View Full Version : A Few Thoughts On Fs2k4
02-11-2003, 02:33 AM
I'm not as happy as I should've been when such news came to my ears, well, I was happy, but that lasted until I saw the screenshots and the "new" feautres of the upcoming release.
It looks like microsoft made a "winning combination" of some very successful add-ons that we simmers are already familiar with.
take dynamic weather, there's "Active Sky" "Weather Center" and some others that I don't remember now. so what's the big news there?
ATC, a small improvement to the existing fs2k2 ATC engine, multiple runways, different approaches, speed limits perhaps? we already have Lee Swordy's (thank u thank u thank u) Traffic Tools and AFCAD... half the work was done by the users.
Active Virtual C.ockPit, Wilco's already have 'em.
3D Clouds, by judging the screenshots, it does look beautiful alright, but didn't FSW release a great (free) add-on on that issue?
Taxiway signs, been there - done that (Thanks taxiwaysigns.com)
coming to the screen shots again, I don't see ANY improvement in the graphics. tell me these screenshots were taken from Fs2k2, even fs2k and I'll take ur word for that.
It just came too soon... and with such a demanding name "Flight Simulator: A Century Of Flight" I'm not sure if it will manage to measure up to it's bombastic title :)
Final words, I might sound too conclusive, but I've been dreaming of that day I'll see the announcement for FS2K4 for a long time... so maybe I expected too much, but I know a lot of people here had a different idea of what FS2k4 will be like. :)
02-11-2003, 02:39 AM
I agree with you totally. But, like a good lemming, I will buy it.
I know someone has said this before, multiple times, but every other version of Flight Simulator has stunk. This would be one of those versions that could very well live up to that kind of tradition.
The screenshots have, "FS2k2 Patch" written all over them.
02-11-2003, 03:06 AM
>take dynamic weather, there's "Active Sky"
>"Weather Center" and some others
>that I don't remember now.
>so what's the big news
um... not one of those allows you to approach pass through and depart weather systems, which a moderator on avsim and beta tester hinted is what we can expect! also see the screenshots
>ATC, a small improvement to the
>existing fs2k2 ATC engine, multiple
>runways, different approaches, speed limits
>perhaps? we already have Lee
>Swordy's (thank u thank u
>thank u) Traffic Tools and
>AFCAD... half the work was
>done by the users.
Sorry all AFCAD does is open up two runways one for departure one for arrival! Does not let you choose!
>Active Virtual C.ockPit, Wilco's already have
and look how long it took wilco to make those planes, not to mention there payware addons.
>3D Clouds, by judging the screenshots,
>it does look beautiful alright,
>but didn't FSW release a
>great (free) add-on on that
Wrong again FSW never released any 3d clouds just different textures, in fact only a few of their clouds appear any better than default clouds...
>Taxiway signs, been there - done
>that (Thanks taxiwaysigns.com)
well now you get them default, guess thats no benefit to you!
>coming to the screen shots again,
>I don't see ANY improvement
>in the graphics. tell me
>these screenshots were taken from
>Fs2k2, even fs2k and I'll
>take ur word for that.
FS2002 is extremely advanced in graphics now its time to fix the other bugs... I'm extremely glad they didn't switch graphics engines... Sorry but a computer screen can only display so much realism then you just gotta do the real thing!
>Final words, I might sound too
>conclusive, but I've been dreaming
>of that day I'll see
>the announcement for FS2K4 for
>a long time... so maybe
>I expected too much, but
>I know a lot of
>people here had a different
>idea of what FS2k4 will
>be like. :)
Extremely pleased with MS decision to improve on FS2002 instead of starting from scratch, see they learned from CFS3!
I'd have to say you were way to harsh espically since you didn't have your facts strait.
02-11-2003, 03:06 AM
Still early in the beat stages my friend. Why not rejoice at the enhancements that MS announced as part of the core program? We all know that 3d party add-ons truly make the sim more remarkable than it is out of the box anyway.
02-11-2003, 03:07 AM
I know that I will buy it but I suspect that like 2000 we the public will be beta testers and the next version will be the real thing like 2k2.
02-11-2003, 04:28 AM
Lots of problems with my sig the last couple of days...
Jeff S KDTW
02-11-2003, 04:33 AM
Glad you got them before the hard drive went out. :-)
02-11-2003, 04:42 AM
Well I just took a look at those FS2004 preview shots.
The clouds and sun are improved ... much like CFS3. But the mountains and those friggin roads are still the same! The roads and the shorelines are so in need of catching up. I guess they are just not a high priority. The a/c are so far ahead of the scenery now.
