems to be quite good compared to
FS2000. If the rest of the world is also depicted as well, it is definitely a
great improvement.

Ofcourse, the scenery depicted at remote airports are definitely not true to
life though the navaids etc are depicted mostly correct.

But That is good. It will give us opportunities to come up with scenry files
and keep our interest alive, I guess. May be I will try my hand as well in some
of those sceneries that I know of.

For example there is this calicut airport ,which is actually on a ledge and so
there is a huge drop at both ends of the runway. It is so much that , when I
land my 747 in real life there, we do not get any radio altimeter callouts
(because the ground is way below) and you get the 50 feet call only down to
flare and it is all of a sudden and kind of jolt you up in your approach.There
are high hills around making IFR approaches that much more attention getters in
rewal life.

But, in FS2002, It is shown and a rwy in plains.

I am sure there must be whole heap of FS2002airports(as in previous FS versions
as well.(Just stating the fact and not complaining since for the price that we
pay, it is still a great deal I think) around the world which are just
represented by a runway and navaids but not in realistic setting.

Bala

[captbala]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



Be sure to get the Professional edition though! It's worth the extra $20 if
thats what it takes!

Bob F.


Guess That is what is known as a Professional advice ;-)

Bala

PS :-How are you doing Bob!

[rlf]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



Be sure to get the Professional edition though! It's worth the extra $20 if
thats what it takes!

Bob F.


Guess That is what is known as a Professional advice ;-)

Bala

PS :-How are you doing Bob!

Great, Bala! Good to see you back on board!
I'm very impressed with the FS2002 scenery. I don't particularly like the
program generated trees and buildings though. I keep it turned way down.

Bob F.


Bob F.

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife




was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -




I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much


greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed


to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing


the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find


that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks


that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.


Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program


as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation


of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far
too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the
default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

In my opinion....A great big YES! The scenery improvements and the effects
such as dirt and gravel being tossed about on runways, smoke from the tires on
landing (although at times a bit heavy) and the wake left behind on the
amphibs. It is well worth adding to the collection of flight sims. Another
nice feature is the AI aircraft. You can control the number of aircraft flying
around your airspace. You also have access to ATC now. Even though there are
some shortcomings, I would say the pros far outweigh the cons.

Jesse



Be sure to get the Professional edition though! It's worth the extra $20 if
thats what it takes!

Bob F.


Guess That is what is known as a Professional advice ;-)

Bala

PS :-How are you doing Bob!

Great, Bala! Good to see you back on board!
I'm very impressed with the FS2002 scenery. I don't particularly like the
program generated trees and buildings though. I keep it turned way down.

Bob F.


Bob F.

I added some scenery for BC and Alaska. There are some effects for smoke and
some different tree textures. They are terrific relative to the default trees.
Art

[oldsrocket350]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife






was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -






I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much




greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed




to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing




the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find




that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks




that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.




Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program




as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation




of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie


Having returned to flight sim after a long gap , I tried the Fs2002 only a few
days back and that too in a hurried way and so cant really comment much. But, I


just took a trip along the grand canyon at low level and I must say it was
quite good.Scenery out there at least seems to be quite good compared to
FS2000. If the rest of the world is also depicted as well, it is definitely a
great improvement.

Ofcourse, the scenery depicted at remote airports are definitely not true to
life though the navaids etc are depicted mostly correct.

But That is good. It will give us opportunities to come up with scenry files
and keep our interest alive, I guess. May be I will try my hand as well in some


of those sceneries that I know of.

For example there is this calicut airport ,which is actually on a ledge and so
there is a huge drop at both ends of the runway. It is so much that , when I
land my 747 in real life there, we do not get any radio altimeter callouts
(because the ground is way below) and you get the 50 feet call only down to
flare and it is all of a sudden and kind of jolt you up in your approach.There
are high hills around making IFR approaches that much more attention getters in


rewal life.

But, in FS2002, It is shown and a rwy in plains.

I am sure there must be whole heap of FS2002airports(as in previous FS versions


as well.(Just stating the fact and not complaining since for the price that we
pay, it is still a great deal I think) around the world which are just
represented by a runway and navaids but not in realistic setting.

