Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

World Airports 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 17, 2005 1:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Evening all,

I'm relatively new to FS9, but am slowly running through the lessons in
order to builld up my skill level.

Once I've 'graduated' i'd like to start flying some of the larger a/c (767,
747 etc) using some of the bigger aitports dotted around the globe, would it
be worth my while to purchase World Airports 2 in order to visually upgrade
some of the airports, or are these something I could upgrade using freeware
downloads, slower I know but something I'm preper to do to save a little
cash. I'm based in the UK, so would be looking to upgrade LGW, Heathrow,
Manchester and then the larger airports in Europe and beyond.

Also, continuing in the same vain, would it be worth my while to purchase
some of the a/c packs from companies such as www.justflight.com , or are the
a/c available for download just as good, I perfer to fly aircraft belonging
to real world airlines (Virgin, BA etc), hence the interest in purchasing
the add-on pack.

TIA

More about : world airports

Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:12:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Dan,
If you are really new to it all, I wd suggest that you lurk here for a bit.
You will learn an awful lot. We all have. Try downloading some freeware
first, both airports and aircraft. There are a great many add-ons which
don't cost a thing from literally hundreds of websites. In the meantime, go
through the flying lessons as well as bobbing about all over the world in
FS2004. It is a BIG program and with lots of fun and experience to give you
before you spend another penny. However, I do hope you have a joystick,
however cheap. It will make a huge difference.
--
Quilljar
see http://client.webshots.com/album/194691959rhDQFi
Do not reply personally, all such emails go into my spam filter
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:28:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Dan,

If you genuinely want to learn to fly the bigger aircraft my recommendation
would be to invest in a decent add-on aircraft before the scenery. The
scenery will slow your FPS which is not good when learning. I have the
UK2000 scenery for the airports mentioned (I live in Manchester UK and now
work 2 mins walk from the end of 24R) and whilst it looks good it hurts
performance.

If you are learning to fly the bigger stuff why waste your time on the big
Boeings provided in FS9 as they do not fly properly and have the same
avionics as a Cessna. Better to buy something like the PMDG 737 or the PSS
stuff if you like Airbus. I'm not being a snob here, it's just that I spent
hours learning to land the 737-400 and 747 in FS 2002 and then moved onto
something more realistic. When I moved on I realised that all I'd learned
was how to land and compensate for a poor model. If you just want to say
you've landed the bigger aircraft in FS9 to your friends that's fine,
however if you are using it as a learning experience it's not a great plan.
Also, aircraft like the PMDG are actually easier to hand fly and land as
they behave more like the real thing, therefore you don't spend hours
learning to compensate for a poor flight model. If a real 737/747 handled
like the FS9 version I wouldn't ever get on one in real life.

Apologies for the long winded response. However the scenery IMHO is just a
bit of eye candy at the beginning and end of the flight. You actually spend
98% of the flight way too high to see it so invest in the aircraft unless
money is no object (Including the very fastest PC available).

Regards

Geoff




"Dan" <daniel.anderson10@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:55QQd.2000$xP6.1506@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Evening all,
>
> I'm relatively new to FS9, but am slowly running through the lessons in
> order to builld up my skill level.
>
> Once I've 'graduated' i'd like to start flying some of the larger a/c
(767,
> 747 etc) using some of the bigger aitports dotted around the globe, would
it
> be worth my while to purchase World Airports 2 in order to visually
upgrade
> some of the airports, or are these something I could upgrade using
freeware
> downloads, slower I know but something I'm preper to do to save a little
> cash. I'm based in the UK, so would be looking to upgrade LGW, Heathrow,
> Manchester and then the larger airports in Europe and beyond.
>
> Also, continuing in the same vain, would it be worth my while to purchase
> some of the a/c packs from companies such as www.justflight.com , or are
the
> a/c available for download just as good, I perfer to fly aircraft
belonging
> to real world airlines (Virgin, BA etc), hence the interest in purchasing
> the add-on pack.
>
> TIA
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:47:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv0l8i$qmi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Dan,
>
> If you genuinely want to learn to fly the bigger aircraft my
> recommendation
> would be to invest in a decent add-on aircraft before the scenery. The
> scenery will slow your FPS which is not good when learning. I have the
> UK2000 scenery for the airports mentioned (I live in Manchester UK and now
> work 2 mins walk from the end of 24R) and whilst it looks good it hurts
> performance.
>
> If you are learning to fly the bigger stuff why waste your time on the big
> Boeings provided in FS9 as they do not fly properly and have the same
> avionics as a Cessna. Better to buy something like the PMDG 737 or the PSS
> stuff if you like Airbus. I'm not being a snob here, it's just that I
> spent
> hours learning to land the 737-400 and 747 in FS 2002 and then moved onto
> something more realistic. When I moved on I realised that all I'd learned
> was how to land and compensate for a poor model. If you just want to say
> you've landed the bigger aircraft in FS9 to your friends that's fine,
> however if you are using it as a learning experience it's not a great
> plan.
> Also, aircraft like the PMDG are actually easier to hand fly and land as
> they behave more like the real thing, therefore you don't spend hours
> learning to compensate for a poor flight model. If a real 737/747 handled
> like the FS9 version I wouldn't ever get on one in real life.
>
> Apologies for the long winded response. However the scenery IMHO is just a
> bit of eye candy at the beginning and end of the flight. You actually
> spend
> 98% of the flight way too high to see it so invest in the aircraft unless
> money is no object (Including the very fastest PC available).
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff

