PDA

View Full Version : For these playing FS2004.



basdirks
08-22-2004, 03:57 PM
Are the flight physics in FS2004 better than in FB AEP ? Is flying aerobatics more realistic ?

basdirks
08-22-2004, 03:57 PM
Are the flight physics in FS2004 better than in FB AEP ? Is flying aerobatics more realistic ?

cd_jakevas
08-22-2004, 04:02 PM
If you have both, give it a try. It seems alright but try to go some kind of manover and apply some rudder. You will get something that has bugged me since I can remember. This is only one area of flight physics that any ms series will fall sort.

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig15.gif

Viper_42
08-22-2004, 04:07 PM
Yeah, when you apply some rudder sometimes the plane goes crazy and defies all physics. I'd say FB has more realistic flight physics for aerobatics because ms2004 isn't really made for that type of stuff, like when you black out you can just switch to another view and keep going. Or when you pull up to hard it doesn't stall, it only stalls when you loose too much speed and that type of stuff.

http://www.bonedaddy.net/Radooh/wietsig3.jpg

F0_Dark_P
08-22-2004, 04:10 PM
i dont think it is more realistic in fs2004, it just dont feel good, you cant even stall and the plane manoeuvre to speedy, i say that it is just a fishy feeling to the aerobatics, but the taste is like the ***, splithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

C:\Documents and Settings\Ulf Pettersson\Mina dokument\Mina bilder\Johan\Bf109-4.jpg

oddglob
08-22-2004, 04:11 PM
No, the physics aren't as good. If you accept my stance that the latest FB / AEP flight models are better than the FB version 1.0 flight models, then I would rate the FS2004 flight models a bit below FB version 1.0.

That said, I'm still impressed with some of the stock Microsoft flight models. I actually fly FS2004 more than I do FB, and I almost exclusively fly the Lockheed Vega and Douglas DC-3. With a bit of flight model tweaking (mainly prop wash) and joystick sensitivity/ null zone adjustments, I think the flight models can be pretty darned good actually.

When I swap between FS2004 and FB and back again, I don't lament the FS2004 flight models at all. If they were so much worse, I wouldn't want to fly FS2004.

As for aerobatics, you'll pretty much have to forget about the stock MS aircraft, and even most third party aircraft. It seems the FS2004 engine just isn't designed for flight at the edge of the envelope like FB is.

That said, if you buy one of the aircraft from Real Air Simulations, they represent possibly the best flight modelling possible from FS2004 - even with realistic stall and spin behaviour. Real Air are actually bringing out a Spitfire very soon.

imo, the big advantage of FS2004 in terms of physics is it's excellent weather modelling. The aircraft seem to react in a very believable way to wind, gusts, tubulence etc. It's a vast improvement over FS2002.

ucanfly
08-22-2004, 04:13 PM
MS third party planes feel more realistic (especially with active camera addon) than any other sim I've tried, but when manuevering abruptly it still has it's faults and recovery seems a bit too easy. The engine seems to have a better capability of making differences in aircraft more apparent though.

MS FS2002 and FS2004 are better flight simulators IMO but FB is better overall at the combat sim type of flying (although there is too much bounce in the elevater response). I wish that the next 1C Maddox engine would make the flying between waypoints a little more convincing (and therefore less boring).

basdirks
08-22-2004, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
MS third party planes feel more realistic (especially with active camera addon) than any other sim I've tried, but when manuevering abruptly it still has it's faults and recovery seems a bit too easy. The engine seems to have a better capability of making differences in aircraft more apparent though.

MS FS2002 and FS2004 are better flight simulators IMO but FB is better overall at the combat sim type of flying (although there is too much bounce in the elevater response). I wish that the next 1C Maddox engine would make the flying between waypoints a little more convincing (and therefore less boring).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you in advance perhaps name me those sites where i can find good thrid party aeroplanes ?

Bearcat99
08-22-2004, 04:26 PM
I dont know about FS but I tried some of the one percent planes for CFS3 and I have to say.... in my opinion.. they leave somethiung to be desired.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

oddglob
08-22-2004, 06:13 PM
It's very rarely I ever touch my CFS3 CDs. In my opinion that product was the worst piece of commercial software I have ever had the misfortune to purchase. I agree though - the 1% flight models I tried hardly made it any better. Every plane in that sim no matter what is done to it still flies like the aeroplane on the end of a stick that I got at the 1969 Royal Easter Show. It's extremely hard to believe CFS3 and FS2004 carry the same brand name. I love FS2004 as much as I am disgusted by CFS3.

oddglob
08-22-2004, 06:19 PM
To basdirks:

Try

www.realairsimulations.com (http://www.realairsimulations.com)

That's as serious as you can get with FS2004.

