Fs2002 Vs. Fs2004

[MadDog2003]

Hello everyone.

I think that what microsoft should have done is, they should have upgraded fs2002's engine, instead of making a new one for the supersystem, and i would have rather payed 100$ to make the fs2002 have taxi and rw markings on all rw, and so that the atc would have the inflight changes avaible, like in fs2004, and all these other minor things that i am sure would have been possible to encorporate into the fs2002 engine with no problem.......

What do you people think ?

Have a happy fighting.........

Regards.

Serge

[bigal1977uk]

Hhmmmm, i didnt think fs2004 was a new engine. It IS an upgraded fs2002. But, if you wanna pay $100 for fs2004 then who am i to argue ;-)

You can have my copy for $100 if you like :-)

[MadDog2003]

Dear Alan.

I ment that i would rether have payed 100$ to upgrade my fs2002 then to buy fs2004, and they do run a new engine, i read it in the review of the game in an australian magazine called PcUser, it had all about fs9.....

Regards,

Serge.

P.S. i would not have baught a copy of fs2004 unless it was 20$, and i would probably sell it to someone else strait away for about 80-90$ (australian dollars):-)

[piano]

I bought FS9 in spite of the negative comments so many made about it in the forums. I don't fly it much. By the time enough addons are available to make it offer the variety that one has with FS2002, a new version will be coming out. Think I'll pay more attention to the average user's remarks next time. The value of FS9 lies in its celerbration of 100 years of flight, IMO. I would have skipped over it like I did FS2000 except for the 100 year mark with the tin box, etc.

For all the work Microsoft put into FS9, the only real improvements I see is the weather and the active gauges in virtual cockpit view. Perhaps this version is a building block for better things to come, but I had rather have a fully finished product than one half baked. Guess a lot of resources went into the history of flight and the old planes that were added. I haven't flown any of them except the DC3. It doesn't look as good as the one already available for FS2002 from Bill Rambow.

Next time it will be harder to convince me with press reviews and comments by beta testers. If the truth was known about the faulty autogen bridges and elevation errors, no one let us know about it. It was the average "joe-blow" who broke the news to the rest of us.

Al

[teecee]

I have been with fs9 now for a while, and I agree with your remarks completely. I have given serious thought to re-installing 2002, as my system handled it very well. I had better scenery, better framerates, and as far as addons were concerned, far better aircraft than the fs2004 default. Since installing fs2004, I have had serious system problems, and sound problems, I have upgraded my CPU twice (which I could ill afford) and I am still getting shutdowns and stuttering. I bought the program and can blame no-one but myself, but I tell Microsoft right now, I have bought every issue since fs5, but never again.

[falcon16]

well...may be I'll be skiping FS9 until FS10 comes out(perhaps at the ending of 2004!). This is because I have seen many, many negative perspectives of FS9...

Thanks!

What are your specs Terry?

[jjonez]

yeah, keep your dough,
it's not worth it, FS2002 is better.
of course a lot depends on your system also.
I have a P4 2.53mz, 1g ram, w/ 128m card.
I can max out everything on 2002 and get great FPS.
but with 2004 it drops by at least 10 pfs
and that's with setup defaults which are all mid to low range.

[bigal1977uk]

How many times do i have to mention this..........

Could you really max out fs2002's settings and get great FPS when the sim was FIRST released...........
Like you said, you sure can now on TODAYS technology.

At Microsoft it goes like this..........they program the sim engine so that when better/faster technology gets released you have the option to up the sliders a bit more and you WILL notice a difference in the quality of the graphics/sim.

If microsoft had made the sim back in 2002 to run at its best on the technology that was around at the time i.e. all sliders maxed then i gaurantee that it would never have looked as good as it does on todays systems.............does everyone see what im getting at here ;-)

OK, just to clarify a tiny bit more here...........Typical system specs at the time fs2002 was released:

LOW = 750mhz cpu, 64mb ram, 16mb onboard gpu.
MID = 1200mhz cpu, 256mb ram, 32mb PCI gpu
HIGH = 1800mhz cpu, 512mb ram, 64mb AGP gpu

Todays Spec systems that can handle fs2002 almost flawlessly:

LOW = 1.6Ghz cpu, 256mb DDR ram, 64mb AGP gpu
MID = 2.4Ghz cpu, 512mb DDR ram, 128mb AGP gpu
HIGH = 3.2Ghz 32/64bit cpu, 1GB DDR ram, 256mb AGP gpu

Now by the time fs2006/fs10 gets released nearly everyone will have fs9 running flawlessly on thier systems.......... (This is not to say that you cant get fs9 running flawlessly on todays very top spec systems though)

Typical system in next 1-2 yrs:

5Ghz 64bit cpu, 2GB DDR-II ram, 256/512mb PCI-Express gpu.