Carry on expelling the wind Geoff!
Some good advice for us newbies there.
I've just removed Heathrow Pro (at least for the moment) because the frame
hit was getting in the way of my landings! That said, I couldn't fault the
detail and it may be I could tweak my graphics settings for improvement.

Regarding FS9 flight models are there any other aircraft your criticisms
could apply to? I fly the Cessna 172, Beechwood King and the Learjet 45.

Regards

Chris
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Chris,

Not quite familiar with the "expelling air" expression so I'll work on the
basis that it's not critical.

As for the other questions, firstly I'm not now, never have been, nor ever
will be a pilot. My comments on the PMDG flight model are based on both
speaking to someone who used to fly them and people on their forum who fly
the real thing for their day job and these add ons for fun and practice at
night. The owner of PMDG is a currently flying Boeing pilot as well so he
prides himself on the end result.

I was told the PSS747 (2002 only) was OK but not perfect. As for the PSS
Airbuses I'm sure that Oskar can answer that question far better than I ever
will.

With regard to other aircraft such as the C172, Beachcraft King, and Lear I
have not really looked too hard as I don't tend to fly that stuff. I'm
aware that a free C172 is available which is supposed to have a brilliant
model and is used in flight schools but I can't remember who does it. I'm
sure someone else on the forum can answer that as well as the Beachcraft and
Lear questions who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I. The
only other Aircraft I have are the Piper Archer (
http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/Archer/preview_h... ) , Cessna
310 ( http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/C310/preview_hom... ) and
the PSS Concorde. The Archer and 310 are from what I'm told very good
representations and flight models. The Archer is certainly great for
learning and IMO better than a C172. As for Concorde I'm not sure how good
the model is although I believe it's reasonable, however the technical
aspect is pretty good and complex which I tend to like. It's certainly not
a jump in and fly machine, and I've not really put enough hours in yet to
claim any sort of competence.

As far as scenery is concerned, I agree with your point that the quality is
great (I have used UK2000), but the FPS hit almost caused me to give up on
the whole FS thing recently. In fact as a result of FPS issues I have
generally not put in the time I used to in recent times, so I wouldn't want
a newbie's view of FS to be tarnished because of add on scenery rendering
the thing useless.

