For those of you who like flight sims..

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Sinister Angel, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. Sinister Angel

    Sinister Angel I'd Hit It!

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, Michigan
    I myself prefer X-plane due to what my friend and myself consider a superior physics model to FS2k4. Graphics aren't the best compared to MSFS, but we like the physics. However times are changing. X-Plane 8 looks like its really getting the ball rolling on new graphics. Just take a look at this link

    http://www.x-plane.com/v8shots.html

    Just thought I'd drop a line on this since I just saw it recently and thought some of you might enjoy it. The sim is priced to sell as well. I have version 7, but I might have to upgrade when 8 is really out of beta in terms of graphics...
     
  2. AME206350

    AME206350

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
    Wow, nice scenery density!

    I'm mostly just into the combat sims now but I have logged a lot of time on MSFS 2004.

    My current fave is Lock-On:Modern Air Combat.

    Nice to see X-Plane coming along though.;)
    JR
     

  3. Sinister Angel

    Sinister Angel I'd Hit It!

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, Michigan
    LOMAC, now that is definately a card killer if you jack up all the settings :cool:
     
  4. SpiritZeroThree

    SpiritZeroThree

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, MI USA
    Love LOMAC, but it's just too hard on my system to be fun. Don't get me wrong, great sim but my system just isn't up to it. That and Strike Fighters - Project 1 is still being supported, and some of the latest add-ons for that sim are simply amazing. Just as pretty as lockon the only thing you don't get is the in depth systems. But for the plethora of user created aircraft i'll accept that. Time to go splash some Migs from my F-4F/ICE
     
  5. Bullman

    Bullman Deranged Deputy

    Messages:
    13,900
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Location:
    SW Virginia
    I still love the MS Combat Flight Simulators (1,2 and 3). I like the old warbirds and never really got the liking for jets, although CFS three gives you a taste of jet combat. I just wish I could get my computer working good enough to run them. My next computer is going to be kick butt, and it is NOT going to have a modem.
     
  6. SpiritZeroThree

    SpiritZeroThree

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, MI USA
    Personally i prefer the 1c:Maddox Games for prop-sim realism IL- Forgotten Battles if you want German/Russian, and teh new Pacific Fighters for a little carrier ops action. IMHO much better realism, better graphics, and better gameplay. The only thing it lacks is the user created expansions that the MS Combat flight sims offer. no big loss as IL2 and PF both have more than enough planes to keep me entertained. If you haven't already i urge you to give either title a try
     
  7. AME206350

    AME206350

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
    Yeah, right you are. I have an Athlon 3200+ w/1GB ram and an ATI 9800 pRO 256MB and my frame rates really aren't that impressive with evreything on HIGH detail (very playable though).

    No argument with your point, I just can't stay away from LOMAC...it's great.;)

    JR
     
  8. NetNinja

    NetNinja Always Faithful

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Location:
    HotLanta, GA
    X-Plane is the bomb! I don't know what people are saying that MSFS is better than X-Plane is terms of aircraft rendering and realism.

    I have both and X-Plane is a winner hands down.
     
  9. SpiritZeroThree

    SpiritZeroThree

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, MI USA
    i think the there are only 2 advantages to MSFS (yes, ONLY...)

    1. ATC is more streamlined
    2. Greater avaiability of aircraft. However if you have as much fun as i do in the X-Plane plane maker (bundled with the program) then this is kind of a moot point
     
  10. HKMark23

    HKMark23 Millennium Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 1999
    Location:
    Chez Bippy
    I have an old version of X-plane (IIRC V2.?) that I use for insturment practice and sometimes before I go to a field that Ive never been to.

    VERY good flight modeling, way better than MSFS or any of the others.
     
  11. Sinister Angel

    Sinister Angel I'd Hit It!

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, Michigan
    The other thing that could make it really big is the fact that there is an API for x-plane, so people can make their own hacks for it. I love how you can network different machines and use them for extra views, or have an instructor station.
     
  12. Sinister Angel

    Sinister Angel I'd Hit It!

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, Michigan
  13. SeaFlight

    SeaFlight In the Sky

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Location:
    Somewhere
  14. Sinister Angel

    Sinister Angel I'd Hit It!

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Traverse City, Michigan
    Looks like the frame rates are improving folks :D
     
  15. Guest

    Slightly off topic, but does anyone know what the best Cessna 172 is for FS2004? I don't particularly like the stock plane that's included. Seems too high performance compared to the real plane.
     
  16. CaptainOveur

    CaptainOveur

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Location:
    Prescott
    The FS2002 172SP seems too high performance comapred to the real 172SP? Have you flown a new 172SP? I find that the representation in FS2002 is definitely not overpowered, the 172SP loves to hang in there on a power on stall and the climb performance is pretty decent, especially at lower density altitudes. Compared to an old 150 or 160hp 172 at an FBO, the 172SP can be a pretty dramatic difference. Just to show how much variance there is, I used to fly a "hot-rodded" old 172 with about 175hp (but way lighter than a 172SP) and climb prop. That thing climbed like crazy, even better than the SP.

    Obviously, since your body is not feeling any accellerations, sideways, forward, or up and down, it's hard to get the sense that you are even "moving" apart from looking at the instruments. How often do you do things in your real aircraft that you do in FS2002, like turns without adding power (well no wonder you are slowing down, add some power!) or 60 degree banks, etc.

    Because the FS2002 172SP is a "brand new" airplane every time you fly, it is not going to be a stretch for it to make as much power as a brand new 172SP, but I don't find that it's overpowered, in fact it seems like it's a bit difficult to get some of the same climb rates at altitude, due to not being able to lean the engine correctly, or for some other reason that I am unaware of.
     
  17. Guest

    Maybe I should fly the new 172SP before making any judgements. I'm so used to the old, beat up 172s and 152s.
     
  18. CaptainOveur

    CaptainOveur

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Location:
    Prescott
    Well, your idea is definitely not flawed though, if you want to get the closest performance, perhaps someone does make a older 172 for the program, like a G or H perhaps...