Posted: 12/27/2003 6:29:33 PM EDT
|
I hinted around that I wanted this for Christmas. What I got was Flight Simulator 98. I says for Win 95/98/NT. Will it work on Win XP? Even if it will run on my computer, should I take it back and spend another $40 on FS 2004? Anyone with experience with both versions? I understand you can practice flying into the Twin Towers with 98, should I just keep it for anti-PC (politicaly correct) reasons? |
|
FS98 and FS2004 can't be compared. get 2004 if your system can handle it. minimum requirements are windows 2000/xp-128 mb ram processor 450 MHz hard drive 1.8 GB free video card 8MB/3D direct x 9.0 or later if you get it try doing aerobatics in the Tri-Motor, its a real trip. Edited to add I see your system now, get 2004, it is the best game I own. 98 is fun but no comparison, just be sure to have a joystick with a twist grip for the rudders. |
|
FS 2004 is awesome. No comparison in the two. I have and love FS 2004. I got Lock On: Modern Air Combat for Christmas, and it's been kicking my ass, and that of my PC (Athlon XP 1900, 1.24Gb memory, 128 Mb GefoRCE fX5600 Video Card). The graphics are so intensive and realistic that during low level flight (the closest to real I've seen) with explosions, I get down to 3 or 4 frames per second. Kinda sucks, but happens to all the systems, even those with more "OOMPH" than mine. I highly Recommend this sim if you like to shoot at things. Just be prepared to die alot. Flyable aircraft are: A-10 (Rocks!) F-15C Sukhoi Su-33 Su-27 Su-25 Mig-29A I now have to upgrade my processor (probably to a P4 3.2 GHz HT and more memory, about 3 gHz) and as I read it, the sim will still push hell out of the frame rate. Damn Them. It's awesome. SG |
|
Quoted: Is it memory then? I have a 1.8gHz P with 512k and the Lock On demo looked like a slide show. I hope you mean 512MB [:)]. With those specs, if it runs choppy I'm going to guess you have a crappy video card. What do you have in there? (And if you don't know, I'd be 99.9% sure it's crappy! [:D]) |
|
I'm running a 2800+, 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9700 Pro under XP Pro. I can kick up the settings in the ATI control panel to max and run 2004 at 1024x768/32 with almost everything topped out and hardly drop below 30fps. If you have a decent CPU and RAM the GPU makes or breaks the sim. Get 2004 and never look back. |
|
It depends on what kind of flying you're doing. If you use it for "Instrument flying practice, to just stay ahead of the airplane", then F.S.'98 will do just fine. The graphics are not that important since you're in the clouds most of the time anyway. And there is an instrument approach to practice to almost ALL major and municipal airports, no matter where you live. For VFR, and just "flying around", '04 is the better call. Here's the best idea; spend $5,000 on your instrument rating, and save the $28 more you need to spend on Flight Sim 2004! Radioman12 |
|
Quoted: 2004 is a must. I downloaded a F16 model and flew it over baghdad.. wish you could drop bombs or fire missiles. Try Falcon 4.0... Old (1998/1999), but it's to military sims what MS FS is to general aviation sims... LOMAC Is this of the 'Falcon 4.0' (a serious attempt at realisim) or 'F-15 Strike Eagle' (shooting arcade in the sky) style game? |
|
Falcon 4.0 is NOT an arcade game in any way, shape or form. The manual comes in a 3 ring binder, is a few hundred pages and written by a Viper pilot if I remember correctly. I was running 4.0 back when it was first out with a full Thrustmaster setup and it ROCKED! All you needed to do is figure out how to rig up a G-suit and it would be the closest thing to being there. |