Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The way we were

  1. #1

    Default The way we were

    If you haven't done so in a while, go back and run your FS95. It's like a log cabin with freezing well water and a cold fireplace. But in 95 that was ##### exciting!
    I can't wait for 2004!


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,413

    Default RE: The way we were

    I know what you're saying. I actually went back to FS 5.1 until FS98 came out 'cause I hated FS95 so bad. IMHO - that had to be the worst version they ever had. You give MS a lot of credit comparing it to a log cabin with freezing well water :-lol
    More like a cold,damp, smelly outhouse. For those complaining about FS2002's "problems", go on e-bay & pick up a copy of FS95 for a couple bucks, load it & fly on that for a few days - then see if you have any complaints.




    Best Regards,

    Bob :-wave

    [link:www.neumanflight.com|http://www.neumanflight.com/yabbse/Y...ges/logo1.jpg]





  3. #3

    Default RE: The way we were

    I never had any problems with FS95 - I still don't...:-)

    -E

    [font size=1]
    FLIGHTFX POLICY
    1.) We design for reality, not for idealism.
    Thus, you will not see virtual cabins on our aircraft. You can not see inside the real thing anyway, unless you are looking into the sun. You will find virtual cockpits but they will not be visible from outside for the same reason.
    2.) We design for people with real computers. Thusly, we will not waste polygons on superfluous parts. We will use a texture when there is no noticeable difference between it and a group of performance wasting parts. We will model our aircraft efficiently. If you do not like it, too bad.
    3.) We will give you the latest features, but we WILL NOT sacrifice visual accuracy to implement them. Accuracy comes before eye candy.[/font size]


    http://flightsimmers.net/airport/nwva0670/SONICFFX.gif

  4. #4

    Default RE: The way we were

    I do every once in a while - it's fun to try out older versions of FS - makes you thankful for what 2K2's got REALLY FAST!!!!

    -E

    [font size=1]
    FLIGHTFX POLICY
    1.) We design for reality, not for idealism.
    Thus, you will not see virtual cabins on our aircraft. You can not see inside the real thing anyway, unless you are looking into the sun. You will find virtual cockpits but they will not be visible from outside for the same reason.
    2.) We design for people with real computers. Thusly, we will not waste polygons on superfluous parts. We will use a texture when there is no noticeable difference between it and a group of performance wasting parts. We will model our aircraft efficiently. If you do not like it, too bad.
    3.) We will give you the latest features, but we WILL NOT sacrifice visual accuracy to implement them. Accuracy comes before eye candy.[/font size]


    http://flightsimmers.net/airport/nwva0670/SONICFFX.gif

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,413

    Default RE: The way we were

    I guess it's all a matter of opinion. You actually liked it ? I guess I disliked it so much because I had so many d/l for 5.1, I had BAO Flight Shop installed and had everything for 5.1 set up just the way I liked it, then FS95 came along and I was back to nothing all of a sudden. So, I went back to 5.1 until 98 came out.



    Best Regards,

    Bob :-wave

    [link:www.neumanflight.com|http://www.neumanflight.com/yabbse/Y...ges/logo1.jpg]





  6. #6

    Default RE: The way we were

    I never had problems with FS95. I LOVED IT! That's why I'm here with FS 2002. I posted simply because of my surprise at how far FS has come...how I had gotten used to what we have in 2002 and how poor my memory was of the limitation of the earlier version.

  7. #7
    rabbitcancer Guest

    Default RE: The way we were

    Anybody seen FS 3.0 around lately???

    I'd love to get a copy just for old time's sake....


    RabbitCancer
    Together, we can find a cure...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN, USA.
    Posts
    329

    Default RE: The way we were

    >Anybody seen FS 3.0 around lately???<

    Can't say I have. But I do have FS 5.0 on those whatchamacallum's (floppies). Remember those photoreal San Fran. & Wash D.C. sceneries by Mallard? Man, I thought those were cool, but big framerate killers thou.
    I'm tempted to install 5.0 just for nostalgia's sake.

    Bill
    KIND

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,413

    Default RE: The way we were

    >>Remember those photoreal San Fran. & Wash D.C. sceneries by Mallard? Man, I thought those were cool

    I still have those too - I thought they were the top of the line and FS could never get more realistic than that :) I didn't care how bad they killed the frame rates, they were the best thing since sliced bread. Just think - in 10 years we'll be making jokes about FS2002 ( probably sooner )



    Best Regards,

    Bob :-wave

    [link:www.neumanflight.com|http://www.neumanflight.com/yabbse/Y...ges/logo1.jpg]





  10. #10

    Default RE: The way we were

    :-lol
    Flying FS5 was like flying a brick with wings in a Lego environment.
    Still I also thought it was way cool back then, hehe. I showed it to a friend and said "Look I'm actually landing an airplane" and he just shook his head at how stupid I was, actually thinking that was a real plane, lol. Look who's laughing now :-)

    PIII 450, 384MB, ASUS V7700 64MB DDR DeLuxe, IBM 7200 Rpm 60GB
    http://home.tiscali.se/johnnykr/JKAir2c.jpg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •