Nostalgia: How good is our Fs2004?

[JSMR]

2 hours ago, JSkorna said:

Because Roger thinks that default FS9 has more airports and airfields with buildings that are realistic replicas of real life than in any other flight sim. I would say he is mis-informed. 

 

Quote

You really need reading comprehension classes,

I knew what you said in another thread would come in handy.  

[JSMR]

But anyway….moving on….and to get back on track….

 

….when it comes to covering may areas and periods, like the 1920’s-30’s, 40’s, 50’s-60’s, 80’s to current, with quality aircraft representing those periods, along with a lot of relevant landclass (calclassic comes to mind), nothing comes close to FS2004. 
 

 

and that’s all needs to be said. 

[PhrogPhlyer]

16 minutes ago, JSMR said:

when it comes to covering may areas and periods, like the 1920’s-30’s, 40’s, 50’s-60’s, 80’s to current, with quality aircraft representing those periods, along with a lot of relevant landclass (calclassic comes to mind), nothing comes close to FS2004

As 2004 was released in 2003, I would suspect there would be more total addon aircraft and scenery than MSFS that has only had three years of addons.

[JSkorna]

27 minutes ago, JSMR said:

 

I knew what you said in another thread would come in handy.  

Cool! Do you even realize that most of what I said there came directly from Roger's post? Nope, didn't think so.

[jgf]

2 hours ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

MSFS that has only had three years of addons

But MSFS 2024 is on the horizon, and everyone will flock to it, so MSFS will never have the variety of add-ons as FS2004.  One reason I've stayed with the latter is I would miss too many of my favorite aircraft in FSX, much less MSFS.

[JSMR]

2 hours ago, JSkorna said:

Cool! Do you even realize that most of what I said there came directly from Roger's post? Nope, didn't think so.

Which you misunderstood. As usual. 

Anyway, FSX and P3D couldn't match what FS2004 had/has. MSFS can't match what FSX/P3D has. So I don't see how MSFS will match was FS2004 has. We'll see. 

 

[Skywatcher12]

You only had to look at the old library numbers everywhere and FS2004 totally dominates. Those early 2000's for game add-on creation by users will never be repeated.

MSFS is a modern cash cow. These modern sims aren't designed for users to create billions of add-ons and have people not want to leave their current sim because they have too many add-ons for it and are enjoying too much.
Like Windows 10, MSFS and other modern games are designed to keep you moving on, spending money and buying the next version.
You buy a game these days, deal with all it's bugs and lack of add-ons and features, 2-3 years later, you think the game is now ready to finally enjoy, it's getting somewhere and BOOM!!!, the new version comes out! You now repeat the previous process. Been like this for at least the last decade.

[Roger Wensley]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:06 AM, JSkorna said:

Is that a default FS9 screen shot?

 

What airport is that?

 

Here is a list of hand crafted airports in FS2020:

https://flight.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_(2020)/List_of_hand-crafted_airports

 

That airport screen shot is is Barrow Alaska PABR, way up north. I am aware that of course there are airport buildings being made for MSFS and posted here, but it will take a bit of time to catch up with FS9.

[Bwoinbeerr]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:10 AM, leuen said:

Sorry, but I don't understand the reason for publishing a MSFS link here ....

Don't feed the troll

[PhrogPhlyer]

43 minutes ago, Bwoinbeerr said:

Don't feed the troll

Got me laughing.

[JSkorna]

2 hours ago, Bwoinbeerr said:

Don't feed the troll

Says ye of 101 lifetime posts. Do you even know what a internet troll is?

[JSkorna]

Mark,

 

All because I showed that default MSFS has 108 or more hand crafted airports and FS04 has some. I want to compare default to default, but nobody else wants to.

[Skywatcher12]

1 hour ago, JSkorna said:

Mark,

 

All because I showed that default MSFS has 108 or more hand crafted airports and FS04 has some. I want to compare default to default, but nobody else wants to.

Heya Jim!

I'd have to go through the thread again carefully but I think it's simply a case of a little misunderstanding between members.
I think some are speaking about default and some non default airports.
Hand crafted default airports by the developer of the sim itself, I would agree with you that MSFS likely has the most of this type by a reasonable amount.
If you include non default airports, then FS2004 would likely beat any sim by a very substantial amount.