I enjoy it all the same though!
Working VC is the big improvement in my books.
02-11-2003, 04:57 AM
I too would be tempted to call this an update to FS2002. Not that I think this is a bad thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no pro on this stuff. I have tried CFS3, which I beleive is based on a new graphics engine, and I have had nothing but problems. I can get it running ok, but I get all kinds of stutters and other graphical issues. Now on the same computer system, I can run FS2002 at about 80% detail without any problems. Nice and smooth which is what I want in a flightsim. I would rather see them iron out some of the bugs, add new features, and leave the rest alone. Sure, add a few new planes and update some of the exsisting ones. I would love the game to already come with a more advanced ATC, and runway signs would be great. I already like the weather / clouds in FS2002, but if they want to improve them, go for it. Also, keeping the same structure will allow us to continue using some of the various add-on aircraft etc that a lot of people have sunk a lot of money into (I being one of them). It all comes down to different expectations. I for one am looking forward to this new version, and will definately be making the purchase.
02-11-2003, 04:57 AM
As has been stated before by others, I'm glad that they decided to stick with the FS2002 engine, from what it looks like. It is more than enough for me. And all the improvements to existing features will easily make it worth the $55 we'll be paying. Me, I'm most excited about the improved ATC. Granted, VATSIM is good, but there's just not enough people to be everywhere at once. I've dreamed about ATC in FS telling me, "Skylane 9169G, cleared for the Localizer Backcourse runway 2 approach. Report the final approach fix inbound." I'm hoping that these approaches will be implimented.
In short, let's wait till we see some more before we start criticizing.
Instrument Rating student
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-03 AT 05:03AM (EST)[p]
As already stated you can only get so much from a screen shot.I just hope that the geniuses that came up with the title kept their noses out of the development!
02-11-2003, 05:52 AM
Thanks again Jeff! I was wondering what happened to the forum yesterday.
02-11-2003, 06:44 AM
Do you think that they improved rain and snow effects? I was really hoping for snow to show up on the ground and blow across the runway...maybe next time.
02-11-2003, 07:12 AM
I wouldn't be suprised. The announcement only has a vague "Enhanced Scenery" statement. I think we'll see more in a few months.
Instrument Rating student
02-11-2003, 08:03 AM
I must make one thing clear... I LOVE FS2K2!
I think it's superb, In the past year and a half I got it, I never had even ONE problem with it, as opposed to other ppl here.
The graphics are amazing, what can I say? yes, I love everything about it.
BUT... we're not talking about Fs2k2.
The main issue here is how much of a big deal is the next version of FS, if at all, and even my biggest critics here know that this is not a major imporvement like we saw between FS2K and 2K2.
so why not call it a patch? ;)
and that's where I'm trying to get - I don't need another Fs2k2.
"century of flight" just sounds too dramatic, which is fine by me, if only the drama has something true inside.
02-11-2003, 09:41 AM
Why not be greatful that that Microsoft is even doing a flight sim at all? Remember the gossip that Fs2002 was going to be the last of its kind?
As to add ons, I haven't purchased any add on stuff except for the Archer and the Cardinal. It will be nice to get that other stuff without having to shell out twice as much in total for add ons than I paid for the original game.
02-11-2003, 09:57 AM
Would you like some cheeze with that whine? :-roll
02-11-2003, 11:01 AM
>Why not be greatful that that
>Microsoft is even doing a
>flight sim at all?
Greatful?! do u think bill gates achieved what he's achieved because he's a nice guy??
Don't be mistaken... even though we simmers sometimes literally love our flight sim. this is still a business. when they reach a point that they'll decide making FS is not profitable for them, or any other reason, they'll just stop making it, and wouldn't give the slightest ##### about us simmers even if we'll send flowers and thank u letters every day.
microsoft should thank US the users, for being loyal and faithful to them for all these years (I'm a simmer since flight sim 2.0, although you might not tell that from the number of my posts here...)
and if you really wanna thank some1 - thank all the freeware artists & designers who give away their free time for US.
I am greatful to them. not microsoft - they get my money every time they release a product - it's not as they were doing me a favor. keep that in mind
02-11-2003, 11:14 AM
well, I know where we are in terms of programming and about how far we can go with FS 9.0
02-11-2003, 12:01 PM
DONT jump to conclusions!!!!! There was only pics of planes in the air so you cant have made up you mind that its crap!
