Author Topic: MSFlight Simulator 2004 vs AH (Read 1663 times)

jigsaw · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:05:41 PM »

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you fly around and admire the weather and scenery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I know some guys who do that in AH too.

Heck, lately if I get bored looking for a fight, I practice goofy stuff like Lazy 8s and Hammerheads. Haven't found anything yet that will Lomcevak though.

snocone · « **Reply #16 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:15:42 PM »

big thanx flakbait

jigsaw · « **Reply #17 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:23:40 PM »

Sno,
Check your local airport for a friendly FBO and ask them for outdated charts, AFDs, and approach plates.

ALF · « **Reply #18 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:35:47 PM »

MSFS2004 is an ok sim for high altitude flying. But its a pathetic mess down low. Trees look PASTED ok like an afterthough (totally out of synch with the pallet for the ground...the really look like pieces of cardboard glues in place)

Except for a few select buildings, the run of the mill 'clutter' is bland and composed of numerous gray shaded boxes.

Radio Towers shimmer and blink in and out of existance even at 8x FSAA (they are plasters on top of the 3d image aparently...cause theres Z E R O effect of turning FSAA on)....they look HORRID.

Some of the planes have 'names' that are 'pasted' on the fusalage....but they used a 12 point font and just blew it up large enough to cover a 60' tall plane....ugly (most evident in the Landmark 737) and all planes with changable tail #s suffer this problem....and again...these images are aparently POST 3d, cause FSAA has Z E R O effect at smoothing them out.

All in all, the down low fly by the seat of your pants scenery is ugly as hell.

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #19 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:41:26 PM »

is there gonna be CFS4 after they release MSFS 04?

AHGOD · « **Reply #20 on:** August 01, 2003, 10:35:47 PM »

Slap love the Avatar! Mine got banned and was no where near that lol. I thought your other one was pretty good too

udet · « **Reply #21 on:** August 01, 2003, 11:08:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jigsaw
Sno,
Check your local airport for a friendly FBO and ask them for outdated charts, AFDs, and approach plates.

yup...good advice.

Kev367th · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2003, 06:12:58 PM »

FS2002 with all the extra traffic from ProjectAI or Ultimate Traffic was awesome. Nothing better than lining up behind 20 other aircraft to take off (all "proper" liveries). If you haven't installed any ProjectAI stuff I highly recommend it, and its FREE! Of course to get the airports busy you'll need the appropriate AFCADS to add extra gates.
Just waiting on the updates being relased for ProjectAI as Microsoft have modded a few things in FS2004 that need added to the ProjectAI stuff for full functionality.
Link to PAI so you can add all the extra aircraft (A320,321,B757,767 etc etc) and airlines (Delta and a host of others).
http://projectai.flight1.net/

If you want totally automatic use Ultimate Traffic ($29.95), lots more Airlines.
http://ultimatetraffic.flight1.net/

Both are being updated for FS2004 compatibility.

Of course scenery can be improved and is available at many sites.

udet · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2003, 06:25:57 PM »

first of all comparing AH and FS is like comparing apples and leechee nuts (yum).
second, my biggest qualm with FS2k2 was its simplified ATC which IMO makes it useless as a procedure trainer for VFR flights.
I got FS2k2 2 months ago, so I'm not in a rush to get 2004 which would prolly laugh at my system. If I have time I'll try to fly the cross country flight 'll be doing on Tuesday (weather permitting), to see if any of the landmarks I saw on the chart are present, and if they look anything like their real-life counterparts.

acepilot2 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:54:05 PM »

Quote

is there gonna be CFS4 after they release MSFS 04?

i dont know. here are my thoughts.

CFS2 was a great, beautiful game that ran well on low-end computers. CFS3 was a literally a piece of junk. They threw everything good about the game out the window. The scenery and terrain was terrible. It is just a smudge, and there are no hills or changes in the terrain. The graphics were terrible, even though the planes looked nice, but barely ran on my 2.4 ghz, P4 512 RAm geforce4 system. And, the flight physics were bad, along with the gameplay. It had a pretty cool campaign engine but it got very repetive. Also the dogfights got noticably easier, plus being a bomber pilot...it was a joke. No one ever flew in formation with you, and when you ordered them to attack ,the you bomber wingman that were probably dogfighting now started to dive bomb to attack. It was a funny sight to see a b26 do this. CFS3 snagged terrible reviews. It kinda really shamed the whole CFS and FS series because the rest were excellent games and were graphical masterpieces with great special effects. However CFS3 kinda ruined it...The whole game seemed like an early beta version and incomplete.

They may, but after CFS3, I do not think they will...considering how disasterous it was.

jigsaw · « **Reply #25 on:** August 03, 2003, 03:35:41 PM »

Quote

They may, but after CFS3, I do not think they will...considering how disasterous it was.

Like that ever stopped M$ from trying to ram a product down the publics throat before?

Otto · « **Reply #26 on:** August 03, 2003, 04:46:48 PM »

I've had every MS flight sim going back to the SubLogic days on my Apple II. Everyone has been worth the money and FS2004 is no exception.

What is your Major Malfunction?

Halo · « **Reply #27 on:** August 03, 2003, 08:43:40 PM »

I have to say I like FS2004. Didn't like some of the previous versions, mostly because their view arrangements seemed so cumbersome and counterintuitive.

I fly just for simple fun, no complicated training for real flight or navigation ... yet. I've always vowed to do more of it, and I likely will in FS2004.

FS2004's viewing is as much fun as Aces High's, except you can't adjust the cockpit seat. Neveretheless, the virtual cockpit is much fun, and flying around from the chase position is absolutely gorgeous, especially in weather. Like being in your own movie.

Main thing is that to me, FS2004 finally feels like real flying (I am not a pilot, but been up often enough). It's fun just to hop in a plane and fly around.

The plane choices are excellent, everything from 777 to Wright Flyer, including floatplane, glider, helicopter, aerobatic, exec jet, historics, and the most popular props. Makes you appreciate the classics even more. I've always been a fan of the Piper Cub and DC-3, and particularly enjoy chugging around in them.

The weather is amazing, and the terrain realistic enough. Some day we'll probably see real satellite terrain with all the details unless terrorism and other potential hostiles keep that option too militarily useful.

Aces High is still terrific, and Aces High II should be even more fun. Nevertheless, FS2004 provides a terrific counterpart or supplement. Both are keepers.

singh7 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 03, 2003, 11:58:33 PM »

prefer xplane to MS flight simulator myself

jigsaw · « **Reply #29 on:** August 04, 2003, 11:22:14 AM »

Quote

What is your Major Malfunction?

Other than hating M$ like huge number of other people?

Actually, I'm quite fond of their non combat flight sims. I've used them for years. FS2002 easily paid for itself in the time I spent practicing holds and approaches when I was getting ready for my instrument checkride. I expect FS2004 will easily do the same when I'm getting ready for my CFII next month. I especially like being able to play with the Garmin. We used to be able to take power carts out to the planes to play with them, but since someone left the master and mag switches on in a seminole, they thought it best to put a stop to it. I can't imagine why.

CFS3 on the other hand... bites. All the reasons have been covered, so no need to reiterate.