Why are we still running FS2004?

[huub vink]

We are close to finish another year. Which is traditionally the time of the year to think about things, you don't have the time to think about during the rest of the year.....

This brought me to the question in the title or: "Why are we still running FS2004".

I really don't want to bash FSX as its also a great program, but as you can read below I have good reasons to stay flying FS2004.

For me personally its mainly the simplicity compared with FSX. Driven by the weird feeling you always should have the latest, I went over to FSX not long after it was released. I even bough a new computer for it! Like I had done with FS9, I tuned it in such a way I liked it and I was quite pleased with it. But I always kept firing up my old FS9 installs. And there were actually quite some reason to do that. As there are far more free and payware models available for FS9 than there will ever be for FSX especially when you (like me) install cfs2 models in your Golden Wings install. Many models for FSX are only available as payware, which makes FSX much more expensive. The amount of freeware scenery for FS9 is stunning as well, and even after downloading half the world, my FS9 installs kept running as smooth as they had ever done.

Of course FSX offered many more possibilities. But with the additional possibility it also became more complex to fly the models. Especially for a "Jump in the plane and fly away" guy like me models became too complex.

As I also like to make alternative liveries, I had to deal with the complex FSX textures. Next to the "normal texture" with a predictable alpha layer, I suddenly had to deal with the textures, spec-maps and bump-maps. All with their own alpha layer, which all had unexpected effects.....

As FSX is already too complex for me, it doesn't make sense to move on to Prepar3d or X-plane.

All reasons for me to return to FS9 and leave my huge FSX install slowly dust away! Now I'm curious to learn what your reason is to stick with FS2004.

Cheers,
Huub

[rgatkinson]

With you all the way Huub. I still prefer FS9 to FSX, FSX-SE, X-Plane etc. and will continue to use it, and the numerous free and paid for add-ons that I have for it, for as long a I can.

Taff

[wombat666]

I have a few different FS2004 variations on their very own HD as so many aircraft I like to 'fly' are only available for FS2004 and so much of the add-on scenery around (ether free or commercial) covers areas of personal interest.
The FS2004 (mostly freeware!) developers seem to be far more creative in their interests and offerings than those (mostly commercial) working with FSX/FSX-SE/P3d etc or the 'other' variations.

[Motormouse]

In my case, it's simple, despite having a system that should run X with no issues, after 10 minutes it (X) degenerates to a slide show, there's something in X that hoovers up memory, plus , I've spent a lot of $ on various
payware addons for FS9, that dont transfer to X, and to be honest, don't see why I should pay twice for something.

Ttfn

Pete

[Mick]

Huub, my reasons are pretty much the same as yours.

At first I thought I would go to FSX just as I'd gone from FS8 to FS9. Then I saw the screen shots that were posted and I saw that FSX didn't look any better than a well developed FS9. And there wasn't and would never be a Golden Wings X.

It occurred to me to keep GW and go to FSX for more modern aircraft, but I still didn't see FSX looking any better than my well-developed FS9. If I were staring from scratch I would probably rather have FSX than FS9 straight from the box, but that's not the situation I was in. I had lots of scenery and many, many aircraft that would not work in FSX that I didn't want to abandon.

As time went on I saw FSX, FSX SP1, FSX Acceleration, FSX Steam, and some of them looked like whole new sims that would make whole big batches of add-ons obsolete. There appeared to be FSX models that wouldn't work in some FSX versions. Bah! The more I saw and learned about FSX the less interested I became.

I now have four versions of FS9 installed: Golden Wings for the pre-WW2 and WW2 stuff, FS1954 for the Classic era, FSJetAge for the late 1950s and 1960s, all pretty well developed, and FS2004 for the current era, developed in my local geographic area but not any further, since it dawned on me that there was no point in developing it further when it became clear that I would probably never use it.

If no more aircraft or scenery was ever developed for FS9, I already have more aircraft to fly and more nice scenery to fly from than I would ever get around to if I live to be 100. Heck, I have more planned scenery tweaks and more planned aircraft paint jobs to keep me too busy to fly if I live to be 100.

So I have nothing against FSX or the newer versions derived from it. I just have no need for them or interest in them. Maybe FS2020 will tickle my fancy, but I wouldn't count on it.

[HorusJ]

My reasons are simple.I can't afford a PC that is required for newer flightsims with serious real life situations taking priority.I am VERY happy with "good'old" FS2004.

[jamminjames]

The computer my brother built for me runs them both no problem. I spend about the same amount time on both as some add-ons are only made for one or the other. Fs2004 is like my first real girlfriend, It just makes me feel good.

[zswobbie1]

Huub, whats the secret to get CFS2 planes into FS2004?