02-11-2003, 12:09 PM
Mesh is improved
autogen textures are improved
airport buildings are improved
clouds and sky are improved
ground textures are improved
landclass are improved
That's what I see in those screenshots... Either you didn't want to see it or you have some miracle system that made FS2002 look a lot better than it did on mine without 3rd party additions.
Remember that 90%+ of users have none of those 3rd party additions, all the generic improvements will be mainly for that 1.5 million or so users who are of course completely irrelevant because Microsoft should only care for the small minority of hardcore simmers who buy or steal all those addons others produce.
02-11-2003, 12:50 PM
Without the sim, there would be no need for freeware, and payware. I am sure that Microsoft made so much money from this last issue of flight sim that there will be no need to charge users of XP for the next level.
02-11-2003, 01:12 PM
Kind of wondering, what kind of changes were you expecting? Trees swaying in the wind, every single strand of grass bowing it's head when a breeze passes over it? No offence, but there is a limit that the current and near-future hardware can handle.
The past two years hardware has not made such a vast step to allow for a vast improvement in scenery quality. So, instead of improving the scenery a little (not sure what should really be improved, but heck), I'm very glad they used the time to improve other features, like the ATC, the interactive VC's, and etcetera.
And, as said a few posts up, the vast majority of the users don't even know that sites like fs.com and avsim.com exist. So, all they see is the version that comes out of the box, without 3rd party additions.
02-11-2003, 01:24 PM
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-03 AT 01:24PM (EST)[p]What do you expect for $65? Of course there will be those who will complain all the way to their grave.
Wait for the thing to get released before casting judgement, nothing bugs me more than those who judge a book by its cover, or in this case, by some printed words and screen shots.
02-11-2003, 01:35 PM
I would hope they would add a couple features that Xplane has. Like blowing snow across the runways. Snow and water blowing up on the runways when you throttle up and when you reverse thrusters and seen through the cockpit windows. Those would make me happy! :D
02-11-2003, 01:47 PM
Microsoft could make ten times as much money as they do from flightsim if they put the same team that produces 1 release of flightsim every 2 years and let them produce a first person shooter every quarter.
So yes, we should be glad Microsoft hasn't gone the way of Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Sierra and all the others that dropped flightsims completely because profit margins on the genre are too low.
02-11-2003, 01:49 PM
some people were indeed expecting that.
And oh, throw in photoreal ground textures for the entire world that display crisp and sharp and in the correct perspective and colour at any altitude, speed, time of day, weather and angle of view.
And of course ultradetailed aircraft to make the best addon pale in comparison.
And of course have it all run on a P200 with 32MB RAM at 100fps with all settings maxed out.
02-11-2003, 01:50 PM
http://www.cessna.com has that, if you go to the rigth place at the right time with their product.
Pricing starts at about $155000, batteries not included.
02-11-2003, 03:03 PM
'I would rather see them iron out some of the bugs, add new features, and leave the rest alone. Sure, add a few new planes and update some of the exsisting ones. I would love the game to already come with a more advanced ATC, and runway signs would be great. I already like the weather / clouds in FS2002, but if they want to improve them, go for it. Also, keeping the same structure will allow us to continue using some of the various add-on aircraft etc that a lot of people have sunk a lot of money into (I being one of them). It all comes down to different expectations. I for one am looking forward to this new version, and will definately be making the purchase.
Sorry to cut and paste most of Jay's post there, but I think he's hit the nail on the head, and a few people who've posted nothing but negatives on this thread could do worse than reading through it again.
Maybe it IS a good thing that Microsoft aren't straying too far away from a tried and tested engine. Maybe it's a good thing that they are sticking to most of the old models, just to update the visuals and physics would be great (Gmax Mooney anyone?). Let's face it, most of us fly third party addons (payware and freeware) anyway, right?
My only bugbear is this: IF the speculation is correct (and we may all be wrong... all we've really seen so far are screenshots of a few clouds), do I really want, or need, to pay £60 on what will effectively be the same game?
That's the one I'll have to seriously consider.
02-11-2003, 03:09 PM
>Kind of wondering, what kind of
>changes were you expecting? Trees
>swaying in the wind
Already have this. Where did my other post go? come on, own up Who nicked it!
02-11-2003, 03:17 PM
<Do you think that they improved rain and snow effects?>
Affirm on the rain, Pva. I haven't seen the snow yet, but the rain looks cool.
I was excited to see this new version as well, but I also have a concern about the price.. Who knows.. It is still early, and they may reduce the initial shelf price a tad.
