World Airports 2

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
11 answers Last reply
More about world airports
  1. 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
  2. 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
    >
    >
  3. 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
  4. 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_home.html ) , Cessna
    310 ( http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/C310/preview_home.html ) 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
    >
    >
    >
  5. 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_home.html ) , Cessna
    > 310 ( http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/C310/preview_home.html ) 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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  6. 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
  7. 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
    >
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Video Games