crap FS2004

[Nick Name]

one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000
Save your money

[Clive]

"Nick Name" > wrote in message
...
> one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
> FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000
> Save your money
>

Disagree. I haven't upgraded my system since I first bought FS2002, when it
first came out.

FS2004 runs slightly faster and with slightly more eye candy than I had with
2002.

My system:

W2k pro (all updates/patches)
DirectX 9
Dual PIII 933
512mb RAM
GeForce 2 MX400

Clive

[Nick Name]

Kevin Reilly > wrote in message
...
> Provocative troll-esque subject line notwithstanding, on Sat 9 Aug 2003
crap FS2004 -------has that sound
> Nick Name wrote:
>
> >one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
>
> Well it's not necessary, but it helps if you want all the eye candy.
The code in this junk is crap.
I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about every
slider maxed out with no problem at all.
Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and level with a
2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
settings.
The 2D panel at straight and level has just about zero activity.
The 2D panel hides about 2/3,s of the scenery.
What is so difficult about putting together code that will make some
customers happy
with at least an 800 machine.
Look..my OLD 400 was running FS 2002 just fine.
I thought FS2004 might be give me at least 12 maybe 25 FPS depending on
location.
So I figure I,d just dial back some sliders ect as per FS2002.
WRONG..........refund tomorrow
one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to get full
enoyment out of FS2004

Propilot 99 had your clouds years ago





>
> >FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000
>
> In terms of performance against average machine specs at the time of
> release FS2000 is the most resource-hungry version of all the Windows
> MSFS variants. Whatever machine you have, if you're happy with its
> rendering of FS2000 I recommend you try FS2002. For the same level of
> graphical detail you will almost certainly see a frame-rate increase.
> You may even be able to crank some settings up a notch or two.
>
> 2004 is surprisingly efficient with the resources it uses (given the
> graphical improvements over 2002 I'd have expected worse) but it does
> need a fairly robust machine once you start using weather effects,
> environment mapping etc.
>
> --
> Kev
> __________________________________________________ ________________________
> "Grandmother of eight makes hole in one."
> Newspaper headline
>

[John E. Carty]

>Kevin Reilly > wrote in message
...
> The code in this junk is crap.
> I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about every
> slider maxed out with no problem at all.
> Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and level with
a
> 2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
> 10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
> settings.
> The 2D panel at straight and level has just about zero activity.
> The 2D panel hides about 2/3,s of the scenery.
> What is so difficult about putting together code that will make some
> customers happy
> with at least an 800 machine.
> Look..my OLD 400 was running FS 2002 just fine.
> I thought FS2004 might be give me at least 12 maybe 25 FPS depending on
> location.
> So I figure I,d just dial back some sliders ect as per FS2002.
> WRONG..........refund tomorrow
> one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to get full
> enoyment out of FS2004
>
> Propilot 99 had your clouds years ago

Software development is driven by the latest hardware and what it can
handle. FS2004 recommends at least a 450MHz processor, so why would anyone
expect it to run smoothly on a 400MHz system? I can get 15fps on an old PIII
600MHz with a RADEON 7500 64MB video card. Learn to read the requirements
before you buy :-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Nick Name" > wrote in message
...
> I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about every
> slider maxed out with no problem at all.
> Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and level with
a
> 2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
> 10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
> settings.

If you are getting only 2FPS with all the graphics settings at their
minimum, even on a 400Mhz machine, there is something wrong with your
configuration. Even FS2000 could do better than that, and I doubt FS2004
has actually regressed even to that level, never mind worse.

Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from over
here.

Pete

[Nick Name]

John E. Carty > wrote in message
. ..
> >Kevin Reilly > wrote in message
> ...
> > The code in this junk is crap.
> > I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about every
> > slider maxed out with no problem at all.
> > Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and level
with
> a
> > 2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
> > 10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
> > settings.
> > The 2D panel at straight and level has just about zero activity.
> > The 2D panel hides about 2/3,s of the scenery.
> > What is so difficult about putting together code that will make some
> > customers happy
> > with at least an 800 machine.
> > Look..my OLD 400 was running FS 2002 just fine.
> > I thought FS2004 might be give me at least 12 maybe 25 FPS depending on
> > location.
> > So I figure I,d just dial back some sliders ect as per FS2002.
> > WRONG..........refund tomorrow
> > one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to get full
> > enoyment out of FS2004
> >
> > Propilot 99 had your clouds years ago
>
> Software development is driven by the latest hardware and what it can
> handle. FS2004 recommends at least a 450MHz processor, so why would anyone
> expect it to run smoothly on a 400MHz system? I can get 15fps on an old
PIII
> 600MHz with a RADEON 7500 64MB video card. Learn to read the requirements
> before you buy :-)
> I can read **** BRAIN
The Min requirements are close to my configuration.
400/RADEON7000 W/512RAM
As stated above i thought at least maybe we can dial back this ROAD HOG like
FS2002 and maybe
get something out of it.
----------------------------
now I,ll drop down one notch and talk to DICK HEAD

>

[Nick Name]

Peter Duniho > wrote in message
...
> "Nick Name" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about every
> > slider maxed out with no problem at all.
> > Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and level
with
> a
> > 2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
> > 10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
> > settings.
>
> If you are getting only 2FPS with all the graphics settings at their
> minimum, even on a 400Mhz machine, there is something wrong with your
> configuration. Even FS2000 could do better than that, and I doubt FS2004
> has actually regressed even to that level, never mind worse.
my machine running A Ok thats why I,ve kept it so long.
The scale of upgrading from fs2002 to fs2004 is 12 times slower fps wise
than compared to upgrading from fs98 to fs2000.
Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from over
here.

