MS FS2004 - No CD patch

The Boz wrote in message . ..
Hi,

On 30 Nov 2004 14:52:01 -0800, (rottenberg) wrote:
a basic form of copy-protection, meant to hobble those who manage to
obtain the game, but mysteriously lack the original CD's they were
published on.

Just for the sake of argument, I'd like to throw a little different
prospective on this subject. I design "add on" scenery for FS9,
covering the state of Michigan. The process involved requires very
frequent restarts of FS9 - virtually every time you make a little
change to the placement of an object, it's texture, size, or whatever,
you have to restart FS9 so you can see if you got it right.

I've been keeping track the past few weeks since I installed the FS9
patch and the program's having to access that CD for every startup
almost doubles the time it takes to check out a change. So while I
can understand Microsoft's intent, I sure don't like the results. And
I'm going to like it even less when the inevitable finally happens -
the CD gets damaged from being handled so much (I'm an older guy and
can't hang on to stuff as well as I used to). Bottom line - I'm NOT
going to buy the program again just to get another CD - so when the CD
gives up, so do I.

Jim "BozAir" Bosworth

Your point is well taken - I was unaware of that aspect of FS-ACoF.
Do you have any older versions of FS? How does it compare on
frame-by-frame?

On 1 Dec 2004 06:34:27 -0800, (rottenberg) wrote:

Your point is well taken - I was unaware of that aspect of FS-ACoF.
Do you have any older versions of FS? How does it compare on
frame-by-frame?

I'm not positive that I understand what you mean, but I'll just take a
chance. I've had all but very first version of FS and I'd never go
back to any of them. Obviously, you'd see better frame rates with
something like FS 5.1CD on a modern computer (compared to FS9), but
the loss of the improvements that have been made since FS 5.1CD came
out would make it totally unacceptable. Like many others, I was not
positive that FS9 would really be worth the purchase price, compared
to FS2002 - but once I had installed it and saw what it could do,
there was no way I'd ever go back. And if you are having frame rate
problems and can't afford a better machine (been there - and still
there), you can always crank back your Autogen, Aircraft, Weather,
etc. settings (just to name a few possibilities) until you get
something acceptable.

Last but not least, frame rates beyond 24 fps are just wasted anyway -
that's all most monitors and your eyes can really handle. (Bet ya
I'll get ripped on that statement).

Jim

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:50:56 -0500, The Boz
wrote:


Last but not least, frame rates beyond 24 fps are just wasted anyway -
that's all most monitors and your eyes can really handle. (Bet ya
I'll get ripped on that statement).

Not from me. I'm too lazy to go search all the tech articles to prove
your argument wrong once again. But you do get a big HAHA.

The Boz wrote:
On 1 Dec 2004 06:34:27 -0800, (rottenberg) wrote:

Your point is well taken - I was unaware of that aspect of FS-ACoF.
Do you have any older versions of FS? How does it compare on
frame-by-frame?

I'm not positive that I understand what you mean, but I'll just take
a
chance. I've had all but very first version of FS and I'd never go
back to any of them. Obviously, you'd see better frame rates with
something like FS 5.1CD on a modern computer (compared to FS9), but
the loss of the improvements that have been made since FS 5.1CD came
out would make it totally unacceptable. Like many others, I was not
positive that FS9 would really be worth the purchase price, compared
to FS2002 - but once I had installed it and saw what it could do,
there was no way I'd ever go back. And if you are having frame rate
problems and can't afford a better machine (been there - and still
there), you can always crank back your Autogen, Aircraft, Weather,
etc. settings (just to name a few possibilities) until you get
something acceptable.


Jim

Good guess - that's pretty much what I was talking about. I geta good
framerate on my P4 for FS2002, but ACOF runs like a slideshow. I
didn't want to evaluate it too well thinking that nothing I see will
compensate for low-framerate, but will make me realize how much I'm
missing. What kind of system are you running it on?

Hi,

On 2 Dec 2004 06:09:37 -0800, "FatKat" wrote:
didn't want to evaluate it too well thinking that nothing I see will
compensate for low-framerate, but will make me realize how much I'm
missing. What kind of system are you running it on?

Home built.
Athon K7 1.4 GHz processor
512 MB RAM
Asus V7700-Pro GeForce2 Video card with 64MB of onboard memory
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy MP3+ sound card
Windows 98 SE
Was assembled a day before 9/11 (totally ruined the joy of having what
was then a relatively high end computer)..

Jim