Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 and earlier (2000, 98, 95)

[TowerDog]

MS Flight Simulator 2002 and the B-767?

Rumor says the MS Flight Simulator has a B-767 addition.
A quick search on Google did not find it.

Any info on B-757/767 programs to go with the MS Flight Simulator?

Thanks.

TD

[Skunkworks]

Try wilcopub.com - look for 767 PIC


/skunks

[ETOPS773]

Its a great add on..

try www.avsim.com for that kinda stuff...there is a freeware b767 series at www.avsim.com/posky
they are also making a 757,got 747/767/777/a330 series completed
just plane,not panel or sounds..but i mix them up and its a great combo.

for more fun,goto www.projectai.com,it will be up in 2-3 days.i made all the virgin plans
happy simming!!!

ETOPS

[pinkpilot]

Yoke for Flight Sim

I was thinking about buying the CH products yoke for flight sim, any one used it before?? Is it just a toy or something worthwhile?? Is it better to buy a yoke instead of a joystick??
Any comments, advice, recommendations are appreciated.
Thanks Pp

[iainpoll]

Might as well buy a joystick, and use the money you have saved to book a trial lesson at your local flying club. Much more fun. Simming is OK, I use FS2002 to practice radio navigation, but to be honest it's not 'really' like flying! Enjoy whatever you decide

[str12]

I used a yoke with MS FS 2002 and found it OK, possibly a bit more precise than a stick.

The Sims are good for practising radio nav and also as a procedure trainer, for example, doing your rejoin FREDA or downwind checks.

You can also use them to practise RT while flying: request a MATZ penetration etc.

I see with FS 2002 you can introduce failures during a flight - haven't used that fuctionality yet but will be interested in having a gander.

[Circuit Basher]

Of course, it IS possible to go over the top with Flight Sims.....

Extreme Flight Simming Example

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Simming

Yikes Where did you find that ?

[xerxius]

I want one...

Yes a yoke is infinitely better than a joystick.

[Circuit Basher]

I work for a fairly large UK company that used to be a part of the UK Swivel Service and we have got a fairly active newsgroup network where people share files and post good links. This is one such example!!

To the best of my knowledge, this is a genuine picture!!

I believe that the owner of this kit doesn't get out much

[Who has control?]

xerxius said:-

Yes a yoke is infinitely better than a joystick.

except in a real aircraft of course.

[rob_frost]

OMG!! wouldn't it be funny to swap all the keyboard/mouse/monitor leads arounds.

I would say unless you only play non combat flight sims a joy stick is a better long term option as you can use it with more games. And combat aircraft games just wouldn't work very well with a yoke..

[xerxius]

RF I agree, but if you're playing with FS2002 then a yoke may be a better bet than a joystick.

For ultimate realism when you're playing with your A320 sim then you'd better stick to a joystick and fly it with your left hand - that is if you want to play at being Captain of course.

[Ian_Wannabe]

Hey there,
As a once budding fsim 'er I've used both the Microsoft 'Prosomething' joystick and the CH Yolk you're talking about, and in my opinion this is how it goes:

For WWII simulations use a joystick, much easier to control your a/c and it suits the WWII feel.

For that Airbus you want to captain, use a joystick for the already mentioned reasons.

But, generally when using fsim I reckon that the CH yolk is far better and more realistic to use - although mine does stick sometimes....


Happy simmin'

Ian

[Tosh McCaber]

Flight Sim 2002 Hardware

My friend, FAPTL, is looking and waiting for his first job. In the meantime, apart from saving for his hour building, he's wanting to keep his hand in for his radio nav etc, with FS2002.

What would be the minimum hardware specs to upgrade his (older) computer for smooth operation?

[gofer]

FS2002 Hardware

Pentium 3 over 500Mhz as a minimum - the faster the better - and ca 10Gb of disk as minimum for the system, e-mail, software programs etc.

In addition a good screen and graphics card that work well together.

[Tosh McCaber]

Thanks for that. Unfortunately, that's what he's got at present, and it just stutters along.

Any other minimums- ie- is it better to upgade the graphics card, or processor- or both- bearing in mind that upgrade components are cheap at the moment. But , bearing in mind that the ATPL course has drained him dry financially- how much of an upgrade is necessary?

Anybody out there got a FS system which has no problems- if so what are your computer specs?


Thanks

[flybhx]

Before spending money on upgrades suggest he goes through options such as the graphics quality. As a non pilot I'm assuming that what he wishes to do does not need the high density scenery.Reducing the quality of the unnecessary bits of scenery reduces the processor load and should increase the frame rate

[Fujiflyer]

I use "On Top" flight simulator (ASA). I expect that this is less demanding of computing power than FS2002 as the graphics are somewhat simpler. When I first started using the software it was on a machine which exceeded the minimum system spec' by quite a reasonable margin however I found that the frame refresh rate was so slow (2 - 3 / second) that it made accurate flying very difficult and tedious. Sometime later I upgraded the PC (actually more of a replacement) - 1GHz Athlon, few hundred Mb RAM, better graphics card etc. The improvement I found when using the simulator was quite incredible. (frame rate about 8 / second)

I should think the same is probably even more relevant to FS2002. Of course for using the software as a procedural tool then the graphics settings can be set to require minimum system resources.

It would be useful (if you can) list the system spec' of the present system. A PIII 500MHz is not a bad system so I suspect that there is a bottle neck somewhere (poor graphics card for eg) or that the system settings are set at too demanding a level.


Fujiflyer

[SpinSpinSugar]

FS2002 is actually quite demanding on the processor, or at least the processor/gfx card demands are a little more even than most games which tend to rely heavily on the graphics card.

For what it's worth I've got a Windows XP system - 1.8Ghz Athlon XP paired with an old Geforce2 MX, 512Mb DDR RAM - and FS works fine at 1024x768 in 32bit.

These days upgrading your processor is a lot cheaper than buying a current generation graphics card, though pretty much anything with GeForce on it, or any recent Radeon card should be fine.