[Peter Duniho]

"Nick Name" > wrote in message
...
> The scale of upgrading from fs2002 to fs2004 is 12 times slower fps wise
> than compared to upgrading from fs98 to fs2000.

FS2004 is 12*X slower than FS2002 where "X" is the differential between
FS2000 and FS98? It's becoming easier and easier to tell that you're full
of crap.

> Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from
over
> here.

That's the best you could come up with? I could swear I heard that
somewhere else before...are you sure it's original?

[treefroginometry]

"Nick Name" > wrote in message
...
> one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
> FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000
> Save your money

Total rubbish!

What one needs, is to know how to set your BIOS settings and choose your
hardware combo's.
I have an Athlon 2000+ (1.67Ghz IIRC)
512MB of cheap DDR RAM
nForce MB chipset
GeForce Ti4200

And guess what, I run FS2004 at 1024x768x32 with FULL detail on everything.
It even manages 4X anti-aliasing if there's not too much to draw.

So, FS2004 doesn't require monster hardware, it requires you to know how to
optimise your existing hardware to it's best. But go and waste money and a
brand new machine if you want.

BTW - Absolutely nothing in this machine is overclocked.

Regards,

Nathan

[Nick Name]

John E. Carty > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nick Name" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > John E. Carty > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > >Kevin Reilly > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The code in this junk is crap.
> > > > I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about
> every
> > > > slider maxed out with no problem at all.
> > > > Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and
level
> > with
> > > a
> > > > 2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
> > > > 10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
> > > > settings.
> > > > The 2D panel at straight and level has just about zero activity.
> > > > The 2D panel hides about 2/3,s of the scenery.
> > > > What is so difficult about putting together code that will make some
> > > > customers happy
> > > > with at least an 800 machine.
> > > > Look..my OLD 400 was running FS 2002 just fine.
> > > > I thought FS2004 might be give me at least 12 maybe 25 FPS depending
> on
> > > > location.
> > > > So I figure I,d just dial back some sliders ect as per FS2002.
> > > > WRONG..........refund tomorrow
> > > > one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to get
full
> > > > enoyment out of FS2004
> > > >
> > > > Propilot 99 had your clouds years ago
> > >
> > > Software development is driven by the latest hardware and what it can
> > > handle. FS2004 recommends at least a 450MHz processor, so why would
> anyone
> > > expect it to run smoothly on a 400MHz system? I can get 15fps on an
old
> > PIII
> > > 600MHz with a RADEON 7500 64MB video card. Learn to read the
> requirements
> > > before you buy :-)
>
>
> > > I can read **** BRAIN
> You can read, but do you actually comprehend?
>
> > The Min requirements are close to my configuration.
> Looks like close doesn't count, now does it? The fact is that you knew
your
> system was below the minimum requirements to run this application and yet
> you throw a hissy fit when it doesn't work as well as you'd expect :-)
Your are in for 12 times fps more of a disapointment upgrading from 2002 to
2004
than you are from fs98 to fs2000......Bill Gates loves you

[Nick Name]

treefroginometry > wrote in message
...
> "Nick Name" > wrote in message
> ...
> > one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
> > FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000
> > Save your money
>
> Total rubbish!
Thats right FS2004 total crap performance wise.
rotten code.
what ELSE is out of whack besides the bridges?
By the way the scenery away from major cities is still fs2000/2002.
The lear jet panel is untouched from 2002
Simple over looked **** like this gets me.
The 2D lear panel should be photorealistic by now ect.

[Dr. Speedbyrd]

On 18 Aug 2003 07:52:38 GMT, (Pja419) wrote:

>FS 2004 is junk compared to 2002. Cities are still not bright enough, ILS
>approaches are off at many airports. Not much in improvments compared to 2002.
>Better weather , ATC, and GPS. Thats it.


Told you!


Jerk & Jerk-OFF

[Alan White]

On 18 Aug 2003 07:53:20 -0500, Dr. Speedbyrd >
wrote:

>
>It doesn't work, for one thing!...

Says one who hasn't got it...

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/55v3

[Jack Straight]

"Nick Name" > wrote

> By the way the scenery away from major cities is still fs2000/2002.

Really? It still isn't good as 1977 Flight Unlimited III (for eastern CA).

> The lear jet panel is untouched from 2002

The Learjet panel isn't good as Flight Unlimited III?

[Jack Straight]

Jack Straight > wrote
> "Nick Name" > wrote

>> By the way the scenery away from major cities is still fs2000/2002.
>
> Really? It still isn't good as 1977 Flight Unlimited III (for eastern
> CA).

Sorry, I meant "western..."

[Kevin Reilly]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 Jack Straight wrote:

>Jack Straight > wrote
>> "Nick Name" > wrote
>
>>> By the way the scenery away from major cities is still fs2000/2002.
>>
>> Really? It still isn't good as 1977 Flight Unlimited III (for eastern
>> CA).
>
>Sorry, I meant "western..."

I'm fairly sure you meant 1997 as well :)

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"My mother always made it clear to my sister and me that men and women
were equal -- if not more so." Al Gore