OT -- Flight simulator

[Blueshockey6]

Any tips on the best flight simulator for a beginner?

[Pilot3033]

Realists say Xplane, but I actually prefer Microsoft's Flight Simulator. MSFS has some more scaleability, and frankly looks better. Xplane is only really useful if you only have a mac or you're going to hook up a full mock cockpit.

[Fryy/Avocadoflight]

ms2004, or fsx. im not too big a fan of fsx, it just uses way too much computer resources. ms2004 runs better. both have tons of downloads and mods which make it really fun, not to mention vatsim. using msfs really helped me get atc comms down in the real world as well.

[KHAOS]

using msfs really helped me get atc comms down in the real world as well.

+1 

While MSFS didn't teach me everything on how to listen and speak "pilot", it at least gave me a very good idea what to expect.  I'd say it got me introduced to about 65% of what real world coms are like.  My ear was already a little tuned by the time I started talking with ATC when I started flying IRL. 

As far as preferences with MSFS - I'd recommend if you can run Flight Simulator X, do it. 

However, Flight Simulator 2004 runs better with less hardware, as was previously mentioned.  There's a ton of addons for it as well.  But when it comes down to it, my advice is to try a little bit of everything and see what you like best.

[joeyb747]

Agreed. MSFS 2004.

[Phlux]

I enjoy flight simulator as well.

You guys will probably laugh me outta here for this question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway

What are the main differences between FS2002 and FS2004?  My PC is old (purchased Dec. 05) but I'm able to run FS2002 with everything maxed out and it looks pretty decent for an 8 year old sim.  I'm wondering though if it's worth looking into upgrading to FS2004, as there is no way my dinosaur will run FSX (specs - 3.2 P4, ATI Radeon 256, and 2 gig of ram).

Just curious if anyone could give me some insight.

[m50]

I have been a very disappointed user of FSX... it..needed the purchase of a new computer..much faster and more expensive than the PC I was useing which was only 4 years old....so I gave up on it..in fact I gave up completly on flight sim for the last  2 years....then I read in PC Pilot  a comparison of 2004 to FSX   I decided to give sim another chance and last month I was able to find FS 2004 on sale in Amazon...I am very pleased and agree with all the earlier praise  in this forum of 2004   M50

[Pilot3033]

I enjoy flight simulator as well.

You guys will probably laugh me outta here for this question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway

What are the main differences between FS2002 and FS2004?  My PC is old (purchased Dec. 05) but I'm able to run FS2002 with everything maxed out and it looks pretty decent for an 8 year old sim.  I'm wondering though if it's worth looking into upgrading to FS2004, as there is no way my dinosaur will run FSX (specs - 3.2 P4, ATI Radeon 256, and 2 gig of ram).

Just curious if anyone could give me some insight.

2004 really shines in the weather department. The rest of the goodies include updated graphics, better AI, etc etc. The true selling point now though, and it has been mentioned, are the slew of addons available, many for free.

[Phlux]

I bit the bullet last night and picked it up off of amazon for $18 including shipping.  My ye olde system should (I hope) be able to run it with the settings maxed out (in it's default configuration) pretty well.  I wouldn't be able to run Ultimate Terrain or Ground Environment Pro like that, but I'm in it for the practice more than anything else and those things are pretty expensive anyway.

[keith]

X-plane helped me with slips and x-wind landings.

The graphics are better than you might think.  Here are some photo albums with pics taken SEVERAL years ago:
http://picasaweb.google.com/keith.smith/EastToWestInTheWarrior  (a VFR coast to coast trip, navigating almost entirely by looking out the window...no GPS, very little VOR usage. Check pics 151 and 152 to see slope lift off a ridge to get more energy)


Here's a video of a run through the Grand Canyon, with stock scenery and textures:


Here's a leg from a VATSIM group flight:
http://picasaweb.google.com/keith.smith/Leg2CoastToCoastSaratoga

For more pics of the group coast to coast VFR flight, see the links in this forum post

When you configure Xplane to get the most from your hardware, the results are impressive, save for the lack of default terminal scenery and landmarks.

[Robert Larson]

FSX. Yes, you need more hardware to run it. Just like we needed more hardware to run FS04 back in 04 (upgrade that Pentium II time). It's worth the upgrade.

Don't forget your Saitek Flight Yoke Pro and TrackIR.

This is a nice setup:

[Phlux]

Roger that.  Actually I've got a Saitek X-52 I'm using which is working great.  All I need now are some rudder pedals and that TrackIR.

[bphendri]

Xplane is only really useful if you only have a mac.

Hey MSFS 2004 runs quite well on my Mac Pro 8 Core 3.0GHz thank you very much!
Actually it runs it much better then any of the PCs I ever ran it on.