02-11-2003, 03:33 PM
Why does microsoft not develop Airbus aircrafts like the A320 (very popular) or the A330 in the next fs version? I know there are a lot of good Freeware Airbus aircrafts available, but still, I would like to see how they develop such a high tech plane. nevertheless those old planes look good as well, i'm especially interested in the DC3..
i'm also concered about the price, but if its good it's worth the money...
02-11-2003, 03:43 PM
>Why does microsoft not develop Airbus
>aircrafts like the A320 (very
>popular) or the A330 in
>the next fs version? I
>know there are a lot
>of good Freeware Airbus aircrafts
>available, but still, I would
>like to see how they
>develop such a high tech
Well i answered that one but my post has been deleted for some reason, why does MS want to spend months creating an A320 when you can go and get one from Project airbus for free. Get the A330 from flightcraft (When released) both these Ac have every possible moving thing. Why would MS bother, whats the point
02-11-2003, 04:38 PM
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-03 AT 04:40PM (EST)[p]I don't think that's even the primary issue. What is more likely is that:
a) Airbus did not want to coorporate with Microsoft, thus no data from Airbus was available.
b) Microsoft made an agreement to Boeing not to include Airbus aircraft.
I don't think it's a matter of not wanting to, but rather of not being able to. Rememer, FS is a commercial product. 3rd party data suppliers like Boeing are likely to be a bit anxious to allow their competitor's input as well.
And, as mentioned somewhere, FS comes from an American market. It has a large foundation in the US, were Boeing is simply much more appealing for buyers that Airbus.
Click [link:www.kabel.netvisit.nl/~vries05|here] to visit my site. You can find some FS and non-FS stuff there.
02-11-2003, 04:57 PM
I agree with "VFR 150" and with "Jay". I'm glad to see a few things fixed that we asked for and keep the things that we liked as they were and not try to change them. I mean on the wish lists that have been posted, who hasn't asked for improved ATC? I'm very glad that they are choosing to improve this. It's been said allready but allthough VATSIM is great, there's still not allways going to be a controller where you're flying. I think that they did a good job with ATC for a first try.
I'm very glad that MS decided to continue with Fs and I hope that it keeps only gets better form here on. I know I will have it as soon as it goes on sale here in the US.
02-11-2003, 05:02 PM
Ican't wait to install all my free-ware, pay-ware, add-ons....it's going to take over a week! Mind you I'm not complaining but I hope there's no compatibility issues with payware such as Simfliers, Wilco, etc. but I suppose thats way to much to ask for!
02-11-2003, 05:13 PM
Hi Again :-)
Gee, that's a pretty sensitive issue, isn't it? ;-)
First I'd like to say that I respectfuly accept any opinion different than mine on that issue, sorry if I sounded too harsh with my "sneak preview" of Fs2k4 (or fs9, or FSCOF... whatever)
Yet, I cannot overlook the general feeling that this is gonna be nothing more than an Update.
Update to the existing ATC engine.
Update to the existing weather engine.
Update to the existing graphics engine.
whether it's a major or small update, time will tell, as mentioned before, true, too early to judge. but we're still within the frame of updates.
Even the price tag says "update" (not that I mind paying less money ;-) )
I got no arguement whatsoever with people here saying "did u expect to see your car parking in your garage and your little daughter waving you from the back yard when you VFR over your neighborhood?!"
Didn't expect that.
But for god's sake - name the child already! and that's what got me started at the first place.
You can call me a whiner, crybaby, amateur, anything... but just don't call this update - FS2k4, not to say "century of aviation"
Love ya all ;-) Ace.
02-11-2003, 07:13 PM
Remember guys that this sim is still FAR from being released. It is still in ALPHA stage. We won't know what the finished product will be like until it's released!
02-12-2003, 01:51 AM
>Sorry all AFCAD does is open
>up two runways one for
>departure one for arrival!
>Does not let you choose!
Ah, but you can.... However unrealistic it might be.
What you do is simply create a second airport in AFCAD on top of the original, using the same taxiways but different gates and configure the runways to only use a different runway (think you need a seperate ground control or tower, but I don't know since I've never done it..). KORD might have 14L/32R active for both takeoffs and landings. A few edits with AFCAD, and KORD2 might use 9L/27R for takeoffs and 9R/27L for landings. KORD3 might use 4R/22L for takeoffs and 4L/22R for landings. You would effective choose your arrival runway by which airport identifier you use in your flight plan. :) But most useful for AI.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.