Regards

Geoff


"Chris Curtis" <nospam@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ve6dnTgU4qXF64nfRVn-vw@pipex.net...
> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cv0l8i$qmi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Dan,
> >
> > If you genuinely want to learn to fly the bigger aircraft my
> > recommendation
> > would be to invest in a decent add-on aircraft before the scenery. The
> > scenery will slow your FPS which is not good when learning. I have the
> > UK2000 scenery for the airports mentioned (I live in Manchester UK and
now
> > work 2 mins walk from the end of 24R) and whilst it looks good it hurts
> > performance.
> >
> > If you are learning to fly the bigger stuff why waste your time on the
big
> > Boeings provided in FS9 as they do not fly properly and have the same
> > avionics as a Cessna. Better to buy something like the PMDG 737 or the
PSS
> > stuff if you like Airbus. I'm not being a snob here, it's just that I
> > spent
> > hours learning to land the 737-400 and 747 in FS 2002 and then moved
onto
> > something more realistic. When I moved on I realised that all I'd
learned
> > was how to land and compensate for a poor model. If you just want to
say
> > you've landed the bigger aircraft in FS9 to your friends that's fine,
> > however if you are using it as a learning experience it's not a great
> > plan.
> > Also, aircraft like the PMDG are actually easier to hand fly and land as
> > they behave more like the real thing, therefore you don't spend hours
> > learning to compensate for a poor flight model. If a real 737/747
handled
> > like the FS9 version I wouldn't ever get on one in real life.
> >
> > Apologies for the long winded response. However the scenery IMHO is just
a
> > bit of eye candy at the beginning and end of the flight. You actually
> > spend
> > 98% of the flight way too high to see it so invest in the aircraft
unless
> > money is no object (Including the very fastest PC available).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Geoff
>
> Carry on expelling the wind Geoff!
> Some good advice for us newbies there.
> I've just removed Heathrow Pro (at least for the moment) because the frame
> hit was getting in the way of my landings! That said, I couldn't fault the
> detail and it may be I could tweak my graphics settings for improvement.
>
> Regarding FS9 flight models are there any other aircraft your criticisms
> could apply to? I fly the Cessna 172, Beechwood King and the Learjet 45.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Geoff

My "expelling air" comment was a poor attempt at humour referring to you
describing your post as long winded but now I'm fully alert I can see it
would be difficult to make the connection!

Thanks for your other input. I'll file them away for future reference!

Chris

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv2uj3$j53$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Chris,
>
> Not quite familiar with the "expelling air" expression so I'll work on the
> basis that it's not critical.
>
> As for the other questions, firstly I'm not now, never have been, nor ever
> will be a pilot. My comments on the PMDG flight model are based on both
> speaking to someone who used to fly them and people on their forum who fly
> the real thing for their day job and these add ons for fun and practice at
> night. The owner of PMDG is a currently flying Boeing pilot as well so he
> prides himself on the end result.
>
> I was told the PSS747 (2002 only) was OK but not perfect. As for the PSS
> Airbuses I'm sure that Oskar can answer that question far better than I
> ever
> will.
>
> With regard to other aircraft such as the C172, Beachcraft King, and Lear
> I
> have not really looked too hard as I don't tend to fly that stuff. I'm
> aware that a free C172 is available which is supposed to have a brilliant
> model and is used in flight schools but I can't remember who does it. I'm
> sure someone else on the forum can answer that as well as the Beachcraft
> and
> Lear questions who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I. The
> only other Aircraft I have are the Piper Archer (
> http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/Archer/preview_h... ) , Cessna
> 310 ( http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/C310/preview_hom... ) and
> the PSS Concorde. The Archer and 310 are from what I'm told very good
> representations and flight models. The Archer is certainly great for
> learning and IMO better than a C172. As for Concorde I'm not sure how good
> the model is although I believe it's reasonable, however the technical
> aspect is pretty good and complex which I tend to like. It's certainly
> not
> a jump in and fly machine, and I've not really put enough hours in yet to
> claim any sort of competence.
>
> As far as scenery is concerned, I agree with your point that the quality
> is
> great (I have used UK2000), but the FPS hit almost caused me to give up on
> the whole FS thing recently. In fact as a result of FPS issues I have
> generally not put in the time I used to in recent times, so I wouldn't
> want
> a newbie's view of FS to be tarnished because of add on scenery rendering
> the thing useless.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff
>
>
> "Chris Curtis" <nospam@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ve6dnTgU4qXF64nfRVn-vw@pipex.net...
>> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cv0l8i$qmi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> > Dan,
>> >
>> > If you genuinely want to learn to fly the bigger aircraft my
>> > recommendation
>> > would be to invest in a decent add-on aircraft before the scenery. The
>> > scenery will slow your FPS which is not good when learning. I have the
>> > UK2000 scenery for the airports mentioned (I live in Manchester UK and
> now
>> > work 2 mins walk from the end of 24R) and whilst it looks good it hurts
>> > performance.
>> >
>> > If you are learning to fly the bigger stuff why waste your time on the
> big
>> > Boeings provided in FS9 as they do not fly properly and have the same
>> > avionics as a Cessna. Better to buy something like the PMDG 737 or the
> PSS
>> > stuff if you like Airbus. I'm not being a snob here, it's just that I
>> > spent
>> > hours learning to land the 737-400 and 747 in FS 2002 and then moved
> onto
>> > something more realistic. When I moved on I realised that all I'd
> learned
>> > was how to land and compensate for a poor model. If you just want to
> say
>> > you've landed the bigger aircraft in FS9 to your friends that's fine,
>> > however if you are using it as a learning experience it's not a great
>> > plan.
>> > Also, aircraft like the PMDG are actually easier to hand fly and land
>> > as
>> > they behave more like the real thing, therefore you don't spend hours
>> > learning to compensate for a poor flight model. If a real 737/747
> handled
>> > like the FS9 version I wouldn't ever get on one in real life.
>> >
>> > Apologies for the long winded response. However the scenery IMHO is
>> > just
> a
>> > bit of eye candy at the beginning and end of the flight. You actually
>> > spend
>> > 98% of the flight way too high to see it so invest in the aircraft
> unless
>> > money is no object (Including the very fastest PC available).
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Geoff
>>
>> Carry on expelling the wind Geoff!
>> Some good advice for us newbies there.
>> I've just removed Heathrow Pro (at least for the moment) because the
>> frame
>> hit was getting in the way of my landings! That said, I couldn't fault
>> the
>> detail and it may be I could tweak my graphics settings for improvement.
>>
>> Regarding FS9 flight models are there any other aircraft your criticisms
>> could apply to? I fly the Cessna 172, Beechwood King and the Learjet 45.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Chris Curtis wrote:
> Geoff
>
> My "expelling air" comment was a poor attempt at humour referring to
> you describing your post as long winded but now I'm fully alert I can
> see it would be difficult to make the connection!
>
> Thanks for your other input. I'll file them away for future reference!
>
> Chris


