Pattern flier, no tomatoes please, looking for a good flight sim. Having lots
of helath problems and cannot go out to practise..... need a FIX! Looking at
Real flight, but is that the best available? This computer has more than
enough power for any program, hyper threading, 2 GB RAM, 256MB video; just need
some input as to program selection.

TIA,
Brian

On 02 Feb 2004 22:49:54 GMT, (Wincons) arranged
phosphur particles on my screen with the following:

>Pattern flier, no tomatoes please, looking for a good flight sim. Having lots
>of helath problems and cannot go out to practise..... need a FIX! Looking at
>Real flight, but is that the best available? This computer has more than
>enough power for any program, hyper threading, 2 GB RAM, 256MB video; just need
>some input as to program selection.

Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Very well done, lot's of add ons.

"Wincons" > wrote in message
...
> Pattern flier, no tomatoes please, looking for a good flight sim. Having
lots
> of helath problems and cannot go out to practise..... need a FIX! Looking
at
> Real flight, but is that the best available? This computer has more than
> enough power for any program, hyper threading, 2 GB RAM, 256MB video; just
need
> some input as to program selection.
>
> TIA,
> Brian

Brian,
No tomatoes, I'm something of a pattern flier myself. I've only had my
single-engine VFR license for a little over a year now, and I have logged
about 95 hours in Cessna 172's. However, I have been flying computer flight
simulators (both civilian and military) for as long as there have been
computer flight simulators for the PC, Amiga, Atari, Commadore, etc. My
recommendation is Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight. It
is in my opinion the best all-around civilian flight simulator ever made. I
like it because the scenery in FS 2004 looks very similar to the scenery in
the area that I normally practice flying in when I fly in real life
(southwestern Idaho). FS2004 has good weather simulation, pretty good ATC,
and great aircraft. Also, I like it because one can download and install
terrific free add-on aircraft, VFR scenery, terrain elevations, utilities,
the list is long. For instance, I have downloaded the 38-meter terrain
elevation for the Rocky Mountain area, which is the area of the country that
I live in. This means that the scenery terrain elevations (mountains,
valleys) are accurate to within 38 meters anywhere that I fly. I have also
downloaded & installed a great water texture that makes flying over lakes
and oceans look very realistic. I downloaded and installed some excellant
free add-on aircraft, like a French APM-20 Lionceau single-engine VFR
mid-wing trainer, a Lancair Legacy 2000 high-performance single engine, an
Alon Ercoupe, a Lake Renegade amphibian, even an F-16 Falcon supersonic jet
fighter with functioning radar and heads-up display! I also like FS2004
because the airports that I normally fly out of in real life look very
similar to the ones that are programmed into FS 2004, the radio frequencies
are the same, the taxiways are the same, and the taxiway signs are accurate.
FS2004 also has a Garmin GPS that is very similar to the Garmin GPS that is
installed in most of the aircraft that I fly in real life.
The downside is that FS2004 takes an pretty hefty computer system in
order to get decent framerates. I run FS2004 on a 2.8 gHZ Pentium 4 machine,
with a Radeon 9800XT video card, Windows XP Home, and 512 megs of ram. It
seems to get good framerates of ~35 fps.
There are people who like to put down Microsoft products, but as a real
life pilot, I really do think that Flight Simulator 2004 is the best
civilian flight simulator for the price. I hope this helps....

Randy L.

Wincons > wrote in message
...
> Pattern flier, no tomatoes please, looking for a good flight sim. Having
lots
> of helath problems and cannot go out to practise..... need a FIX! Looking
at
> Real flight, but is that the best available? This computer has more than
> enough power for any program, hyper threading, 2 GB RAM, 256MB video; just
need
> some input as to program selection.
>
> TIA,
> Brian

Depends on what you want to do. Real flight rocks. It's got much faster
action than FS4.
It has in cockpit pilot views and all that. Plus, the RC radio style
controller is VERY cool to use.
The helicopters are much more realistic in the controls and flight
characteristics and much more
challenging to fly than the ones in MSFS.
MSFS helis are candy ass and no challenge at all. Not realistic at all.
The physics in Realflight are very realistic and it's a fast paced sim.
It is truly first rate and just a hoot to use.

MSFS is more like flying a real aircraft. Percieved as slow and boring but
you get to go places, explore a world and read instruments. It doesn't have
the same, fast paced pure fun that the RC sim has
but it has a different purpose. It too is a fine sim. No question about
it. It's just different than Real flight.
You have to decide what you want to do.If you want to fly a "real" aircraft,
get MSFS.
If you want more challenges and just pure fun, go with Real flight.
Oh yeah, in MSFS the helis suck. Did I metion that?

Good luck.
Feel better.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:48:59 -0500, "coustanis" >
arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:


>Depends on what you want to do. Real flight rocks. It's got much faster
>action than FS4.

Whoa !

Some of us are enjoying FS9 these days.

Park your 64 Nash and step into 2004.

Greasy Rider wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:48:59 -0500, "coustanis" >
> arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
>
> >Depends on what you want to do. Real flight rocks. It's got much faster
> >action than FS4.
>
> Whoa !
>
> Some of us are enjoying FS9 these days.
>
> Park your 64 Nash and step into 2004.

What the heck does that mean? Real flight is a year 2004 release with a
selection
of aircraft as modern as anything you will in MSFS. Just because he likes
the action in Realflight
better then MSFS (and the action IS good).
Just because he likes something different doesn't mean that he's behing the
times.
Besides, remember this ng is a flight sim ng. Not a MSFS ng.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:11:18 GMT, ascus4 > wrote:

>
>
>Greasy Rider wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:48:59 -0500, "coustanis" >
>> arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
>>
>> >Depends on what you want to do. Real flight rocks. It's got much faster
>> >action than FS4.
>>
>> Whoa !
>>
>> Some of us are enjoying FS9 these days.
>>
>> Park your 64 Nash and step into 2004.
>
>What the heck does that mean? Real flight is a year 2004 release with a
>selection
>of aircraft as modern as anything you will in MSFS. Just because he likes
>the action in Realflight
>better then MSFS (and the action IS good).
>Just because he likes something different doesn't mean that he's behing the
>times.
>Besides, remember this ng is a flight sim ng. Not a MSFS ng.

Don't get yourself all worked up, man. He was referring to FS4 as the
64 Nash, not Real Flight. Nobody in this day and age should be
comparing anything to FS4 as any kind of standard to meet.
>

Presumably a mistake - 04 - 4 - FS4. A miscomprehension?

Angus
"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:11:18 GMT, ascus4 > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Greasy Rider wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:48:59 -0500, "coustanis" >
> >> arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
> >>
> >> >Depends on what you want to do. Real flight rocks. It's got much
faster
> >> >action than FS4.
> >>
> >> Whoa !
> >>
> >> Some of us are enjoying FS9 these days.
> >>
> >> Park your 64 Nash and step into 2004.
> >
> >What the heck does that mean? Real flight is a year 2004 release with a
> >selection
> >of aircraft as modern as anything you will in MSFS. Just because he
likes
> >the action in Realflight
> >better then MSFS (and the action IS good).
> >Just because he likes something different doesn't mean that he's behing
the
> >times.
> >Besides, remember this ng is a flight sim ng. Not a MSFS ng.
>
> Don't get yourself all worked up, man. He was referring to FS4 as the
> 64 Nash, not Real Flight. Nobody in this day and age should be
> comparing anything to FS4 as any kind of standard to meet.
> >
>