MS Flight Sim X

"gpsman" wrote in message
oups.com...
gatt wrote: brevity snip

His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to
2004
is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.

Then this comment may save your life: Don't fly into a thunderstorm.

You're welcome.

*plonk*

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...

I hate having to upgrade hardware to keep up with software, but that's
the way things tend to go.

I still have machines that I have Office-95 installed upon and they do
more
than I need for that sort of work... XP

Office-95 =/= Windows 95.

do not like the idea of upgrading my hardware just because some MS
developer decided to make the O/S a but more
bloated...

Just make sure your Win95 has a working firewall, wireless networking
comparable to the one bundled with XP if you're going to require those
services. Your OS decision is definately dependent upon the applications
you intend to use. If you just want a word processor and a spreadsheet, for
example, a 486 with MS Word 1.0 and Lotus 1-2-3 would be plenty sufficient.
I use a Linux system at work that won't run MS applications and found a
server downstairs that hadn't even been rebooted in five years. (!!!) It's
so old the admin team is afraid to reboot it because it might not start up.
But if you want to run FS-X, you're not going to be able to run it on
Office-95.

It torques me too...the consumer economy is full of people who drop $300 on
the new I-Pod model even though the other two they have work just fine, or
who drop $300 they can't afford on a new video card so they can play the new
version of Halflife...and then upgrade again a year later. Guys like this
would probably choke on the idea that I fly a 1974 Arrow.

For example, I bought a new Seagate 400G HD the other day because it was
$90 at Fry's...

Really? That's definately a score. They'll probably be coming down
approaching Xma$, but that's less than half what they were selling for
earlier this year.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to
2004 is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.

Doesn't his comment's usefulness depend on whether it's true? He doesn't say
how he reached his conclusion; he has not mentioned trying FSX himself. I
have, and it works fine on my three-year-old PC. Other reports are mixed.
But why not find out for yourself? There's a free demo you can download to
see how it runs on your hardwa
http://www.microsoft.com/games/fligh...downloads.html

--Gary

gatt wrote:
Office-95 =/= Windows 95.

Nope... I run it on Win2K... I didn't like Win95... WinNT 3.1 was
acceptable one it had the Win95 looking interface, but when it still had
the old Windows 3x interface, it sucked...

I use a Linux system at work that won't run MS applications and found a
server downstairs that hadn't even been rebooted in five years. (!!!) It's
so old the admin team is afraid to reboot it because it might not start up.
But if you want to run FS-X, you're not going to be able to run it on
Office-95.

Yeah, UNIX is an entirely different beast -- it's reliable!!!

Most of the systems that I develop have a UNIX portion to them...
Usually, I have at least one Linux machine at home...

Really? That's definately a score. They'll probably be coming down
approaching Xma$, but that's less than half what they were selling for
earlier this year.

It was a special that Fry's had and I was over there looking for
something else and the price was too tempting... I use it on a machine
that I have configured to just store video that I capture off of
satellite... Eventually, I get around to moving the shows off to DVD...
At VCD resolution, that's over 600 hours of shows... Actually, come to
think of it, that HD is cheaper on a per GB basis than the actual DVDs
even though I get them for $0.19 each...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

But why not find out for yourself? There's a free demo you can download to
see how it runs on your hardwa
http://www.microsoft.com/games/fligh...downloads.html

Excellent! Thanks for the link.

-c

Does it handle forward slips correctly, The 2004 with default Cessna
could be put in a full forward slip and would still be wings level (at
least on my setup). This drove me nuts so I bought X-plane, but that had
such bad ATC voice synthesis that I stopped using it also.

gpsman writes:

IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
without porpoising... and have never flown a real aircraft for a single
second

If flying normally in the simulator is no good with respect to flying
for real, then the lessons aren't, either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Robert M. Gary writes:

I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

What type of joystick/yoke/throttle combination and model are you
using (if any)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Grumman-581" writes:

I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

Plus a limited field of vision, since it is difficult to "turn one's
head" in MSFS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I'm a pilot (PPL) low hours. I have been reluctant to use Flight
Simulator 2004 for flight training for very long time, amount other
things because the landings and the flare moment never really felt
nowhere near of the real thing. Now I'm studying and preparing myself
to take the IMC rating and I have to tell you that for instrument
spanning is great.
One big problem I have encounter so far, when using my laptop the
controls (using a yokestick or keyboard) were very heavy and time
retarded, initially I thought that there was a problem with my
yokestick, so I bought a new one, but the problem persisted, then when
I installed the system (FS2004) in a desktop computer the problem
disappeared and the simulator was again working as expected.

Kind regards
CR

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Grumman-581" writes:

I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

Plus a limited field of vision, since it is difficult to "turn one's
head" in MSFS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.