Bala


It’s good to see you back and I’ll be interested in hearing more of your
comments about FS2002 after you’ve had more time to evaluate it in detail.
There’s no doubt that generally the scenery is quite impressive, but even in
that respect FS2000 wins in a few specific areas, in my opinion. My biggest
concerns are with functionality – the ATC, auto-pilot, auto-throttle, etc. I
will be particularly interested in your appraisal of those, given your real
world experience. Thanks for your comments.

Charlie

[oldsrocket350]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife






was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -






I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much




greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed




to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing




the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find




that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks




that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.




Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program




as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation




of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far


too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the


default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know
how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie

[pstlpete]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no ? at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife








was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -








I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 ? two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" ? a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much






greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed






to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don?t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It?s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing






the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn?t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find






that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks






that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.






Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program






as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation






of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far




too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the




default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You?re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know


how this should work ? and this ain?t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn?t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie



Hey Guys,
Just as a point of information........my system, PIII/450/192 ram....16
meg. Viper 550 (Nvidia TNT chip).
I took 2k off od my system and I run 2k2 with the sliders @ about 3/4
over.
Yes, I have gotten a few messages but overall not more thhan with 2k.
Basically I think that the scenery is better overall.
ATC has been working fine and sometimes I use that and sometimes RC.
I guess basically what this all shows is that each PC is different and
even some with that same setup run differently. This is why we get such
different results from so many different people.

I always seem to cringe when someone asks how will 2k2 run with such and
such a setup...............how can anyone really answer that???????


Pete

[joewatson]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife








was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -








I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much






greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed






to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing






the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find






that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks






that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.






Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program






as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation






of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far




too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the




default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know


how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie



Did you guys notice that the Cessnas ( all of them) seem to pitch the nose down
at turns when on autopilot? Thats my main gripe. and there is no cure yet!
Don't have that problem with the add-on's from FS2000.
Joe W.

[artburke]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife








was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -








I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much






greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed






to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing






the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find






that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks






that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.






Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program






as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation






of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far




too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the




default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know


how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie

I must confess I noticed the engines sounded different, but I'm not used to the
real McCoy!

Your last couple of posts made reference to Flight Assignment ATP. I wanted to
buy Airline Simulations II, but all the reviews I read said the scenery sucked.
I flew ATP quite a bit back in the good old days. That was quite a program. I
particularly like the grading system when the flight was completed (although I
didn't always agree with the grade!). I guess I'm kind of surprised someone
hasn't written some kind of "adventure" with a scheme like that.
Art

[bonneville455]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife










was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -










I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much








greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed








to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing








the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find








that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks








that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.








Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program








as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation








of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far






too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the






default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know




how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie



Did you guys notice that the Cessnas ( all of them) seem to pitch the nose down


at turns when on autopilot? Thats my main gripe. and there is no cure yet!
Don't have that problem with the add-on's from FS2000.
Joe W.

No, I didn’t notice that, Joe, because I was so frustrated with other things
and only had the program for a week. I’ll take your word for it, though. FS2002
is full of weird phenomena. It’s as though they started from scratch when
writing it, with scenery as the ONLY priority. Operationally, it is a disaster,
but few seem to notice. Microsoft has little incentive to produce a patch,
because most customers are falling all over themselves in praise of the
product. It’s starting to look like it may never be fixed.

Charlie

[bonneville455]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife










was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -










I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much








greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed








to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing








the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find








that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks








that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.








Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program








as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation








of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far






too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the






default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know




how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie

I must confess I noticed the engines sounded different, but I'm not used to the


real McCoy!

Your last couple of posts made reference to Flight Assignment ATP. I wanted to
buy Airline Simulations II, but all the reviews I read said the scenery sucked.


I flew ATP quite a bit back in the good old days. That was quite a program. I
particularly like the grading system when the flight was completed (although I
didn't always agree with the grade!). I guess I'm kind of surprised someone
hasn't written some kind of "adventure" with a scheme like that.
Art


Yes, it was a great program and I when I read that FS2002 was going to have a
flight analysis feature I was hoping it would be similar to ATP's grading
system. But no, as I recall in FS2002 it is just a useless graph and yet
another disappointment.

Charlie

[jeannique]

I've seen the program on the shelves now for a while, looked at the
requirements, and so far haven't decided that I want it. For those who have
tried it, is it worth it?