WTE_Galway
08-22-2004, 06:22 PM
the final landing and flare behaviour in the FS flight sims is very poor

i was banned from flying the old FS2002 by my flight instructor a few years ago because it was stuffing up my training http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

on the hand doing ciricuits and landings in an Emil in FB actually seems to help my RT flying even though it is simulating a totally different aircraft

Bearcat99
08-22-2004, 06:32 PM
Ive got some squaddies that fu=inally came over from CFS to our squad. They were praising the 1% s and comparing them in a more favorable light to the FMs of FB.. particularly the Pony and the Jug. I just dont see it. Maybe its because Ive been fiddling with the Jug since FB 1.0 when it was very frustrating to be a Jug lover but I just dont see anything from the 1%s.. the cockpits are awful.. the ground scenery is still just as sucky as ever. When I fly in a sim for me it is a total package. I could care less for great scenery if the FMs are porked.. or perfect FMs (if they even were attainable in desktop systems with commercial software) without the same quality of scenery would not thrill me.. although frankly since IMO the FMs are the hard part the scenery would be a no brainer if the FMs could be gotten spot on.. but IMO FB does the trick better than anyone else. It is tyhe James Bond of flight sims... nobody does it better.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

Chuck_Older
08-22-2004, 06:45 PM
FS has the reputation, but I'll tell you what, I have FS2004 as well, and it is harder, but I can't say better than flying in FB.

It's because FB gives me the feeling of flight much better than FS2004 does.

There definitely seems to be a degree of automatic rudder in FB sometimes. But FS2004 gives me a floaty feeling I can't recall from my single engine plane trip. FB gives me an illusion of actually occupying that spot in 3d space, where FS2004 gives me a "how did the plane do that?" feeling sometimes that I find disconcerting.

But as a flight sim, FS2004 is much more detailed than FB. The FS2004 cockpits and POV kinda annoy me, though. Weather is great in FS2004

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

basdirks
08-22-2004, 07:08 PM
It's a shame that FB doesnt provide good aircraft to fly aerobatics.

wojtek_m
08-22-2004, 07:30 PM
The most detailed sim on PCs by far is X-Plane. I dont like FS2004. It's more like an ATC sim to me... apart from the SF260, which is superb, but payware, the other FMs are all kinda 'arcadey' when approaching the limits of the envelope... within the flight envelope every todays sim is ok... FB gives a much better feeling of flight and it is much better at the 'flying on the edge' department. The only problem is the 1g stall in FB (which was discussed in detail here).

-Logos-

oddglob
08-22-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
the final landing and flare behaviour in the FS flight sims is very poor

i was banned from flying the old FS2002 by my flight instructor a few years ago because it was stuffing up my training http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

on the hand doing ciricuits and landings in an Emil in FB actually seems to help my RT flying even though it is simulating a totally different aircraft<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not surprised. I think if I flew for real, I would only fly a Maddox flight sim. The flare and ground effect in FS2004 is quite an issue, but some aircraft are better (ie not as bad) as others. It's probably the most obvious difference between the sims. I have circuit "missions" setup in FB just so I can practice touch and goes regularly. That said, it's possible to tweak the stock FS taildraggers to improve the flight characteristics, but they still fall short in this respect. It didn't help that Microsoft did not model the prop wash effect on the tailplane and rudder in single engined taildraggers (ie Cub and Vega), but this can be improved by editing the flight model.

Although FS2004 is useless for actual "stick and rudder" training, it's strengths lie in the weather, navigation, approach procedures and the abiity for the user to make the terrain as realistic as time and money will allow. The latter makes cross country VFR flying a lot of fun.

The closest civilian sim to the Maddox sims still seems to be X-Plane, but last version I ran the weather modelling wasn't up to FS2004 standards, and the airfield / navaid data was several game generations behind the current MS series in terms of completeness.

wojtek_m
08-22-2004, 09:15 PM
The closest civilian sim to the Maddox sims still seems to be X-Plane, but last version I ran the weather modelling wasn't up to FS2004 standards, and the airfield / navaid data was several game generations behind the current MS series in terms of completeness.

