Author Topic: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight (Read 585 times)

Animal · « **on:** August 27, 2003, 06:28:01 PM »

Unlike real flying, I have always found the Flight Simulator series as entertaining as watching red paint dry. But if used as a training tool, it can be quite useful.

For the purpose of this pseudo review, I will be using a Cessna 172, the same aircraft I fly in the real, inmeasurably more fun world of real physics.

First post will include:
BAD THINGS
First off, the graphics have been improved from the previous versions. Not jaw dropping, but the clouds are nice, and the scenary looks a little bit better. But you also get a framerate drop if you are using a CPU slower than 1.6Ghz with 512mb of ram. These improved graphics also come with the cost of a 2GB+ installation, so make sure you have plenty of hard disk space. I wish MS would license the IL2 engine, but we all know they rather use a bloated engine because they are evil sons of Saddam.

Image was resized and converted to jpg so they lose quality. But it does not really look much better in the game. And that is nearly will all details to max; FPS was below 30.

For this next shot, I put the terrain details to the very max. FPS was hit. The castle isnt even there, and it was there in Flight Simulator 2002! (a poor representation, but it was there)

Obviously I dont expect a game to look nearly as good as the real world, just modelling every single terrain mesh in the game correctly is just impossible. But they should at least make an effort to make the graphics look good. This looks about half as good as IL-2, with half the framerate.

My next gripe is the instrument panel. Flying a Cessna, you have a pretty good view of whats ahead. I'm of moderate height, and I can well see the nose of the aircraft. The cockpit view in Flight Sim is atrocious. Sure the instruments work and are nice, but take-offs and landings are a chore. Doing flares you are simply left blind. Even draging the 2D instrument panel down, it does not improve the sight. The 3D cockpit is no help either.
Why cant they make a good adjustable 3D cockpit like in Aces High??? I want to be able to look over my dash, I am not a midget!

(for the above image the camera was zoomed and above eye level, but still, you can see much better than in the game)

See how I have to pitch the plane downwards in order to see where I am trying to touch down? I would not recomend that in real life.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #1 on:** August 27, 2003, 06:34:54 PM »

As far as the view system goes in FS2004 I have my stick and throttle set up with the same views I use in AH plus panning. You can also move up-down, side to side, in and out. I have really enjoyed my copy of it.

Of course your mileage may vary

.

P.S. I always fly in virtual cockpit, never in 2d mode.

Animal · « **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2003, 06:39:40 PM »

Now for the
GOOD THINGS

The flight model is decent. It does not feel as real flying, but no game does, and no game can. Lets just say that the Cessna 172 behaves more or less like the real thing, except that you have to use the rudders more in real life. Funny, sometimes flying any plane in Aces High or IL2 feels more real than this.

What this sim is really good for is instrument flying. For testing, I used the same cross country plan I flew yesterday, a 65nm distance, with about the same weather, and it worked in the game. Even the fuel calculations ended up being about 85% accurate.

So if you are gonna get this software, use it for practicing instrument flying as a reference tool for your real world training.
I would not recomend this for entertainment value unless you are a person who is easily entertained.

And all those people suggesting this software be used for real world training and hour logging must be on some seriously potent crack. No way.

Mark Luper
I tried flying in 3D cockpit mode, but it was very annoying and not nearly as useful as 2D mode. I had to switch between the two modes constantly, and it really destroys your situational awareness.

by the way,
My hardware:
Athlon XP 1600
512mb DDR 2100
Geforce4 Ti4600
WindowsXP Pro

On this hardware, IL2 Forgotten Battles runs smooth as silk with more planes on screen, more stuff on the ground, and explosions. COF performs mediocre at best.

Otto · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2003, 06:58:27 PM »

MS2004 is great. I've had everyone since the first by Sub Locgic and it's wire frame graphics 22 years ago. It's well worth the money for pilots and non-pilots alike.
The open architecture allowing third party aircraft, scenery and utilities is real plus as is the 'real' time weather. MS flight sims have a loyal following around the globe.

Animal · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:19:39 PM »

I dont know man, maybe its just me.

I really hope that I am doing something terribly wrong with the graphics and I am actually flying in software mode.

Maybe all the Aces High, IL-2, Falcon 4.0, and real flying has spoiled me, but I dont not consider this to be great.

There is so much room here for improvement. Yeah, you can download a lot of scenaries, aircraft, and cockpit panels, but the engine itself is lacking in too many areas.

The view system, cockpit system, and low performance are killer blows to what could otherwise be an excellent simulation.

Maybe it is much more fun if you fly the big jets, at great altitudes, and fly only using instruments, then yeah this is good.
Maybe I'll get deeper into that later, but I doubt I'll spend any leisure time with this software when I can be playing Aces High, IL2, or the upcoming LOMAC.

Pfunk · « **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:37:21 PM »

slowest loading of pictures EVAH, you need a new pic hosting site

Animal · « **Reply #6 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:42:27 PM »

They loaded snappy on my connection and that server is located pretty far away.

Pfunk · « **Reply #7 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:44:23 PM »

took over two minutes on mine....1.5mbt cable

Animal · « **Reply #8 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:49:26 PM »

Fishu · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:52:19 PM »

Except for two things, I find the view system better than AH's - theres some lack of buttons and hats on the stick/throttle and cannot save quick view points on the fly.
Although it can be done with active camera addon and/or editing the pilots view of point from aircraft.cfg

I don't quite agree with the IL2 engine thing though..
IL2 saves in performance on some areas - the ground and simplified cloud layers.
At the height of 30,000ft it doesn't look so good in IL2 and there isn't many cloud layers etc.
The ground is simple on IL2 - the forrests for example are one big mass of multiple texture layers and these blocks of forrests makes the open ground shine through.
So far I prefer flying VFR in FS9 terrain than IL2 :>
(although the cities are nice, although highlighted bit too well from the surrounding flat terrain)

However OpenGL would probably make FS9 kind of a game run faster than with it's current DX development.

Chaos68 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2003, 07:55:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pfunk
slowest loading of pictures EVAH, you need a new pic hosting site

mine too, but only took 60 seconds to load.

Halo · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:06:29 PM »

Color me easily entertained, but I'm enjoying MS Flight Sim 2004 a lot. Although it's impossible to get real world visuals, I'm impressed with what they do manage to include.

I mostly like hopping to various airports around the world and at least getting a feel for the general shape of the areas. Hey, doesn't take much to please me. The weather and nav aspects are fun too, as is the feel of some of the historic oldies but goodies aircraft.

True, I enjoy flying Aces High aircraft more than any simulator I've ever seen. But FS 2004 is getting better. I hated some earlier versions with their terrible view setups; the new views are good, although not as good as Aces High.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:28:22 PM »

Odd,..only took me a few seconds to d/l the pics on a 768kb/s DSL connection. Probably your ISP's routers or maybe your local nodes are being swamped.

Animal · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:47:25 PM »

I tried a new flight from PR to Dominican Republic in a Learjet, dawn, at 10k

The game looks and runs much better up there. Most of my graphical whines do not apply.

Sadly, I need it for flying down low in small aircraft.

Another thing I did not like: I overstressed the learjet at one point, and instead of giving me an emergency situation and an oportunity to land a damaged aircraft, it just paused and said AIRCRAFT OVERSTRESSED.

after all those half wing landings in AH, I believe I could have landed that bird easily

vorticon · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2003, 08:56:21 PM »

pics loaded with the page itself for me...

and my cable connection is not that great