Capt. Bob

Though it's unlawful and worthy of cruel and unusual punishment in the flight
sim world to hold this view, my answer is no – at least in the absence of a
patch. Though there are some improvements over FS2000, there are some very
frustrating steps backward and things that need to be fixed, like the useless
ATC. I still prefer FS2000 to the as yet unpatched FS2002.

Charlie



Charlie, I may not have been diligently keeping up with the posts while my wife












was ill. At the risk of a diatribe (insert smiley here), what are your major
complaints in re FS2002? Not trying to start a war and not trying to sell you -












I'm genuinely curious.
Art

OK, Art. I'm just going to re-post something I wrote a few months ago to John
O. Keep in mind that its tone is as a result of being in exactly the same
position as Butch and Sundance were in Bolivia at the end of the movie. The
flight sim community simply won't tolerate frank criticism of FS2002 – two of
my threads at Avsim were closed because of it. I'm still shaking my head. Here
it is five months after the release and no patch. Most folks are letting
Microsoft off way too easily. Here it is:

Interesting that you refer to "effort" – a concept that keeps resurfacing in
most of the defenses of FS2002. Beyond learning new features, gadgets, and the
like, I ask why should it be such an "effort" to make a transition from one
flight simulator to the next by the same company?

My beefs aren't with system performance/frame rate issues except to say that
FS2002 does not at all perform significantly better than FS2000, as all of the
wildly positive reviews claim. If you put the target frame rate governor into
FS2000 and blurred its scenery, there would be no difference in performance
between the two.

My disappointment started when I opened the box and found the CDs packaged in
that cheap and shoddy cardboard folder. The likelihood of damaging a CD is much










greater this way than it was with the proper case that we formerly took for
granted. And guess what? I took out CD #1, painstakingly carefully as I always
do. I looked at its surface, again something I always do with a new program,
and sure enough, found a major scratch across its surface. It seems someone
involved in the packaging process was NOT so careful. Bound to happen with
human handling of this kind of packaging. It is unacceptable, but seems to be
the way of things now because so few customers voice their objection. It seemed










to install OK, but at that point I already knew that I was going to at least
exchange it for an unscratched CD set.

Then we come to the first run of the program with the familiar scene of the
Cessna on runway 36 at Meigs. The engine sound, outstanding in FS2000, is a
pathetic buzzing that sounds like it was resurrected from a version older than
FS98. Why would they do that? They had had it perfect in FS2000! I don’t
understand or accept such a backward step. Now watch, John, while 18 more
people tell me to get a new sound card because it must be my system. It’s as
predictable as white Christmas in Syracuse.

The feature that I was most interested in was the ATC. But alas, the only thing










the ATC is good for in FS2002 is flight following. Flying the 737, it simply
does not work properly for vectoring landing approaches. I tried it with
several different flights to different airports and soon realized that if I
followed its instructions to the letter, I would never land. It consistently
left me too high and way too close to the runway threshold before even handing
me off to the tower. I wonder how it is that SubLogic got it right in Flight
Assignment ATP, but Microsoft didn’t this many flight sim generations later.

In addition, I found the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be erratic, again two
features that work perfectly in FS2000. I found the change in spot plane view
controls to be annoying, another step backward from FS2000. I found that the
auto-gen scenery also results in some steps backward from FS2000, like
Candlestick Park being a rectangular warehouse until you are virtually on top
of it. And look at the Bay Bridge in FS2000 and then in FS2002 and explain why
they would do such a thing. Then, of course, there are the mysterious error
messages that tell you the program must close. I got one or two of those. Some
have reported getting them constantly.

The bottom line for me was a return of the program rather than exchange. I find










that flying FS2000 is preferable overall because it functions properly. My
feeling now is that it has gotten a bum rap, including from me at first, but
with it the vast majority of problems experienced WERE system problems. It was
never as buggy as FS2002 is.

I'm writing this as a reply to many different people that I've had this
discussion with, John, so forgive me if it sounds a little defensive or
argumentative. That is not at all directed at you, but results from the attacks










that I've experienced from others who will not hear of any criticism of FS2002.










Many would rather write off those of us who have honestly reviewed this program










as bad pilots or having bad computers than to join us in making our expectation










of a properly functioning product known to Microsoft. Many are still asking
what needs patching. Unbelievable.

