jenat-lai wrote:lukexcom wrote:Personally, I think FS2004 is worth it just for the vastly improved ATC and its astounding weather engine. The clickable and interactive virtual cockpits are a dream, I rarely spend time in the 2d panels nowadays. Plus, more and more add-ons are being designed for FS2004 exclusively.
And yes, my C152 can and does pull more g's than anyone's desktop.
EDIT: look here at the comprehensive FS2004 review at
avsim.com
ok so you like FS for
1:Improved ATC
2:Weather Engine
3:Clickable Virtual Cockpits
4:Addons for FS2004 coming out
Ok well and good, but Im a bit of a specialised user.
1: I use vatsim. I never use the inbuilt ATC, I hardly ever fly not connected to Vatsim.net, in multiplayer, with the multiplayer Air Traffic. so the ATC I use (Real live people with virtual radar screens by ASRC) are better than FS2010 is going to have still. I talk to the guys with my voice though a michrophone, and they talk back to me the same. They make mistakes sometimes, but usually they don't make it for long. It feels more real. heck, the only more real ATC you can get is having a VHF radio installed in your computer.
You do bring up a good point, VATSIM does have a great ATC system. Although sometimes I do find myself going back into the normal ATC just to see how the interactions are done there. I haven't been on it much, recently, what with three consecutively broken (cheap) mikes (going to purchase a real, quality computer headset soon) and me not willing to use my Avcomm 900 headset for the computer (it belongs in the cockpit, not by the monitor
).
jenat-lai wrote:2: Vatsim comes with its own weather engine as part of Squawkbox 2.3, however FS2004 has great clouds, I'll half give that one to you.
Concur.
jenat-lai wrote:3: I hate virtual cockpits still, theyre great for screenshots, and a bit of fun in cruise to alleviate boredom, but when I get down and dirty in the Circuit pattern, or on the descent and approach, 2D for me, all the information right at your fingertips. I guess Im used to that perspective for the dirty work. Feels more natural after being behind the wheel of a real C172. The pan speed in Virtual cockpit is too slow for me. I like to take a snatch-grab glance over my left shoulder for about 1.5 seconds in the traffic pattern at regular intervals (ie every 8 seconds) whyle flying the standard GA traffic pattern. the VC is still a bit too clumbsy for this with a hatswitch view.
You do bring up good points. For me, however, it's an issue of peripheral perspective. In 2d panels, when I adjust the zoom factor to .75 or .65 or whatever I want it to be to get at least a bit of peripheral vision (on my 19" monitor), I only get the outside view adjusted, but not the panel. But when in 3d mode, a change in zoom values adjusts both the outside world and the amount of cockpit visible.
When in the pattern in Realair's 172, for instance, I just center the view on the 3d cockpit and fly it in, and all of the instruments and relative info is there for me, plus that small amount of peripheral vision. For me, it's closer to when I'm in a real C152 on final than the 2d panel. Even better still is Active Camera Pro. It gives me all of the head movements that occur when changing an aircraft's attitude or direction of flight. The head bobbing works great.
Even in IFR on a simple CATII ILS, when on the PMDG737NG, I still like to use the 3d cockpit mode. If I need to access something out of the way or awkwardly positioned to the main displays, like the FMC, I can always bring it up with Shift-4, just like in the 2d panel.
Now, I can understand that depending on the resolution, that EFIS display may get very small and almost unreadable. But that comes with computer power. I sometimes run FS2004 at 16x12, especially when flying that 737NG. That way I get a far clearer 3d cockpit at .7 zoom with readable gauges and displays. With some tweaks, frames stay within 15-25 fps, with a cap set at 26 or 23.
IIRC, the VC slew rate *should* be adjustable.
I guess it's all a matter of preference.
jenat-lai wrote:4: so far all the serious aircraft addons (Im talking payware with FMC's and proper flight dynamics and cockpit procedures) have been released for both FS2004. As I said in my previous post, my favourite aircraft the 767-300 by Pilot In Command/Wilco does not yet work in FS2004. (and doesn't have a virtual cockpit either btw) However I admit, some of the new serious VFR flying scenery (photographic non-repeating ground textures, Terrain meshes etc) are only for FS2004. but since most of my flying is done in Australia VFR only around Sydney, and the rest of the world and time I'm flying IFR in airliners at 35,000ft, Photographic ground textures arn't really that much of a plus.
Indeed, although they are talking about transitions to FS2004 only. If I remember correctly, and I probably don't on this particular add-on, but I think Dreamfleet mentioned a FS2004-only possibility for their 727...not sure, though.
But anyway, the next iteration of the 767 PIC by it's original designers is currently in the works, last time I checked. And there are ways of bringing the original 767 onto FS2004...albeit they're complex and difficult, and not always successful.
jenat-lai wrote:I give you 1 point out of 4. that is 2 halves of a point.
Though I will likley upgrade once more addons come up to FS2004, I can get Vatsim on FS2004 anyway, and I can still ignore Virtual Cockpits in it too
The improved graphics, and cloud modeling are the drawcard for me. Just want all my old addons (or even better, updated versions covering the same) to work in FS2004 first.
You can keep both on the hard drive and have them working properly. Although I do hear that a lot of users who did this tended to remove FS2002 within the first few months.
PSS
and not without making an international incident 