There is a new weather model in the current version of Xplane with new EXCELLENT turbulence model based on a 3d matrix of wind vectors around the plane - you should definitely try it!

-Logos-

Dolemite-
08-22-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by basdirks:
It's a shame that FB doesnt provide good aircraft to fly aerobatics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope your not serious

___________________________________________
Flying on HL as {Dolemite}
http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf &lt;----- ya wont regret it

WTE_Galway
08-22-2004, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oddglob:
I'm not surprised. I think if I flew for real, I would only fly a Maddox flight sim. The flare and ground effect in FS2004 is quite an issue, but some aircraft are better (ie not as bad) as others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the most glaring mistake in a lot of FS2002/4 flight models is the elevators have far too much control authority close to stall.

In a cessna for example you need a lot of back pressure on the yoke just to bring the nose up and flare whereas in the FS aircraft the same thing has the aircraft nosing up at an angle that is impossible for such a low air speed.

FB definitely behaves better in slow speed circuits then the FS sims.

Zayets
08-23-2004, 02:52 AM
X-Plane is the name.Open as FS2k4 but FM is "as real as you can get". The plane maker is easier to use than gmax but not so potent IMHO. Neverthless,better than MS when flying.
An other sim I liked very much was Fly! series.
Not to mention Flight Unlimited 3.

Zayets out

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/Zayets/sigP47.jpg

China Flanker 1
08-23-2004, 03:01 AM
you guys said that the rudder stuff are all so foolish,yes ,in fs2004,if you press rudder left ,plane will turn left always, but there is another key called "rudder center",you guys must press rudder left/right and then press rudder center it is done

fs2004 is a great game ,the most interest is you could fly all the world,it is cool

http://www.chinapro.com/888/chinaflanker1.gif

cd_jakevas
08-23-2004, 03:21 AM
I dont think you understand whats going on china flanker. Read the rudder posts again. All planes(from what Ive seen) in fs2004 behave this way. Its some kind of engine limitation or something. Its not that I dont know how to use the rudder or "rudder center". The only good thing fs2004 has going for it is the weather, clouds and some of the sounds.

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig15.gif

KMUltra77
08-23-2004, 04:20 AM
The rudder just blows in FS2004. I have to laugh as a private pilot to see that when the rudder is in full lock left or right the plane just yaws in that direction and continues to fly straight! let go of the rudder and you are back on the same head.

BelgianTiger_2
08-23-2004, 06:53 AM
If you would ask me to chose between FB and FS for acrobatics,my answer is very simple:FB.

It has a lot of reasons why FB is much better for acro as FS.I think the main cause of this is that FS has these issues with FM's and also that rudder thingie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But as someone said before,There are addons availble (and not only the Marchetti from Realsimulations) that try to represent the actual FM of the aircraft.
The first planes that come to my mind are the Boeing 747-200 from Ready for pushback and the boeing 737-600/700/800/900 series From PMDG.These are by my opinion the BEST and most realistic aircraft availble for FS.

Another problem that you get when flying acro in a team in FS is the bad multiplayer.They haven't changed it since FS98 and it is very laggy!!So FB is the way to go for acro.

http://www.simmersworld.com/~cash/images/team5.jpg

basdirks
08-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Is there anyone here who bought an A/C from RealAir ?

basdirks
08-23-2004, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dolemite-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by basdirks:
It's a shame that FB doesnt provide good aircraft to fly aerobatics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope your not serious

___________________________________________
Flying on HL as {Dolemite}
http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf &lt;----- ya wont regret it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant to say, there are no specialized aerobatics A/C like the light sukhoi's. What i really meant was that it is a shame that there is no full flight sim based on the Sturmovik engine.

BelgianTiger_2
08-23-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by basdirks:
Is there anyone here who bought an A/C from RealAir ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have.I have their marchetti(mostly because the Belgian Airforce fly's these beauties http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and i must say it's a wonderfull add-on,really worth the money!