Its just a matter of waiting for the hardware AND drivers to catch up with fs2004 ;-)

On my system (see specs below) i can get fs2004 running at a SMOOTH 15-20FPS in "average situations" and thats with nearly all sliders or settings above 75%/med-high.

Its about the same FPS i was getting in fs2002 but in fs9 the graphics LOOK twice as good as fs2002 even with the fs9 sliders as low as 50% :-)

I definatly WOULD RECOMMEND getting FS2004 :-)

P.S. jjonez, this is not directed personally at you, im just making a general statement here ;-)


Happy simming all.

[piano]

I agree that FS9 has advanced the sim. I also agree that newer hardware runs FS2002 better now than hardware available when it was released. FS9 is the better sim, but only if you are able to run it at a reasonable frame rate that makes it flyable. That is the point for many who are sticking with FS2002. It runs smoother on slower systems and addons are plentiful. FS9 addons are growing fast though. After I upgrade my system I will re-install FS9.

Guess it all depends on what you want vs what your system can deliver. At present, my system gives me more enjoyment from FS2002.

AMD 500Mhz
320mb RAM
Viper 770 w16mb
17gb HD

I am using the smaller resized textures from FS9. (since I do own a copy of FS9) This helped boost my frame rates and gives the sim a new look as well.

Regards, Al

[gwillmot]

You don't have to mention it anymore....
You make good points, but I agree with (and have done like) the above. I chose to stay with FS2002 (even with an upgraded system) because the "benefits" of FS2004 just didn't seem worth the added expense/effort to get it to perform. I love "weather" effects but don't much care for "advanced" ATC. FS2002 gives me all that I need with my addons.

Bottom line....the "fun" to upgrade to FS2004 from FS2002 isn't the same leap as it was from FS2000 to FS2002 (at least for many).
Glenn Willmot


>How many times do i have to mention this..........
>
>Could you really max out fs2002's settings and get great FPS
>when the sim was FIRST released...........
>Like you said, you sure can now on TODAYS technology.
>
>At Microsoft it goes like this..........they program the sim
>engine so that when better/faster technology gets released
>you have the option to up the sliders a bit more and you
>WILL notice a difference in the quality of the graphics/sim.
>
>If microsoft had made the sim back in 2002 to run at its
>best on the technology that was around at the time i.e. all
>sliders maxed then i gaurantee that it would never have
>looked as good as it does on todays systems.............does
>everyone see what im getting at here ;-)
>
>OK, just to clarify a tiny bit more here...........Typical
>system specs at the time fs2002 was released:
>
>LOW = 750mhz cpu, 64mb ram, 16mb onboard gpu.
>MID = 1200mhz cpu, 256mb ram, 32mb PCI gpu
>HIGH = 1800mhz cpu, 512mb ram, 64mb AGP gpu
>
>Todays Spec systems that can handle fs2002 almost
>flawlessly:
>
>LOW = 1.6Ghz cpu, 256mb DDR ram, 64mb AGP gpu
>MID = 2.4Ghz cpu, 512mb DDR ram, 128mb AGP gpu
>HIGH = 3.2Ghz 32/64bit cpu, 1GB DDR ram, 256mb AGP gpu
>
>Now by the time fs2006/fs10 gets released nearly everyone
>will have fs9 running flawlessly on thier systems..........
>(This is not to say that you cant get fs9 running flawlessly
>on todays very top spec systems though)
>
>Typical system in next 1-2 yrs:
>
>5Ghz 64bit cpu, 2GB DDR-II ram, 256/512mb PCI-Express gpu.
>
>Its just a matter of waiting for the hardware AND drivers to
>catch up with fs2004 ;-)
>
>On my system (see specs below) i can get fs2004 running at a
>SMOOTH 15-20FPS in "average situations" and thats with
>nearly all sliders or settings above 75%/med-high.
>
>Its about the same FPS i was getting in fs2002 but in fs9
>the graphics LOOK twice as good as fs2002 even with the fs9
>sliders as low as 50% :-)
>
>I definatly WOULD RECOMMEND getting FS2004 :-)
>
>P.S. jjonez, this is not directed personally at you, im just
>making a general statement here ;-)
>
>
>Happy simming all.