MS flight simulator: 2002 or 2004?

[[email protected]]

anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?

i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA video
with 64MG shared memory.

i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are lower.

thanks

G

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:
> anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?
>
> i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA video
> with 64MG shared memory.
>
> i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are lower.
>
> thanks
>
> G
>

Ignore MS.

See http://www.x-plane.com

A much superior sim.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

Scott Skylane wrote:
> wrote:
> > anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?
> >
> > i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA
video
> > with 64MG shared memory.
> >
> > i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are lower.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > G
> >
>
> Ignore MS.
>
> See http://www.x-plane.com
>
> A much superior sim.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane



Ignore Scott Skylane, as he failed to even attempt to answer your
question.

In reality, FS2004 runs as well or better than fs2002 on like hardware.
So go with that one, as it's a more feature-rich sim also.

Happy Flying!
Cosmo

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Scott Skylane wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?
> > >
> > > i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA
> video
> > > with 64MG shared memory.
> > >
> > > i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are
lower.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > G
> > >
> >
> > Ignore MS.
> >
> > See http://www.x-plane.com
> >
> > A much superior sim.
> >
> > Happy Flying!
> > Scott Skylane
>
>
>
> Ignore Scott Skylane, as he failed to even attempt to answer your
> question.
>
> In reality, FS2004 runs as well or better than fs2002 on like
hardware.
> So go with that one, as it's a more feature-rich sim also.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Cosmo

Forget Microsoft Flight Sim. The flight model is absolute garbage. It's
a lot more of a game than a sim. Get X-Plane instead, the flight model
is quite realistic and it has a huge user community exchanging free add
ons (planes, scenery, etc...).

[[email protected]]

Apparently Flightgear is a pretty good one too. Love flying those VOR,
NDB and ILS approaches in IMC!
www.flightgear.org

Mike

[Jimbo1999]

You might also want to try alt.games.microsft.flight-sim
The folks over there are very friendly and will gladly help you out if you
ask nicely.

As for your question, I'm running 2004 on a Celeron 1.5gHz laptop with 384mb
RAM and a 20gb HD. It runs fine, but this is with fairly low graphics
settings and no add-ons.

HTH,
Jimbo.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?
>
> i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA video
> with 64MG shared memory.
>
> i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are lower.
>
> thanks
>
> G
>

[xrayvizhen]

wrote:
> anyone have some thoughts on the differences between the two?
>
> i had a panasonic w2 laptop. 768MB RAM, 40GB HD (20 free), VGA video
> with 64MG shared memory.
>
> i think 2002 would be better as its system requirements are lower.
>
> thanks
>
> G

X-Plane and MSFS 2004 both have their positives and negatives. MSFS
2004 has better scenery. You can pretty much plan and execute a
x-country in MSFS and then do it for real the next day and see pretty
much the same landmarks. X-Plane's scenery is sparse, but has a
slightly better flight model. I have both loaded on my computer and
enjoy them both equally, but for the different reasons noted above.

[Matt Barrow]

Try http://www.flyelite.com/index.php

[[email protected]]

Am I missing something?

I looked and looked at the OP's message, and nowhere in it can I find
him asking whether he should buy MSFS or X-Plane... It's fine that
some of you prefer X-Plane (or other sims) over MSFS, but I just don't
see that it is relevant to this thread.

[Cockpit Colin]

There is also the possibility tha the OP didn't know there are any serious
alternatives to the MS product - in which case the other sim suggestions
might well be appropriate.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Am I missing something?
>
> I looked and looked at the OP's message, and nowhere in it can I find
> him asking whether he should buy MSFS or X-Plane... It's fine that
> some of you prefer X-Plane (or other sims) over MSFS, but I just don't
> see that it is relevant to this thread.
>

[Skywise]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in
:

> There is also the possibility tha the OP didn't know there are any
> serious alternatives to the MS product - in which case the other sim
> suggestions might well be appropriate.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> I looked and looked at the OP's message, and nowhere in it can I find
>> him asking whether he should buy MSFS or X-Plane... It's fine that
>> some of you prefer X-Plane (or other sims) over MSFS, but I just don't
>> see that it is relevant to this thread.

Just delurking for a moment...

I myself wasn't aware of either program and have been an
MSFS user since....uhmmm...well, a looong time.

Since X-plane is $$$ I won't be getting it anytime soon.
No $$$$ to spare.

FlightGear is free, and I've been toying with it for several
days and still can't get it to work right. And what I've
seen working so far isn't all that appealing. I really do
like the idea of it being an open source program. I have
several such programs and they work great.

BTW, I currently use FS2002pro.

Now if only I could get in a real plane.....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?