Who still uses FS2002?

[Adam24]

Hi
I was just thinking, if anybody is still flying in FS2002? I use it for more than half a year, and Im really satisfied. They say that FS2002 is the most stable version of FS. Do you use it too? A month ago, I bought FSX, but until I get a new PC... I have to stay with FS2002 (which is not that bad, since I have developed it so much, and FSX is atrange for me). What is
your opinion?

[ricardo_NY1]

Hi
I was just thinking, if anybody is still flying in FS2002? I use it for more than half a year, and Im really satisfied. They say that FS2002 is the most stable version of FS. Do you use it too? A month ago, I bought FSX, but until I get a new PC... I have to stay with FS2002 (which is not that bad, since I have developed it so much, and FSX is atrange for me). What is
your opinion?

What are your computer specs? You certainly should have tried FS2004 before buying FSX. You suited yourself in sticking with FS2002 without giving FS2004 a try after giving FSX a shot because FSX definitely demands a good PC setup to run well, while FS2004 should run okay on a computer that is already running FS2002. FS2004 is a stable version and in my opinion, a very refined FS2002 with much better visuals. There is no question in my mind both in terms of the simulator itself and the payware offerings that FS2004 is the more attractive version. I've ran it fairly well with as little as a single core 1.6ghz cpu and a GeForce 5200 with 512mb of ram.....and I will say it ran better than fairly well on those specs. Give us your specs and we'll tell you if you really "Have to stay" with FS2002, honestly, FS2004 looks better even with lower settings.

[Adam24]

My specs? Well, I have two PCs, an old laptop (which i use to play FS), and a netbook (used mainly for internet purposes). The old laptop is a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4260, it has:
-20 GB HDD
-446Mhz Intel Pentium III
-192 MB RAM
-8 MB 3D graphics
-Windows XP Pro
Ive tried FS2004 on it, and it worked, but many options were disabled, like 3D clouds, high textures, things like that. And it ran with 2fps. The netbook has a small screen (1260x600), so I prefer the laptop (1024x768).

[louross]

Ohh, I don't know. I use fs9 and have no problems with it- it's the best flight sim I've seen for a pc computer. I'm also using fs2002 because I'm going to start using the PIC767 again.
lr.

[ricardo_NY1]

My specs? Well, I have two PCs, an old laptop (which i use to play FS), and a netbook (used mainly for internet purposes). The old laptop is a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4260, it has:
-20 GB HDD
-446Mhz Intel Pentium III
-192 MB RAM
-8 MB 3D graphics
-Windows XP Pro
Ive tried FS2004 on it, and it worked, but many options were disabled, like 3D clouds, high textures, things like that. And it ran with 2fps. The netbook has a small screen (1260x600), so I prefer the laptop (1024x768).

The specs are on the low side for 2004, particularly the video card. I remember the first day 2004 was released, I tried to run it on a 600something mhz CPU with the onboard graphics and it was like 4-5fps. Installing a Geforce 2600 (AGP at the time) if I remember got things up to 13-14fps with 3d clouds but at minimal draw and density settings. FS2002 is still a good looking simulator and I'm pretty sure many people out there are still using it. My only real complaint about that version was always the clouds, I never liked the way they looked or the way that they would suddenly appear in front of you. FS2004 broke some atmospheric ground with the 3D clouds which has kept me satisfied with it since the day it was released until now.

[ViperPilot2]

Adam,

You go right ahead and keep on using FS 2002; you've got some compatriots here!

When I went "full bore" into FlightSim a couple of years ago, I started with FS 2002 and learned the ropes with it. It ran very well, and I was able to find lots of add on's for FS 2002 in the File Library.

I'll tell you something... if you search real well in the File Library, you will be able to find environment add on's (water, clouds, runway textures) that will bring FS 2002 very close to the look of FS 9, and still
run great on your Toshiba laptop.

Keep plugging away, and we'll help you out as best we can!

Alan

[Adam24]

Yeah, i think Ive seen everything for FS2002 (at least in flightsim). Now Im working with its AI traffic. AI AArdvark is amazing! Is it possible that AI AArdvark aircraft are more frame rate friendly than the default FS2002 ones? because the only default aircraft i still use for AI is a Viva Aerobus repaint of the 737-400. The clouds were always a problem in fs2002. I hate when they turn around me when im supposed to pass thru them! They only look good at night. FS2004 is a very big step in weather, but i still like FS2002. And, i use some fs2004 textures on fs2002, that makes a big difference! The strangest thing is when I play FS2002, and I have the FSX box nest to me. Its a strange feeling.

[ViperPilot2]

The strangest thing is when I play FS2002, and I have the FSX box nest to me. Its a strange feeling.

Adam,

You know what? Let the FSXer's deal with their computer's inability to run FSX smoothly... at least WE know we've got a SIM that runs nice and SMOOTH!

Alan

[FS_Talking_Tom]

Well, I'm hoping my oldest son becomes a user! He has a 2005 vintage Windows XP machine, and when I upgraded, he got my MS Sidewinder joystick and my copy of FS2K2. I have quite a bit of add-ons for it, too, so perhaps he & I will set some of that up and he can learn to "fly"!

[bigphil38]

Hi adam24,

Plenty have 2002. I'm still running Flight Unlimited 3. Ai planes rev up for take off with FU3, a feature 2002 doesn't have.
The thing is all computer games from the last 15 years or so have reached a minimum standard which means they will always be useable.
I still have a working Oric Atmos (showing my age!) from the early 80s and most of those games really are forgettable. I did however like a grid game called 'Scuba dive' which was as good as impossible to complete. If anyone ever finished it let me know, i will send you a medal.