So, I have various dedicated installs for FS2004
Alaska, Golden Wings, Ford Tri-Motor Project, Vintage, Heritage, Space (space scenery & space ships), History, FS2004SE (scenery & planes for our Virual club, so we all have the same stuff) and an FS2004 install for testing & 'normal'stuff.

All the above points are true, with the range of plains, boats, cars, skiers, fire engines, and many unusual aircraft & scenery, that the others do not have.

Thanks to all the freeware guys that have given & continue to give us so much joy.

[Motormouse]

Huub, whats the secret to get CFS2 planes into FS2004?

.

No real secret Robbie, just a little bit of experimentation.

Firstly, the aircraft.cfg file needs the UI lines adding, then the DP (cfs damage profile) lines and the associated dp file removed.

Then, make sure the folder structure is same as fs2004, with model, panel, sound and texture folders, an aircraft.cfg file, and an .air file

And you should be good to go.

Now...the experimentation bit...some cfs planes need minimum throttle setting adjusted in the aircraft.cfg file to stop engines cutting out when throttle closed, and some need a bit of extra up elevator.

Ttfn

Pete

[Mark]

It's simply the best overall flight sim imo. There is absolutely no other reason I use it. The rest of the world can do as they like! lol
I would have no restrictions going too or running FS2020 really well but I have ZERO interest in buying it. I still see myself using only FS2004 years from now.
People always seem to think they must move on. No, you don't.

[darrenvox]

same, ive dabble into previous sims before this one but am not able to exert or extend my interest as much as Fs9 does!! i sont even gly fsx se that much..

my 2 cents!!

[zswobbie1]

Thanks, Pete.
I thought there was a bit more to do.
CFS2 has some fun planes that I'm going to play with.

Also, FS2004 just works.. More time flying than tweeking..

[zswobbie1]

Thanks, Pete.
I thought there was a bit more to do.
CFS2 has some fun planes that I'm going to play with.

Also, FS2004 just works.. More time flying than tweeking..

[zswobbie1]

Thanks, Pete.
I thought there was a bit more to do.
CFS2 has some fun planes that I'm going to play with.

Also, FS2004 just works.. More time flying than tweeking..

[Motormouse]

Thanks, Pete.
I thought there was a bit more to do.
CFS2 has some fun planes that I'm going to play with.

.

The only other issues you may encounter, are prop blur textures (easily fixed with one of Bananabob's, ) and make sure the model is made in gmax/fsds2

Ttfn

Pete

Ps.


http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ght-Sim-to-FS9

[Mick]

Another thing: some older CFS2 planes, like some older FS2002 planes, lose their props and possibly other animations, in FS9. It depends on what software they were built with. Nothing can be done about it. But the better CFS2 planes tend to be the newer ones that were built with newer software and work well in FS9. So if that happens on a plane you try, don't let that stop you from trying others.

Some say that CFS2 planes need some tweaks to the flight model to fly properly in FS9. I suppose that makes sense, since the sims are different in some ways. Apparently CFS2 is more like FS8 than FS9. It hasn't been a problem with the CFS2 planes I've flown in FS9. I guess it's a matter of making the flight model "as real as it gets," but FS's "real as it gets" isn't really all that real anyway.

[SIAI S81]

I don't spend too much money in computers, my old thing here still runs XP professional and it's still doing good. I like this sim, it's easy to use and you can still find plenty of models to fly. I love my FS9, it's like having the chance to fly a jet and fly and old biplane instead.

[michaelvader]

Hallo friends,
yes I agree with you,
when FSX came out I tried it out - and got a "Dia show"
Or I had to down so much the options that it was worse than FS2000.
Nein Danke !
What find so sad is that a lot of designers of ac and scenery ignore the still
great community of FS2004 users.
We also would be glad to get historic scenery of good old europe !
Yes I put an exclamation sign as it is sad that our community is as such ignored.
For the aircraft Milton Shupe and his friends show that it is possible to make
superb ac in ultra high quality for FS2004.
A big big Thank You from my heart to all the designers who do not forget us
Yours
Papi

[Fleet Canuck]

This may seem like a trivial reason, but I'm accustomed to the user interface with FS9 and don't want to learn a new one. I also don't want a slide show, and don't want to lose the aircraft I enjoy.

My one concern for the future is that someday there will be an operating system that FS9 won't work with. It's been great all the way up to Windows 10. I don't understand enough about computers to know if that's even something I should worry about. What do you think?

[Mark]

This may seem like a trivial reason, but I'm accustomed to the user interface with FS9 and don't want to learn a new one. I also don't want a slide show, and don't want to lose the aircraft I enjoy.

My one concern for the future is that someday there will be an operating system that FS9 won't work with. It's been great all the way up to Windows 10. I don't understand enough about computers to know if that's even something I should worry about. What do you think?

