Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should I Buy FS2002 Or Stick With FS98?  
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Posted (12 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5401 times:

Hi,

For the moment, I'm still running FS98. A couple of years ago, when MS released FS2000, I was soooo dissapointed by the system requirements. Although they claimed that it would work great on my system (P II MMX 350mHz, 128SDRAM, 32mB NVidia TNT2 Ultra), it sucked. Frame rates were sooooo low, so I decided not to buy it (yes, I first tried a copy of a friend).

Now, two years later, MS releases FS2002. today, I went to a local shop, and what did I read on the package: 'system requirements: PII, 300mHz, 64mB RAM, 8mN graphic card accelerator'.

My question: Is this true? Will I get acceptable framerates on my computer, or should I just stick to FS98 (which runs just fine, with all the installed add-ons)? Is FS2002 less demanding then FS2000?

Ivan


Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMark2102 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

I would surely go with FS2002. I had the same thing as you with running 98. 98 stinks compared to FS2002. The graphics are great and the airplanes are more useable and sound more real.

Mark


User currently offlineSharpnfuzzy From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5245 times:

FS2002 runs faster on my computer with all the graphics MAXED out, then FS2000 ever did...... I can't really remember all the way back to FS98.... but i'd say go for it

User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

Thanks for the comments, you guys...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5178 times:

The rule of thumb I have with Microsoft Games is to not buy one unless my computer runs at least twice as fast as the requirements on the box.

That seems to work pretty well.

That does not apply to work programs like MS Office. Those are usually pretty believable.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5155 times:

Greetings:

Unless you have a Pentium or Athlon 800 or higher and 256mb don't waste your money. You can run it on slower computers but you really can't take advantage of the great graphics. Flightsim.com has great section about FS2002 and their recommendations on running it, check it out.

Thanx
Tom


User currently offlineYKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

YOu can try X-Plane, the graphics are great and it runs smooth on my 533mhz, Voodoo3 system.

User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

Thanks for the comments.

I guess I'll stick with FS98 for the time being. I think it runs pretty well. The graphics aren't compareable with FS2002, but I'd rather have low graphics 25FPS then ultra-realistic 5FPS, right?

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offline757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

FS2002 might run fine on a PII 350 if you run it in lowest resolution with low detail settings. FS2002 has it's faults, but FS98 is old and smells of pee.

User currently offlineSenatorto From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5094 times:

I bought the FS2000 and be disappointed on the magitude of the improvement. I think FS 2002 will delight you, because it is worth to invest on a new game every 4 years

User currently offlineVgnAtl747 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5078 times:

There is no comparison - 2002


Work Hard. Fly Right. Continental Airlines
User currently offlineEham06 From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5063 times:

Those are the minimum reguirements. When you put the scenery on low it will give you good frame rates put there are a lot of detailes missing. When you want more detail you need at least 256Ram and a Pentium III. So I would stick to FS98 if I had such a computer

User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Thx Eham06!

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineB777 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5054 times:

Go for FS2002! I have a lowly Celeron 600 190MB and GeForce 2 64mb graphics card and it runs well, with graphics and atc setting set at about medium with autogen at normal. FS98 is no comparison! The only time I get crappy framerates is when I fly into a high resolution airport or city or I fly a downloaded plane that has high rez textures. FS2000 worked fine too (and that was before I updated from 64mb to 190mb and got the graphics card) Here is some pictures from both sims:






I suggest you get more ram if you do decide to get FS2002. But another good alternative like YKA suggest is get X-Plane. It's a pretty neat program-I got it myself!

Cheers,

James


User currently offlineB777 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

It's me again, I noticed the pictures don't show up. Sorry for the inconvience but you can get to the pictures by right clicking the pictures and under properties you will find the url to the page. It might take a while too load on slower connections.

James


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

I have been a flight simmer since FS 95 was released.

FS98 is a great program but after getting FS2000 I was pretty pi**** off. The game was bad and did not run the way I wanted.

Now that I have FS2002 I am pretty happy and would advise you to go get it. I run a PII 400MHz PC and it runs pretty well on that.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5012 times:

Granite:

You forgot to mention the amount of RAM you have on your system, as well as your video card...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi

Sorry............256MB RAM and 64MB on the graphics card.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineAloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Apuneger:

Please get FS2002. I am currently running FS98 too, and I can't wait to install my FS2002. However I'm out of hard drive space on my computer so I'm saving money to buy a third hard drive for my comp.

Here's what you can expect for FS2002, based on what I have read from customers on Flightsim.com, airliners.net, and other sources:

Lower FPS than FS98, but MUCH smoother. That is, 10fps will LOOK and FEEL like 25FPS. Because in FS98, have you noticed that in detailed scenery areas, teh frames "jump"? That is, instead of a smooth transition at lower frame rates, the aircraft and scenery jerk.

Well that's gone in FS2002, smooth as a baby's bottm.  Big grin

Graphics are great, even if you only have the sliders on halfway. In FS2000, when I had it, I can to set the sliders back, and only the ground immediately beneath my aircraft had texture!! In FS2002 you can get away with more texture, and less drop in frame rates.

Autogen scenery: MEans less load on your computer. Autogen is a huge step up from the scenery in FS98 and FS2000, in that not every feature has been specifically placed, and created, rather, you have a set of standard objects that pop up in their respective places, all over the globe. What does this mean? It means the same building could be used in several cities at a time, instead oa specific building for a specific city, whcih uses up time and space to load, and makes the scenery complex. Autogen usues simple defaults, but don't think that "default" means crap, these defaults are unlike anything you've seen. Take a look for yourself.

Also, there's a new mesh terrain generator, more advanced than FS2000, and less taxing on frame rates.

Sound quality has improved, and the "landable water" is gone. That is, if you land an airline rin the water, it sinks, it doesn't just sit there like in FS2000 and 98.

Waves, yep, there's moving waves in the water. Fly over a lake at very low altitude, and your wake turbulence will stir up waves.

Lighting is back, rain is too, and the clouds are even more realistic than FS2000 clouds, perhaps the best yet. And also, as always, less taxing on frame rates.

So what does all this add up to?

Well, if you're getting 25FPS in FS98, you'll get 25FPS(smoother) in FS2002, plus alot, lot, LOT more.

Please go get FS2002, you will not regret it.

Aloha 737-200!!  Wink/being sarcastic


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Should I Buy FS2002 Or Stick With FS98?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should I Buy It Or... posted Tue Mar 7 2000 20:56:55 by KLM672
Pilots With FS98 Or FS200 Wanted posted Mon Nov 27 2000 23:42:31 by Delta717
Should I Buy FS2004? posted Sun May 7 2006 01:26:31 by ATAIndy
PSS 777 Vs. CLS 346 - Which One Should I Buy? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:17:17 by AirPacific747
Should I Buy Flight Sim Scenery Enhanser? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 00:11:22 by Jetmatt777
So Now, FS2002 Or FS2004? posted Fri Mar 5 2004 06:29:49 by NWA742
What Should You Clean Your Herpa's With? posted Sat Oct 4 2003 04:02:30 by Tommy767
Help With FS98- BlueSky Utility posted Wed Oct 23 2002 11:53:16 by KLAX
Fs2k2 With Fs98 Display-like Settings? posted Sun Oct 6 2002 22:15:50 by Cramos
Should I Buy "Ultimate HK Simulation"? posted Sun Jul 21 2002 04:27:15 by H. Simpson

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format