Posted in: Add-on or Expansion Pack, FS2004 Tags: , , , , , ,

C90B for FS9 from Carenado

110341_28Carenado‘s promise to keep supporting the many users of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 is still bearing fruit, this time with the release of the C90B King Air.

The twin executive turboprop comes in six liveries (plus a blank for repainters), plus a wide array of custom gauges, animations and eye candy. 2d panel fans may want to steer clear, though, as the aircraft comes only with 2d pop-ups for some gauges – the rest is available in the VC only.

Find out more and add it to your collection via the product page here.

Guest
Dillon
1 year 10 months ago

Thanks Ian.

1 year 10 months ago

Definite virtual beer required here… I’m teetotal, so it’ll have to be virtual beer, but consider one bought for you at least. I overreacted there as well and I apologise for that.

Before I say anything else, I’m going to repeat something else I’ve said before, possibly not to you, but, again, I’ll still stand by it. If you’re happy with FS9, stick with it and don’t bother with FSX. Only upgrade at this point if you want something specific (e.g. MS Acceleration, A2A Accu-Sim or Orbx scenery, for example) that FS9 can’t offer. Otherwise, why spend money to do what you can already do with slightly shinier graphics?

If you do, £800 here will get you something like this: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-323-OE&groupid=43&catid=2474 – which is overclocked, yes (the site name kind of gives it away… ;)) but that’ll run FSX better than my wife’s PC, which could run FSX at about 25fps, with better graphics than FS9, but couldn’t do the top end “PMDG NGX into detailed JFK in heavy cloud cover with lots of AI”. Shaz’s PC is an early i7 at 2.4GHz with a small overclock (it came from OCUK, which is why I looked there for a current equivalent), has 8Gb RAm upgraded from the original 4Gb and was mid-range four years ago. It never gave us an OOM error, because I lowered sliders a bit, but does slow to low single digit frame rates and laughs at you when you push it too hard.

Guest
Dillon
1 year 10 months ago

Ian we have been cool for along time so I apologize for mis-reading your statement (and read what I wrote just before your last post). I do ask if you have any insight on a good machine I can get for FSX and it’s proper setup that me and many other don’t seem to know about please post it in that Avsim thread I have a link for above. If you know a way to get FSX up and running with little or no issue (look better than FS9) I’d love to hear it (read it). Thanks…

1 year 10 months ago

My initial piece of advice is don’t buy a Dell. They’re built as business/home office PCs with, basically, parts built to a budget for that purpose. A small local supplier could build you a better PC, cheaper and with equal support.

That said, I know a lot of people who run FSX without OOMs. They accept the limitations of their hardware and don’t try and shove every slider right (although my 7yr old, sadly deceased, PC could do that flying the Beaver in the back country and still achieve 25-30fps). On my new PC, which is an i7 @3.4GHz with no overclock at all, Win7 64, 16Gb RAM (although FSX can only use 1/4 of that), I can shove every slider right, load real weather and still get 50fps over New York in a low/medium complexity aircraft. I chose to take 30fps and decrease the area of complexity slider a notch to medium, so I could operate the PMDG B737-700NGX.

I have never claimed FSX to be perfect. If you read my comments further up this thread, you will see that I have pointed out one serious flaw and noted that there are many others as well. It was – and remains – under-developed, with many unaddressed flaws, the same as its predecessor. It is capable of a lot more than FS9 is, but at the cost of significantly higher hardware requirements.

I stand by my original statement, both sims, the same as P3D, X-Plane 9 and X-Plane 10, very much still have a role within the hobby, depending on what people want and what their hardware will allow. They’re all, in reality, very good sims in their own right.

1 year 10 months ago

For goodness sakes, Dillon. READ.

http://www.simflight.com/2013/05/19/c90b-for-fs9-from-carenado/#comment-372121

THAT is the comment I referred to. You continuously fail to read what people write and then use it to try and further your agenda. If you read what I actually said, I am saying that FS9 continues to be relevant; the exact opposite of what you claim.

As for “looks as good”, it doesn’t. It can only support lower resolution textures. It cannot support models with as many vertices or draw calls. It doesn’t support the graphical effects. The sound engine is less capable. That does not make it a bad sim.

Now seriously, get off your high horse, wind your neck in and any other similar description you need. Then come back and apologise, because you really need to.