It could break with the very next Win 10 update unfortunately. Many games that at one time worked with Win 10 were killed later on by updates. Why I hate Win 10. If you have Win 7 discs, don't get rid of them.

I made some interfaces for FS9 if you want some choice. They don't change the way the interface looks or works, just themes it. Just go to Flightsim and put fs2004interface* in the search. I recommend pack 2 myself.

[llanning08]

I still enjoy Fs2004. It provides an excellent platform for the many models I have bought or collected which do not work well in FSX. Fs2004 tweaked gives great results with both scenery and aircraft. It runs well on my older XP system and my Windows 7 system with less (my opinion) unexpected glitches. I use Active Sky Evolution for weather, so no problem there.

For those who enjoy the Golden Age of flight, and early aviation, Fs2004 is I feel superior to FSX. In fact, those very early aircraft often behaved a bit erratically and really were hard to fly! Really "hands on".

I also still enjoy my really oldies by flying Fs2002. Great for relaxed flight simming, and Lyons worked real magic with his beautiful creations, both aircraft and scenery.

For those interested Fs2002 and Fs2004, there is an enormous library of scenery and aircraft to pick through and make a nicely customized era install (or as many installs as you like).

Looking to the future does not preclude also enjoying the past.

[Priller]

It could break with the very next Win 10 update unfortunately. Many games that at one time worked with Win 10 were killed later on by updates. Why I hate Win 10. If you have Win 7 discs, don't get rid of them.

I made some interfaces for FS9 if you want some choice. They don't change the way the interface looks or works, just themes it. Just go to Flightsim and put fs2004interface* in the search. I recommend pack 2 myself.

As long as there are 32 bit applications that are being developed, you have nothing to fear. Even though the Windows 10 iterations are 64 bit, they allow for 32 bit applications to run on it (in the folder program files (x86))

Only when operating systems would go 128 bit, FS9 will cease to function. And that is not happening anytime soon. If ever.

As for holding on to Windows 7, that is very bad advice indeed. There is this small thing called security to think about...

Priller

[Mark]

As long as there are 32 bit applications that are being developed, you have nothing to fear. Even though the Windows 10 iterations are 64 bit, they allow for 32 bit applications to run on it (in the folder program files (x86))

Only when operating systems would go 128 bit, FS9 will cease to function. And that is not happening anytime soon. If ever.

As for holding on to Windows 7, that is very bad advice indeed. There is this small thing called security to think about...

Priller

You use Win 7 offline for FS9 and you buy a dirt cheap Win 10 laptop for online use.

32 bit or 64 bit has nothing to do with a game continuing to work on Win 10. Win 10 evolves leaving legacy components behind. When a legacy component your old game relies upon is left behind, the game breaks. I showed the below example on Flightsim. This game worked perfectly on Win 10 initially. Then came an update that broke any animation in the game and this is how it looks for everyone trying to run it on Win 10 now. A mass of old games lost the ability of functioning anti aliasing with an update. Other games have stopped functioning full stop.

There is absolutely no guarantee the next time you go to start FS it will work unless you have stopped Win 10 updates. If you've done that, you might as well be using Win 7.

[vonernsk]

My remarks made on 20 Oct when the lovely Messerschmitt 109 C and Ds arrive.
Huub, I distinctly remember you advising me to go to FSX some years ago. Well, what goes around - comes around.

'Shessi, these early Me-109s look really great. Thanks for filling in another chunk of the early history of this aircraft. Also thanks in anticipation of Papi's excellent panels and manual. Just when I think that FS9 is about at the end of the road for new aircraft offerings, more excellence arrives.

A friend asked me if I was going to get a new PC to cope with the upcoming FS 2020. It is an indication of the excellence of the a/c, both payware and freeware, that have been produced for this very old programme, together with the fact that it has given me a lot of personal sim-flying satisfaction, that I have not really been looking to upgrade to something 'better'. Maybe I'm at an age where change is always a little suspect and daunting. But I have had such great times flying such great offerings from some real craftsmen and artisans that I see little need to turn to another source, when I have got to know this old friend so well.

Not to mention the unhesitating support and advice given by Sim-Outhouse when a glitch is encountered.

Thank you all from my bunker in the mountains of N Wales.'
Mal

[huub vink]

My remarks made on 20 Oct when the lovely Messerschmitt 109 C and Ds arrive.
Huub, I distinctly remember you advising me to go to FSX some years ago. Well, what goes around - comes around.

..................

Mal,

I can't recall why I advised you to move to FSX. But flying FS2004 is no reason not to fly FSX. There are things which FSX offers, which I can't never have in FS2004. Therefore I fly FSX as well. As I said, simplicity brings me back to FS9.

Cheers,
Huub