Don't worry Chris, the reference was perfectly clear !

Quilly
Website
http://www.quilljar.btinternet.co.uk/
Do not reply personally, false address
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Quilly,

I was genuinely unfamiliar with it, but as I said I decided (Quite rightly
as it turns out)it was nothing offensive. Therefore it wasn't perfectly
clear, just clear to some.

Anyway I don't want to start a debate about it, I just wrote what I thought.

Regards

Geoff


"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37luokF59mdhdU1@individual.net...
> Chris Curtis wrote:
> > Geoff
> >
> > My "expelling air" comment was a poor attempt at humour referring to
> > you describing your post as long winded but now I'm fully alert I can
> > see it would be difficult to make the connection!
> >
> > Thanks for your other input. I'll file them away for future reference!
> >
> > Chris
>
>
> Don't worry Chris, the reference was perfectly clear !
>
> Quilly
> Website
> http://www.quilljar.btinternet.co.uk/
> Do not reply personally, false address
>
>
February 18, 2005 11:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

GeoffC wrote:
> Quilly,
>
> I was genuinely unfamiliar with it, but as I said I decided (Quite rightly
> as it turns out)it was nothing offensive. Therefore it wasn't perfectly
> clear, just clear to some.
>
> Anyway I don't want to start a debate about it, I just wrote what I thought.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff

Not offensive????? I thought he was farting.......


--

boB

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)


































just kidding
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Bob,

I don't know if it's the fact that I'm ex mil also, but I thought exactly
the same thing as you on first pass, hence my comment.

Geoff

"boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
news:KhsRd.14302$911.10049@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> GeoffC wrote:
> > Quilly,
> >
> > I was genuinely unfamiliar with it, but as I said I decided (Quite
rightly
> > as it turns out)it was nothing offensive. Therefore it wasn't perfectly
> > clear, just clear to some.
> >
> > Anyway I don't want to start a debate about it, I just wrote what I
thought.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Geoff
>
> Not offensive????? I thought he was farting.......
>
>
> --
>
> boB
>
> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> just kidding
February 19, 2005 5:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

GeoffC wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I don't know if it's the fact that I'm ex mil also, but I thought exactly
> the same thing as you on first pass, hence my comment.
>
> Geoff
>

:)  :)  great minds..... :) 


--

boB

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 2:49:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

2 nations separated by a common language? :) 

Chris

"boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
news:h7xRd.24842$Bx5.19551@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> GeoffC wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> I don't know if it's the fact that I'm ex mil also, but I thought exactly
>> the same thing as you on first pass, hence my comment.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>
> :)  :)  great minds..... :) 
>
>
> --
>
> boB
>
> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
!