Personally, I don't fly to default airports. The difference in graphics between good custom FS2004 airports and any other sim (excluding MSFS) is minimal.
MSFS will have the most up-to-date airports and highest graphical detail but it will also likely have a lot fewer custom created airports than FS2004.
Depends what people are looking for really. I don't need my airports to be up-to-date. The graphical quality of good FS2004 airports I am totally happy with and I do like to have a great selection of airports to fly too. FS2004 gives me this.  

 

Edit: Thinking about it, from memory, FS2004 has only a handful of hand crafted airports, certainly nowhere near 108.

[Airbasil_1]

To bring it up in a nutshell... How good is our FS2004?? 

Literaly THAT GOOD! - Nothing more to mention about it all... and it keeps getting better and better... with each addon... 
The only thing I would've wished for, would've been a new working weather engine. 
 

 

[Skywatcher12]

23 minutes ago, Airbasil_1 said:

To bring it up in a nutshell... How good is our FS2004?? 

Literaly THAT GOOD! - Nothing more to mention about it all... and it keeps getting better and better... with each addon... 
The only thing I would've wished for, would've been a new working weather engine. 
 

 

The screenshots you have posted in the screenshots forum demonstrate the variety FS2004 has. People moved on with the new when FSX came out or to P3D or X-Plane and now MSFS. 
They never really saw what FS2004 could do and has become over the years as most of it's big enhancements that we use today came out after FSX release. These people were already gone and never looked back. They missed it all and are in no position to slam FS2004. If you simply moved on in 2006 to FSX and never went back to FS2004, you only experienced FS2004 at a very early stage. You are in no position to judge.

FS2004 is the most "complete" flight sim imo by a mile. Nothing to do with having a poor PC, no money to upgrade etc etc. I stay with it because it is exactly what I said, complete!
MSFS is not a temptation as it's really just a Bing maps explorer and my browser can do that fine. FSX is a temptation but with OOM problems and that we still don't have a CPU that can hold high fps under all situations 18 years after release, FSX is still not a realistic consideration. Maybe once CPU's are good enough I'll use FSX with FS2004 but the OOM's will always be an issue.

Then there are all the FS2004 add-ons. FS2004 really has everything. A lifetime of things to play with and explore.

[Skywatcher12]

29 minutes ago, Airbasil_1 said:

The only thing I would've wished for, would've been a new working weather engine.

FSGRW works and Active Sky is still an option for some. I'll personally be using Active Sky for life. The single best and most critical add-on for FS2004 imo apart from FSUIPC.

[Airbasil_1]

23 minutes ago, Skywatcher12 said:

Then there are all the FS2004 add-ons. FS2004 really has everything. A lifetime of things to play with and explore.

I'd really appreciate if you posted some of your screenshots... in the Random Shots Thread... I wonder how your FS2004 is looking as of today... 

[Skywatcher12]

Just now, Airbasil_1 said:

I'd really appreciate if you posted some of your screenshots... in the Random Shots Thread... I wonder how your FS2004 is looking as of today... 

I haven't been flight simming for quite a few months due to real life taking over. I'll be starting again finally next weekend.
I'll try and get a screenshot or two up but even then, it's not a real indication of what my FS2004 can look like to others. I have so many ground scenery choices, sky choices, masses of custom airports and aircraft choices. I can only ever demonstrate a moment in time of my FS9 and I totally love this aspect, It keeps flight simming from ever becoming dull.

[Airbasil_1]

2 minutes ago, Skywatcher12 said:

 I can only ever demonstrate a moment in time of my FS9 and I totally love this aspect, It keeps flight simming from ever becoming dull.

 

That's actually the same thing I do everytime when I upload a Screenshot... its only a moment of time... its never anything near the complete thing in its entirety.. because it allways changes a lot, when I restart my Sim over and over again... everytime there's something different, new, custom-made added.... or released or deleted... 

Anyways, can't wait to see you restarting... have fun beeing part of the community! You're warmly welcomed back! 

[JSMR]

2 hours ago, Skywatcher12 said:

FSGRW works and Active Sky is still an option for some. I'll personally be using Active Sky for life. The single best and most critical add-on for FS2004 imo apart from FSUIPC.

Agree. I do like FSGRW and it works pretty well, and I few complaints using it. But I do miss using Active Sky. It just did things….better. 

