My question is this. Are there any screenshots which contrast the same
cities/countryside/whatever in Flight Simulator 2002 and Flight Simulator
2004?

In other words, are there any screenshots which contrast the view of
various locations like in between landmarks, the Grand Canyon, or Hawaii in
Flight Simulator 2002 with the view of those same locations in Flight
Simulator 2004?

Thanks in advance.








--
Sorry for the mistakes pointed out in a prior post.

There are several on the deafault MSFS page

www.microsoft.com/games/flightsim

(Tlewis95) wrote

> There are several on the deafault MSFS page
>
> www.microsoft.com/games/flightsim

"We’re sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page matching your entry."

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:35:02 GMT, Jack Straight >
wrote:


>"We’re sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page matching your entry."

It should be.... http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/

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


---
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

"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).

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 before:-)

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.

"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 before:-)

The missing bridges too?

Are you saying the problem is due to lower settings?

Are you saying the problem is due to lower settings?

In my own experience yes. I have to say I have never come across these
missing bridges, only more bridges than were in fs2002:-)

I had thought that the bridges question had been solved, after the people
concerned had turned up their settings. For example, in New Zealand where
there used to be very few bridges in 2002, there are now in 2004 newer and
better ones and in the right places. I don't know about the USA. I seldom
fly there.

> I had thought that the bridges question had been solved, after the
> people concerned had turned up their settings. For example, in New
> Zealand where there used to be very few bridges in 2002, there are now
> in 2004 newer and better ones and in the right places. I don't know
> about the USA. I seldom fly there.

Some of the screenshots I looked at are of New Zealand.

I noticed that my big city has lots of buildings which I do not recognise.
Does 2004 generate fake buildings in some cities?

John Doe wrote:
>> I had thought that the bridges question had been solved, after the
>> people concerned had turned up their settings. For example, in New
>> Zealand where there used to be very few bridges in 2002, there are
>> now in 2004 newer and better ones and in the right places. I don't
>> know about the USA. I seldom fly there.
>
> Some of the screenshots I looked at are of New Zealand.
>
> I noticed that my big city has lots of buildings which I do not
> recognise. Does 2004 generate fake buildings in some cities?


I am sure FsSgenerates fake buildings everywhere. It seems to just put a lot
of stuff where you wd expect to see a built up area, except for certain very
well-known and famous buildings which clearly have to be there. I think we
are expecting too much, if at this stage in computer memory, there could be
a whole accurate world!
I suspect that will have to wait another ten years or so. But hey, that's
why we buy the next sim every two years!

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:37:12 +0000 (UTC), "Quilljar" >
wrote:


>I am sure FsSgenerates fake buildings everywhere. It seems to just put a lot
>of stuff where you wd expect to see a built up area, except for certain very
>well-known and famous buildings which clearly have to be there. I think we
>are expecting too much, if at this stage in computer memory, there could be
>a whole accurate world!
>I suspect that will have to wait another ten years or so. But hey, that's
>why we buy the next sim every two years!
>

Yea, degen creates randomly placed buildings and trees that have
nothing to do with the real world. They work effectively to give the
illusion of a populated world though.