Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
346 of 354 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Exellent flightsim - one of the best sims on the market, November 30, 2004
Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars
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 also 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 add-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 Southern 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. I have even taken off from major airports with DC-3's lined up for takeoff - what is this the 1940's?
However, these are minor problems, and overall Microsoft FS2004 is an excellent product and is well worth a purchase.
|
|
|
266 of 274 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The new state-of-the-art flight sim for PC, March 30, 2005
Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars
My qualifications: More than 3000 hrs of real world flight time, Commercial, Instrument, Multi-Engine and Flight Instructor certificates, and an incalculable amount of my life spent "flying" every major flight sim ever made for the PC, starting with the original MS Flight Simulator on an Apple IIe in 1983. For whatever it's worth, folks, I'm an expert on this subject.
FS-2004 Century of Flight is the new state of the art, the new gold standard. By itself, this software is worth going out and buying a new, hot PC just so you can fly it.
If this is your first flight sim experience, you'll have fun just doing loops and looking at the pretty scenery.
But here's the truth: the more aviation experience you have, the more you will appreciate this sim. Quite frankly, I can't think of a single significant element of the real-world flying experience that isn't precisely modeled and simulated in FS-2004.
Want to climb in the 172 and practice NDB approaches down to minimums in rain and a stiff crosswind? No problem, you can do that here. Want to captain the 747 from San Francisco to Honolulu by moonlight? Consider it done. Want to fly neck-straining aerobatics "in the box" over the runway at Oshkosh in Patty Wagstaff's Extra 300? Start the engine and go. Want to load up the DC-3 and fly "The Hump" to gain an appreciation of true aviation heroism? Yep, you can do that too. With or without the snowstorms and turbulence.
Quite frankly, if you can come up with a non-combat flying scenario of any kind, you can almost certainly experience something very close to it in FS-2004. This sim isn't just fun, or accurate - it's realistic training and practice for the IFR pilot.
Words simply can't express the depth, thoroughness, accuracy and variety to be found in this sim. Everything happens in real time and it's so accurate on my PC that I can get out my E6-B whizwheel and do time, fuel and distance calculations while I'm "flying" and have them work out almost exactly.
The more of a pilot you are, the more this sim will give you. And no matter how many hours you have, there is no pilot alive who won't benefit from the incredibly realistic practice and training that this sim provides. If you rent a 172 now and then, you'll be so much sharper in the real cockpit because of this sim. And if you own your own airplane, you can practice things like non-precision approaches, holding pattern entries, missed approach procedures and engine failures to landing, all without burning a drop of gas or putting your own airplane in jeopardy.
Here's what it boils down to: In general aviation today, you either train and practice with this sim, or you're behind the times and selling yourself short. Get it.
|
|
|
40 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good Sim, But Remember the "Sim" Part!, December 14, 2004
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.
(same text as is found in my review on the "tin box" version of FS2004)
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