Greetz

http://www.simmersworld.com/~cash/images/team5.jpg

adlabs6
08-23-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by basdirks:
Is there anyone here who bought an A/C from RealAir ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've bought the RealAir Siai Marchetti SF260 as well. Really an enjoyable plane, I also think it was well worth the money.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/adlabs6/sig5.gif
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

adlabs6
08-23-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMUltra77:
The rudder just blows in FS2004. I have to laugh as a private pilot to see that when the rudder is in full lock left or right the plane just yaws in that direction and continues to fly straight! let go of the rudder and you are back on the same head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to check your realism settings, as I was unable to get this result in the default Cessna 172, Piper Cub, or the payware RealAir FS260.

In my quick tests, locking full left or right rudder (no other control input) resulted in a skidding roll to that direction, the nose drops off, and then they all settled into a rolling dive to the ground.

Releasing the rudder left me right there, upside down diving into the ground.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/adlabs6/sig5.gif
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

adlabs6
08-23-2004, 09:38 AM
Hmm, I was just curious, so I enabled "auto rudder" in the realism menu and ruddering was effectivly useless. Unchecking that box again reverted to what I said above, a decending flip onto the back followed by a dive.

If you're going to fly FS2004, then be on the look out for flight dynamics updates for the aircraft you fly. Just as Oleg keeps updating flight models in FB, some FS users and aircraft builders do this as well.

The two most enjoyable flight models in FS2004 for me are RealAir's SF260, and Trev Morson's free DC flight dynamics for the default DC-3, from DC3 Hanger. He's a DC3 pilot himself. He's got great recorded engine sounds as well. Here's a link, scroll down to the main index for the link to the FS2004 stuff:
http://www.douglasdc3.com/

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/adlabs6/sig5.gif
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

Petey78
08-23-2004, 12:40 PM
I bought FS2004 and only used it about ten times before it got itself a new home on the shelf... going for that 'thickest layer of dust' record.
Having flown a Cessna 172, a J3 Cub and an Extra 300 in RL I was left totally disappointed by their FS2004 equivalents.

"Right M$, an Extra 300 cannot sustain knife-edged flight, A Cub can't flare for a landing without floating off the end of the runway, an aeroplane travels sideways along the runway without actually changine direction or dropping a wing, a Curtiss Jenny can't actually loop (despite a video I have of a restored example looping"...).. And the list goes on and on and on...??????. If the scenery had been worth it and it felt like there was even potential there, I'd have b**gered about with it until it 'felt' like a real aeroplane but the buildings are ridiculously small, the trees are out of scale and despite having a very new and fast PC, it stutters....very....badly....
Nope, my copy is staying right where it belongs, on the shelf, or, if the chance presents itself, sideways up Mr Gates...

Sorry, touched a nerve, that's all....

FB 'felt' almost right out the box, and those things which didn't feel right were easy to alter, the graphics are stunning, the scenery is great (and moves at a pace that gives a feeling of speed when low down, M$ take note), the aircraft react reastically at the stall and most importantly, the aeroplanes are just so damn cool, I'd rather fly a Fw190 or a P38 than a Cessna any day.... Thinking about it, from here on in, even mentioning FS2004 will be classed as swearing in my house.

ucanfly
08-23-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Petey78:
I bought FS2004 and only used it about ten times before it got itself a new home on the shelf... going for that 'thickest layer of dust' record.
Having flown a Cessna 172, a J3 Cub and an Extra 300 in RL I was left totally disappointed by their FS2004 equivalents.

"Right M$, an Extra 300 cannot sustain knife-edged flight, A Cub can't flare for a landing without floating off the end of the runway, an aeroplane travels sideways along the runway without actually changine direction or dropping a wing, a Curtiss Jenny can't actually loop (despite a video I have of a restored example looping"...).. And the list goes on and on and on...??????. If the scenery had been worth it and it felt like there was even potential there, I'd have b**gered about with it until it 'felt' like a real aeroplane but the buildings are ridiculously small, the trees are out of scale and despite having a very new and fast PC, it stutters....very....badly....
Nope, my copy is staying right where it belongs, on the shelf, or, if the chance presents itself, sideways up Mr Gates...

Sorry, touched a nerve, that's all....

