Rating: 
Summary: best sim so far
Review: I OWN TWO PREVIOUS VESIONS MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR 95,98 AND NOW 2004 A CENTURY OF FLIGHT.IN MY OPINION MICROSFT HAS DONE A BETTER JOB WITH THE 2004 VERSION,MORE AIRCRAFT TO FLY A REALY GREAT FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR ROD ,IMPROVED ATC,ONE THING THOUGH LETS HOPE THAT WHEN 2006 COMES OUT(IT'S ALL HUSH HUSH AT MICROSOFT HQ)THAT THEY WILL AT LEADT ADD NEWER AIRCRAFT MY FAVORITE BIENG THE AIRBUS A321 WHICH I FLEW TO EUROPE ON,AND THE CITATION X BY CESSNA.
Rating:
Summary: Good Sim, But Remember the "Sim" Part!
Review: I have been using flight simulators since MS Flight Simulator 4.0, and have more diverse experience than only Microsoft's offering to call upon. While any simulator can be made quite realistic with the latest hardware and enough money, it is important to note that Microsoft's offering is no different - you cannot, as they say, make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. This means that if you're running an underpowered system, you will not be able to run the simulation optimally.
Published system requirements:
* Pentium 450 or greater processor
* 64 MB RAM for 98/Me, 128 MB RAM for 2000/XP
* 8 MB/3-D with DirectX 7.0 or later videocard
* 1.8 GB hard drive space
My recommendation:
* P4 2.x GHz processor; the faster, the better
* 512MB RAM, with ideally 1GB under the hood
* 128MB / 256MB AGP video card that pushes TONS of pixels - the more, the better
* At least 5GB free hard drive space - You'll want to do a full install, and that comes in just under 3GB (2.88GB, I think)
I run on:
* P4 3.0GHz processor
* 1GB RAM
* Windows XP PRO (SP1)
* 256MB 8xAGP GeForce 5700 series NVidia video card
* Sidewinder joystick (soon to go, thanks to some pedals and a yoke I ordered!)
* On-board surround sound processor
The software itself is practically infinitely extendable, with software and hardware add-ons supported. A quick look around in the flightsim community will support my assertion that the software is CHEAP compared to what can be done to augment it. Add-on packages are available to augment FS2004's admitidedly weak "ground mesh" mapping - flying through Norway's waterways and coasts with the default scenery is nothing next to the real thing, and pales in comparison to some of the add-on packages (both for photo-texturing and mesh-building) out there. But of course, these things cost money (sometimes), as does building and maintaining a system that can fully take advantage of the software.
This is a SIMULATOR, remember - a dozen years ago something like this with a set of pedals and yoke would have been a BIG deal and far out of the reach of the home consumer. Now, as the bar of admission lowers, it is important to realize just how MANY numbers are being crunched every second (most of those in graphics routines), and spec a system appropriately. It might not be a multi-million dollar prospect to own any longer, but to adaquately run the simulator and get something "real" out of it, it is certainly not unheard of to run multi-head (throwing many monitors onto a machine) for a partial panoramic view - but, of course, realism comes at its price.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent tool
Review: This verison is better than ever and a great tool for learing to fly IFR. The dynamic weather is amazing to say the least.For fans of the other versions this is a must have.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Improvement from FS2002. Excellent.
Review: I am in love with avaiation, and therefore FS has become a part of my computing experience. I purchased FS 1998, and though it was a tolerable product, I in no way felt that it was a great simulation of flight. It just didn't have the look and feel of flight. However, I was blown away by the progress made in FS 2002. Though the clouds were not always realistic (modeling gave them a two-dimension look that was disconcerting to say the least), I thought that the overall experience was pretty good. I saw FS 2004, and I thought it was probably mot much of an improvement based on reviews I had read. Let me just say that the first reviews I read were wrong. FS 2004 is a major improvement over FS 2002, and it stands as a all-time gret product for aviation buffs like me. Improvements: 1. Weather: for the first time, flying on FS2004 simulates almost perfectly the experience of actually flying. Clouds have the mist look when you fly through them. The weather systems seem to generate randomly, just as in the non-virtual world. Also, I like the weather themes that can generate snow conditions, thunderstorms, and fair weather with high altitude stratocumulus clouds. In short, the weather is a fantastic approximation of reality. FS 2004 truly represents a quantum leap in simulations. (although IL-2 still has the best clouds). 2. ATC: FS2002 had the feel of real ATC but with some stupid problems. For example, if you fly using IFR (insturment flight rules), and you failed to reach your assigned altitude, the ATC would terminate their services (what the heck is that about?). If you wanted to fly at a different altitude you couldn't. Also, you couldn't change you IFR route, or change from VFR (visual) to IFR in flight. FS2004 makes those changes. For the first time you can change your altitude, you can change your route, and you can switch between IFR and VFR. Yea!.
Another big improvement is the ATC feel itself. For the first time, I actually feel as though I am flying in a populated world. Lots of traffic at big airports, just like in reality. Fly into San Francisco International, and you may just see airplanes lined up to land. This is a big improvement. 3. GPS: In FS2002, the GPS was very basic and frustratingly difficult to use. It was based on a second generation handheld, and consequently, there were few features. The GPS in FS2004 ahs lots of features, is far easier to use because of a new interface window that you can access in flight (see above), and you can switch to terrain features and in-flight messages. It is a more realistic approximation of a GPS device you would use in flight. 4. The World: FS2004 adds signs at airport runways so you can see where your going! It lso adds more features to the world around you, such as construction cranes, and different buildings not seen in previous models of FS. Although I have noticed a new "Chick-fil-a" looking restaurant, I can state definitively that no such place exists in San Diego, CA next to the Lindbergh field runway. However, the scenery looks a lot better than FS2002. Little details really add up and make flying in FS2004 much better. The airports really look great. Denver Int'l looks very realistic now, as does Seattle-Tacoma. ( I would rate more but I just havent had the chance to fly all over to world yet!) 5. Computer: For some reason, FS2004 sees to run better on my machine than did FS2002. No "slide shows" (bad framerate) that I have found yet, and the computer seems to run better with FS2002. I like this very much. I haven't added to many third-party add-ons with FS2004 yet, but it just seems to function better than does FS2002, so perhaps FS2002 had some unresolved framerate problems. 6. Open architecture: In general, MSFS has open architecture which allows aviation geeks like me to ad-on scenery, and hundreds of planes, general, military and specific airlines as well. Most of the products and downloads I have found are excellent and work well with FS2004. Complaints:
Given how I feel about this product, I have very few complaints.
I wish the ground textures were better. However, you can either download or purchase products that have photo-realistic scenery, so you can really fly though England of Souhern California and really recognize the ground.
Also, I wish the aiports had more realistic aircraft in them. Sometimes flying through LAX, I realize that Cessna would probably not be at that airport.
However, these are minor probelems, and overall Microsoft FS2004 is an excellent product and is well worth a purchase.
|
