FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

The place for hardware and software issues, FS and non-FS related

Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry

Post Reply
User avatar
forthbridge
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1595
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 13:26
Location: Stirlingshire, UK

FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by forthbridge »

HI all,

Hope this is the right section to post this in - as I'm particularly concerned with the Maltby Mouthwaterers (the ones I can use for the time being that is... :lol: )

John replied in a previous post regarding the flight dynamics differing between 02 and 04, which is something I have looked into previously, although I have not managed to find and answer that is 'satisfactory' - probably too much info out there!

What puzzles me (and I am easily puzzled.. STUPID ) is the apparent randomness of aircraft handling - in the sense that I accept that David's wonderful machines are optimised for FS2004, and thus I do expect there to be some degree of handling issues - but the thing that gets me is that they fly SO WELL in FS02 - I have downloaded some machines for 04 which are the same (IE they handle pretty well) while others are like trying to lift a breezeblock off the runway, with no handling to speak of at all... and I find all this confusing and slightly off-putting.

Another aspect seems to be using ILS and navaids in particular. Sticking with ILS and autoland, in the VC10, if I use approach equivalent (usually EGPH, my local airfield in real life), the VC10 flies like a drunken lunatic is at the controls with lots of pitching and rolling, although it will find the spot eventually (usually insanely close to the runway) - although I usually switch to manual. Conversely, the Tridents are superb in that they fly in on ILS like they are on rails, onto the centre line every time - including choppy weather!

I do have payware with aircraft equipped with autoland which works well, although (possibly my incorrect use) whenever I try it on the Trident, the result is ploughing long before I get to the runway.

As to overall handling in the landing phase, I've found that coming in a little nose up solves the 'ground suction' problem with the VCs - the only issue this raises is a prolonged rollout with nose-up (it takes a little too long to go down of it's own accord).

I'd be obliged if anyone could add any comments to my theories on all this below.. (I know I have said this before but here we go... I do intend to get a copy of FS04, but as per usual when you look for something none of the usual stockist have it for the time being, so perhaps an online order is about to go in)

Anywway, here are my (Correct or incorrect?) assumptions in using 04 A/C in 02.

a: Total pot luck in handling. It would appear that a well programmed airfile/etc will however produce good results (ala DMs machines)
b: ILS/autoland - again pot luck, but should be OK for 'approach hold' - autoland perhaps not
c: does any of the above matter if I'm upgrading?
(although I still like to get the best out of what I have at the time) :$

Sorry to go on and on.....

Jim
Jim
Image

User avatar
RAF_Quantum
The Gurus
Posts: 2745
Joined: 04 Jul 2004, 23:36
Location: NE Lincolnshire UK
Contact:

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by RAF_Quantum »

My local "GAME" shop was selling FS2004 for £15 last week. You can buy it online for £12.99 inc P & P :

http://www.game.co.uk/ViewProduct.aspx?cat=&mid=269510

Rgds

John
Image

User avatar
TSR2
The Ministry
Posts: 16345
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 14:32
Location: North Tyneside, UK
Contact:

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by TSR2 »

Hi Jim,

A bit like I've been with FSX, I was a reasonably early adopter of FS9. In general if any aircraft had a good fde for 2002 it was obliterated in 2004.

DM did a small patch for the Trident to make it work in FS9 (2004) as I recall, it had a new air file, aircraft.cfg and some guages.

Similarly his old FS2002 VC10's didn't handle well in FS9, but fortunately at the time the new model (The FS9 - 2004) one was released with 9 months of the release of FS9.

Its virtually impossible to make a well engineered FS9 aircraft fly the same way in FS8 without some significant work.

FS9 is an excellent sim, leaps and bounds above FS8, and for £15 thats pretty dam good. I wouldn't waste any time trying to reverse engineer a perfectly good aircraft when you plan to upgrade. tonka
Ben.:tunes:

ImageImageImage

User avatar
forthbridge
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1595
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 13:26
Location: Stirlingshire, UK

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by forthbridge »

Thanks John and Ben,

Typically the only online store I didn't check out was Game, although the local branch is bereft of a copy. Time to place the order I think! ;-)

On the subject, could someone reply with a 'What's better' list for FS9 over FS8 in terms of the most obvious? To be honest although I'm quite 'into' the sims, up to now I haven't heard or seen anything to make me say 'Must get FS9'....

My machine is limited in what I can put into the simulators (lousy graphics card) so the McLeland field type scenes, while awaesome, won't get above 1FPS on my system, and at present the budget won't stretch to upgrading....

Jim
Jim
Image

User avatar
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by DaveB »

Agreed! :)

One major thing I found about FS9 was that it would work pretty well on a machine that ran 2002. OK.. I've never had a machine for any version where I could do full rights on the sliders but I do remember it running just fine with the minimum of tweaks. I still have it on an old Athlon XP1600+ (1400 in real money) and it runs as well on the settings I use as 2002 ever did and looks better :) What's more.. with the advent of FSX, you'll find a lot of FS9 payware is starting to drop in price so go on.. take the plunge.

EDIT..
Darn it Jim.. you'd just posted a second before I did and this post got spit out! :lol:
It's easier to list what ISN'T better on FS9 and this settles very well on the ATC engine. FS8's was cr@p and FS9's is pretty much identical. Just about every other aspect of FS9 is better. It looks better, it runs better, there are thousands more airfields (even as default), the wx engine is better I think (though I don't use it.. there are alternatives both freeware and payware) and the ATC is the same.. poo! :lol:

ATB

DaveB :tab:
ImageImage
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!

User avatar
forthbridge
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1595
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 13:26
Location: Stirlingshire, UK

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by forthbridge »

:lol:

Cheers Dave. I just chanced it and phoned the local 'Game' and was told they had '04 in stock - until he went to check.... :-(

So bang goes my instant fix. Never mind, a quick registration with Game, and I'll place an order today... 13 spondoolicks is a very reasonable price considering Amazon are still asking £31, with a 10 day lead time. The usual trick of leave it in the basket for a fortnight has not dropped the price!

Out of interest, one thing I do notice with some FS04 screenies is the 'low mist' which looks rather nice. Totally agree about the ATC - in fact 'my' FS world is 'Free flight' ATC.

Just got to amuse myself until the game arrives...... :think: :dance:

Jim
Jim
Image

User avatar
johnhinson
Victor
Victor
Posts: 218
Joined: 11 Feb 2005, 10:12
Location: Middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: FS02 v FS04 and intrumentation and the Maltby wonders

Post by johnhinson »

forthbridge wrote: On the subject, could someone reply with a 'What's better' list for FS9 over FS8 in terms of the most obvious? To be honest although I'm quite 'into' the sims, up to now I haven't heard or seen anything to make me say 'Must get FS9'....
To my mind, No1 improvement in FS2004 is the ATC, for one the ability to file a flight plan from an untowered airfield but especially the ability to re-file a cancelled flight plan. I find my flight plans often get cancelled because I've nodded off or am feeding the cat or whatever, and in FS2002 there was no way to get it back without restarting the flight.

But there are a lot of other good features too, touched on by others already.

FS2002 -> FS2004 ist gut.
FS2004 -> FSX ist kein blutiges gutes.

John H

Post Reply