FB 'felt' almost right out the box, and those things which didn't feel right were easy to alter, the graphics are stunning, the scenery is great (and moves at a pace that gives a feeling of speed when low down, M$ take note), the aircraft react reastically at the stall and most importantly, the aeroplanes are just so damn cool, I'd rather fly a Fw190 or a P38 than a Cessna any day.... Thinking about it, from here on in, even mentioning FS2004 will be classed as swearing in my house.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude you are way too impatient to get the most out of the FS series as the strength of that series is the third party addons. You haven't even scratched the surface. I've added many gigs to my outta box sim and it has transformed the sim immeasurably. Not recommended for the impatient though!

IMO FS is more of a sim than FB - it just simulates more of the cockpit and doesn't have silly errors like unreadable compasses and missing 10,000 ft indicaters (!*#@) and nonfunctional mixture controls. It is true that many stock FS planes have a tendency to float too much but there are many free and payware planes that model the normal flight regime extremely well (like freeware decathlon and payware Marchetti), and IMO it is the best sim to practice crosswind landings in. Real air (makers of the payware Marchetti) is also making a Spitfire BTW.

[This message was edited by ucanfly on Mon August 23 2004 at 12:23 PM.]

BuzZz_WG
08-23-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Dude you are way too impatient to get the most out of the FS series as the strength of that series is the third party addons. You haven't even scratched the surface. I've added many gigs to my outta box sim and it has transformed the sim immeasurably. Not recommended for the impatient though!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell me which add-ons you have. I would like to get the same immersiveness out of fs2004 as I get from FB, but it just won't happen.

My main problem is the scenery, which is flat and just ugly. I can understand why The Netherlands are flat (shouldn't be so ugly though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but why is France so flat? Or the Ardennnes? I've been there multiple times and I've encountered many hills. I would like realistic scenery and meshes. After all, it should be "as real as it gets".

I've got enough patience, so please tell me how to enhance FS2004.

BREAK! BREAK!
Nevermind...

cd_jakevas
08-23-2004, 01:58 PM
Ive gave fs2004 a good chance. I even got a few payware addons. Yes believe it or not. The money now that I think of it could have been used to buy another game or something else. I still have fs2004 on my HD, hoping one day that it will get better(though I know it in my heart that it wont).
I fire it up, and see this nicely detailed a/c on the runway. Looks good. Nice weather and the clouds look like nothing you've seen before. Brings a smile to your face. your throttle up and hear the engines and again you smile and say this might be it. Soon your in the air, and by the time you know it the smile is gone and its basically the same game. It just doesnt feel right. Only a few games have been able to pull it off and fs2004 isnt even close. I wish it was though, I look foward to the day.

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig15.gif

Capt.England
08-23-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzZz_WG:

Please tell me which add-ons you have. I would like to get the same immersiveness out of fs2004 as I get from FB, but it just won't happen.

My main problem is the scenery, which is flat and just ugly. I can understand why The Netherlands are flat (shouldn't be so ugly though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but why is France so flat? Or the Ardennnes? I've been there multiple times and I've encountered many hills. I would like realistic scenery and meshes. After all, it should be "as real as it gets".

I've got enough patience, so please tell me how to enhance FS2004.

BREAK! BREAK!
Nevermind...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try AVSIM. It has loads of downloads added every day and is full of meshes, planes, scenery, and utility's that anyone could wish for!

Here's a link; http://www.avsim.com/

Britwhiner No.1

BuzZz_WG
08-23-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.England:
Try AVSIM. It has loads of downloads added every day and is full of meshes, planes, scenery, and utility's that anyone could wish for!

Here's a link; http://www.avsim.com/

Britwhiner No.1
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the link but I already have an account there and downloaded some planes. What I'm really interested in is the quality of the planes/scenery. When I do a search there, it doesn't tell me what quality it is. I would like to get some pointers to what scenery/meshes/aircraft to download or even buy. It would save me a lot of time filtering the good from the bad and even the ugly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

cd_jakevas
08-23-2004, 03:05 PM
What I do is arrage the download by either times downloaded and or file size. That usually brings the best of the crop out in front. Also avsim lists the most popular files for the week, month, and year I think. So you can also arrange them that way.

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig15.gif

Capt.England
08-23-2004, 03:20 PM
You beat me to the answer cd_jakevas!

That's the best way to go for good downloads, plus also read "The Bears reviews" as they tend to be good!

Good Luck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Britwhiner No.1

adlabs6
08-23-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzZz_WG:Please tell me which add-ons you have. I would like to get the same immersiveness out of fs2004 as I get from FB, but it just won't happen.

