I love "eye candy" ... any FS2002/FS2004 comparison screenshots?

"Quilljar" wrote

I dunno about screen shots, but I love eye candy too. All I can say is
that after installing FS2004, I NEVER went back to FS2002 and ended up
uninstalling it and giving the older sim to my son in New Zealand!
Both are good, but FS2004 is superb, especially with autogen
improvements and weather.

I want to see the difference.

There is always talk about how good the next version is. To show how much
better the next version looks, why not compare the same scenes between the
two?

Admittedly, you do need a 2.6 plus chip to get the most out of it
though.

Thanks.














---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

I want to see the difference.

There is always talk about how good the next version is. To show how
much better the next version looks, why not compare the same scenes
between the two?

I am sorry I can't do that as I have uninstalled fs2002. However, remember
two years is a very long time in computer development time, so you can
usually reckon on some pretty sharp improvements. I am no great fan of
Microsoft as I really prefer the Acorn RISCOS computer system. However, in
this particular program, I think the next sim has always been worth the
money (except for FS2000, that was a real dog).



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

"Jack Straight" wrote in message
s.com...
"Quilljar" wrote
Admittedly, you do need a 2.6 plus chip to get the most out of it
though.

Thanks.

Exactly. I have a P4 3.0ghz w/R9800pro and even FS2002 doesn't run
completely smooth maxed out in the graphics so I have no real desire to get
FS2004 just yet as I like good frame rates in my flight sims. I figure I'll
have to turn off the extra eye candy in FS2004 to be happy so may as well
stick with FS2002 for now. In the long run I will have a PC fast enough to
run 2004 smooth and I will get the game for less than the going rate of
$79.99 CAD.

I've seen screen shots comparing the two side by side over at www.simhq.com
in the MSFS forum but I doubt they are still there as that was when FS2004
first came out. The airports look more detailed and the weather effects are
nicer (I also hear ATC is improved)but I didn't notice any great difference
between the two going by the screen shots I saw. BTW, has MS improved the
flight models in FS2004? I have X-Plane 5.66 and Fly!/FlyII and both of
these flight sims have better (more believable) flight models than the MS
series. MS series kills them in the eye candy department though. But I want
to see MS improve the flight models, ground handling and damage effects more
than eye candy improvements.

"Debug" wrote


"Jack Straight" wrote in message
s.com...
"Quilljar" wrote
Admittedly, you do need a 2.6 plus chip to get the most out of it
though.

Thanks.

Exactly. I have a P4 3.0ghz w/R9800pro and even FS2002 doesn't run
completely smooth maxed out in the graphics so I have no real desire
to get FS2004 just yet as I like good frame rates in my flight sims. I
figure I'll have to turn off the extra eye candy in FS2004 to be happy
so may as well stick with FS2002 for now. In the long run I will have
a PC fast enough to run 2004 smooth and I will get the game for less
than the going rate of $79.99 CAD.

The less the better.

I've seen screen shots comparing the two side by side over at
www.simhq.com in the MSFS forum but I doubt they are still there as
that was when FS2004 first came out. The airports look more detailed
and the weather effects are nicer (I also hear ATC is improved)but I
didn't notice any great difference between the two going by the screen
shots I saw. BTW, has MS improved the flight models in FS2004? I have
X-Plane 5.66 and Fly!/FlyII and both of these flight sims have better
(more believable) flight models than the MS series. MS series kills
them in the eye candy department though. But I want to see MS improve
the flight models, ground handling and damage effects more than eye
candy improvements.

When I bot my last flight simulator, Flight Unlimited III, Microsoft was
killed in the eye candy department. But I like smooth frame rates
too and years later I was amused, still trying to run Flight Unlimited
III well (I can run it fast now). I paid $15 USD for FS98, skipped 2000
and 2002, and just bot FS2004 from someone who couldn't run it well. I
did a whole lot of reading the Usenet archives in these groups first.
Since I didn't have 2002, I figure the extra eye candy in 2004 can be
turned off until I upgrade. Between now and then, I can take a slide
show peek at what I will be upgrading for. If it wont run at all, I can
use my new (refurbished) cordless joystick and/or cordless gamepad with
Flight Unlimited III in the meantime. I will enjoy seeing whether
Microsoft has taken us anywhere since Looking Glass Studios (RIP) showed
us what we in the eye candy department were missing. I am aware the the
paid-for FS LearJet panel still sucks, but oh well.

Actually FS2004 runs smoother than FS2002 on the same computer...

But I wish they would fix the missing bridges.

Henri

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:32:43 GMT, henri Arsenault
wrote:

Actually FS2004 runs smoother than FS2002 on the same computer...

It does? I haven't seen anyone else say that. Most I've seen say it is
more resource hungry.

Debug wrote
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:32:43 GMT, henri Arsenault
wrote:

Actually FS2004 runs smoother than FS2002 on the same computer...

It does? I haven't seen anyone else say that. Most I've seen say it is
more resource hungry.

I did lots of Usenet reading in the archives. I have seen at least one
other say that but not necessarily in this group, and maybe it was henri
Arsenault (I dunno).

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:13:45 GMT, John Doe wrote:


I did lots of Usenet reading in the archives. I have seen at least one
other say that but not necessarily in this group, and maybe it was henri
Arsenault (I dunno).

Maybe if you turn FS2004 down to similar detail to FS2002 it may run
smoother but I expect if you want all the extra eye candy in 2004 then
it's more resource hungry. I could be wrong though of course as I
don't have 2004.

henri Arsenault wrote:
Actually FS2004 runs smoother than FS2002 on the same computer...

But I wish they would fix the missing bridges.



Just turn up the Autogen Henri and you will see bridges that were not even
there befo-)

"Quilljar" wrote
henri Arsenault wrote:

Actually FS2004 runs smoother than FS2002 on the same computer...

But I wish they would fix the missing bridges.

Just turn up the Autogen Henri and you will see bridges that were not
even there befo-)

The missing bridges too?

Are you saying the problem is due to lower settings?