Charlie

Well, I must confess you make some excellent points. I've only had a couple of
minor problems and I think I've only seen the "must close" message once. For
the most part, FS2002 does seem to perform somewhat more dependably than its
predecessor.

As for the ATC, I must also confess I agree. I made a relatively short GA
flight (about 40 minutes duration). I thought the first time it was my fault -
in retrospect (after reading what you wrote!) the vectored approach left me far








too high to even think of attempting a landing (notwithstanding the old famous
Alex Maercker quote "Real men don't go around!" LOL).

I guess where we differ (and perhaps that's truly because you're more
discerning than I) is I got just about what I expected - not sure if I'm being
funny here or not!

Some of the planes seem to fly kind of funny in FS2002 - is it just me or is
the Caravan super-twitchy? I transported by Commander 114TC over from FS2K and
it handles so smoothly (as does my Super Cub) I haven't been flying much of the








default aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks, but you *do* make some good points.
Thanks for reposting that.
Art

You’re quite welcome, Art. Interestingly, I had the same first reaction as you
when the ATC seemed to screw me up on approach. I gave the program the benefit
of the doubt. But then I tried it again and again with the same result. I said
to myself, "Wait a minute. I flew hundreds of ATC approaches in Flight
Assignment ATP and learned to fly them smoothly and accurately, consistently
resulting in landings that I was pretty proud of, if I do say so myself. I know






how this should work – and this ain’t it!" I say that if Sub-Logic can get it
right 10 years ago, then Microsoft damn well ought to be able to get it right
today.

I also started to notice that the planes seemed to fly funny, but didn’t spend
much time evaluating that aspect because I was already disgusted enough with
the program to take it back. Did you notice the engine sound?

Charlie

I must confess I noticed the engines sounded different, but I'm not used to the




real McCoy!

Your last couple of posts made reference to Flight Assignment ATP. I wanted to
buy Airline Simulations II, but all the reviews I read said the scenery sucked.




I flew ATP quite a bit back in the good old days. That was quite a program. I
particularly like the grading system when the flight was completed (although I
didn't always agree with the grade!). I guess I'm kind of surprised someone
hasn't written some kind of "adventure" with a scheme like that.
Art


Yes, it was a great program and I when I read that FS2002 was going to have a
flight analysis feature I was hoping it would be similar to ATP's grading
system. But no, as I recall in FS2002 it is just a useless graph and yet
another disappointment.

Charlie



I have fs2002 and I have been unable to find any trace of landing lights
lighting the forward ground visible from the COCKPIT view. Yes, they can be
seen from spot view or virtual cockpit view working properly but not from
COCKPIT view. Not every aircraft is equipped with virtual cockpit and for
people with home cockpits such a view is just as ridiculous as spot view,
especially to land a plane at night. What have you people found.

ATC - Doesn't work and here is why. I was approaching an airport VFR for
landing and requested landing clearance. The wind was 55 @ 10kts and I was
instructed to land using runway10 with a left hand pattern. Great! The only
problem with that is this airport (Horta in the azores - check it out folks)
sits on the south side of a small island with a mountain on it. Following M$
ATC instruction I would have flown right into that mountain. Since I was doing
this flight at night I could not see the mountain. I chose to believe my maps
and disobeyed the instruction, overflying the VOR and coming in on a right hand
circuit instead. As I was setting up on final I noticed movement on the runway
and overflew to the right of the runway. Sure enough an AI aircraft was taking
off towards me using runway 28. Some intelligence that.
I always thought that the primary purpose of ATC was to avoid air collisions
not cause them. This ATC doesn't carry out the primary function at all hence it
is worse than useless as it will cause accidents.

TO MICROSOFT! These are two very serious flaws that in effect renders your
great new sim nothing more than a kid's toy, a novelty, good only for daytime
rides over mountainous terrain and that visual thrill, if you want to call it
that, will wear thin after a while. Believe me. Throw in the very poor dawn and
dusk lighting, where the sun is still 10 degrees above the horizon yet you
can't see the ground to differentiate between snow and tarmac/taxiway, while
there is stars visible near the sun and, well, what can I say....Heh,heh.
FIX IT - please. It will be with us for a while.
Please keep this statement firmly in mind. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me. If these problems are not addressed you can be certain that
I will not consider buying your next offering.

John