My main problem is the scenery, which is flat and just ugly. I can understand why The Netherlands are flat (shouldn't be so ugly though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but why is France so flat? Or the Ardennnes? I've been there multiple times and I've encountered many hills. I would like realistic scenery and meshes. After all, it should be "as real as it gets".

I've got enough patience, so please tell me how to enhance FS2004.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have purchased addon meshes from FSGenesis, their 76 meter mesh, and it's been very enjoyable. I've also got some smaller area 38 meter meshes, which are very nice as well. Be aware that the meshes don't add buildings, trees, or new textures to the ground. This pic is of a 38 meter mesh out the window of my SF260.
http://portal.fsgenesis.net/
http://www.il2skins.com/adlabs6/MyStuff/m2.jpg

Personally, I never found the terrain mesh in FB to be very great. The peaks are very sharp, square and jagged, even on small hills. The one redeeming quality of FB's otherwise very spartan terrain mesh is the detail map. It is really well done.

Honestly, having a higher detailed mesh for me was more eye candy than anything I had to have to keep interest in the game. When I fly FS2004, most of the time I've got a paper map in my hand, and a written flight plan on the desk, and my eyes on the IFR panel. They are all I need to have a good time on my flights.

Also, try the demo version of Active Camera. I don't own it myself, but the demo does nice things to the sim which you can test. What I liked most, it adds head motion to the virtual cockpits. If you've ever flown FB with head motion disabled, you'll see that even FB is pretty lifeless without that special visual cue of motion and inertia.
http://www.anticyclone.be/active.html

Just look around at the online FS shops, you'll find some stuff. As for quality, well, that's subjective for sure, I just look for demo's to see what I might be getting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/adlabs6/sig5.gif
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

ucanfly
08-23-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzZz_WG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Dude you are way too impatient to get the most out of the FS series as the strength of that series is the third party addons. You haven't even scratched the surface. I've added many gigs to my outta box sim and it has transformed the sim immeasurably. Not recommended for the impatient though!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell me which add-ons you have. I would like to get the same immersiveness out of fs2004 as I get from FB, but it just won't happen.

My main problem is the scenery, which is flat and just ugly. I can understand why The Netherlands are flat (shouldn't be so ugly though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but why is France so flat? Or the Ardennnes? I've been there multiple times and I've encountered many hills. I would like realistic scenery and meshes. After all, it should be "as real as it gets".

I've got enough patience, so please tell me how to enhance FS2004.

BREAK! BREAK!
Nevermind...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


go to www.avsim.com (http://www.avsim.com) or flightsim.com and search for "mesh". YOu will get alot of hits. Over the years I have added mesh for California, Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, and Colorado. There is also neat scenery addons like Alaskan bush strips, Maine scenery, Hawaiian scenery, Bahamas, Alaska, and California Landmarks that I enjoy just to name a few. Planes by RealAir (payware)have a very convincing flight model and I have a Cessna 177 from Flightone that is not bad and a Commander from FSD that looks nice with a persistent damage model (gotta RTFM or burn your engine). There is tons of stuff out there and something new to download every freaking day!

I agree with whomever said to look at the Bear review on avsim.

WTE_Galway
08-23-2004, 05:54 PM
i have downloaded a few FS addon planes which have performed better than stock including a very good cessna that actually spiral dives and has incipient spins fairly close to reality but overall the FM in FB "feels" closer to my real world flying experience than the FS series .. even though FB is a combat sim

I find that rather odd personally

basdirks
08-23-2004, 06:29 PM
but have you tried extreme moves in real life ?

WTE_Galway
08-23-2004, 06:55 PM
extreme in what sense ?? spiral dives and incipient spins are part of your normal basic pilot training .. full blown spin training used to be required in Australia for your basic licence but spins are now a seperate ticket you get later

not all Cessna's and Pipers are rated to intentional spin .. spinning a 172 is frowned upon .. the generic 150 trainers are aereobatic rated though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

am hoping to do some basic aerobatic, spin and tailwheel training in a Stearman bi-plane up at toowoomba near here some time in the near future

basdirks
08-24-2004, 06:56 PM
Ok, i have tried FS9 at my uncle's, and with the realair cessna i am sorry to say i have been converted to FS9.