[loki]

9 hours ago, Roger Wensley said:

That airport screen shot is is Barrow Alaska PABR, way up north. I am aware that of course there are airport buildings being made for MSFS and posted here, but it will take a bit of time to catch up with FS9.

When it comes to modern airports, I'm not sure it will take that much time for MSFS to catch up. You need to head over to Flightsim.to, however, as that is where the MSFS add-on community has largely coalesced. At the moment there are over 6,500 airports for download there, including Barrow, Alaska. Overall, more than 50,000 MSFS add-ons have been uploaded to the site.

 

https://flightsim.to/file/5360/barrow-utqiagvik-wiley-post-will-rogers-memorial-airport-usa-alaska-v1-0

 

On the other hand, I doubt any other sim will catch FS2004 for historical airports and scenery in the Golden Wings vein.

[jgf]

6 hours ago, JSMR said:

Agree. I do like FSGRW and it works pretty well, and I few complaints using it. But I do miss using Active Sky. It just did things….better. 

I returned to FS after a few years' absence and was immediately saddened that Active Sky no longer worked, so I reluctantly removed it.  Then was told it still worked, you just had to download the weather and install it manually.  From where?  In what format is it?  How do I get it into AS?  Followed a posted link for weather files, site loaded ...and gave me "you do not have permission to access" for anything I clicked on.

 

So, seeing so many recommendations, tried FSGRW.  In six weeks got nothing but messages it "could not connect" and that  "you need to check your internet connection".  So am left with REX, which I've had for years but rarely used other than for its cloud textures;  it is slow enough, inefficient enough, and bloated enough, to be a MS product.  And you must watch it like a hawk because it will overwrite, rather than swap, files.  So for now I mainly just d/l weather themes and select at the start of a flight.

 

I miss having variable weather but otherwise still enjoying FS2004.

[jgf]

2 hours ago, leuen said:

I've pointed out this pathetic situation in an other thread here as well as in other retro sites. Result: almost equal to zero. Simmers are probably not able to use tools to get anything done. Be it just a simple AI traffic. Everything must be able to be installed off the shelf or ready-made.

 

Sadly this is now the norm with all games.  No one wants to learn anything, few want to create.  In race sims no one wants to learn to handle the cars, no one wants to learn to tweak setups, they just want to hop into their favorite car, win every race, then move on to the next game. 

There are people here who've been with FS for over thirty years, I daresay newcomers to MSFS will not be here in five.

[Dan Druff]

I'm fine with FS9, like many. I bought later sims but really didn't want to spend too much of life just trying to keep up, as I'd been doing since FS5.0. Trying to keep AI traffic "current" is a whole other obsession, and I gave that up as well. As I'd developed a few addons for the sim, there was also a level of personal investment in the platform that goes beyond mere $$$. Most of them are in this library. Perhaps, since I also fly IRL, the artificiality of one sim becomes much like another. We're sitting at home in a chair and not getting a good kicking from thermals, or some rotor from that ridge nearby. If I want that knd of fun I will strap a proper aircraft onto me.

 

So, FS9 all the way to MSFS, all fine by me. I just chose a place to jump off the bandwagon!

 

I also need to make a point of order regarding the earlier discussion about what default airports are in what sim. Roger didn't mention "default" - it wasn't part of the discussion. That came in later. Roger is simply mentioning the long span of development that has gone into these older platforms that has left a rich legacy of addons. The slow uptake of FSX, due to the need for significant hardware upgrades at that time, gave FS9 an extra lease on life, which in part is why that sim has so much extra developed for it in its time.

[Dan Druff]

19 minutes ago, jgf said:

There are people here who've been with FS for over thirty years, I daresay newcomers to MSFS will not be here in five.

It seems to be a generational thing - which might seem like an unfair swipe to some.

 

There seems to have been a shift to consumerism over commitment - a desire to "have experiences" rather than gain experience. It's cheaper to buy the next big thing rather than devote some precious life force to digging in and understanding a platform.

 

As you pointed out, the typical experience of users is now more often superficial, commitment measured by attention span and not "content". A great many venerated developers cut their teeth on the FS2000/2/4 platforms, and new users are benefiting from that experience on the newer platforms. "I don't see next year's crop" - Don Henley - "A month of Sundays".

Edited June 25, 2023 by Dan Druff