Man what a waste of money. It's got all the same generic scenery, even in the so called "high definition cities" like san fran...Sure, the textures are a little bit better, but they still look GENERIC and repetetive!! Microsoft needs to take some lessons from Looking glass and their Flight Unlimited series with their truly realistic sattelite scenery...
Oh yeah, one more thing. Microsoft did all elevation data everywhere, but it ain't all that exact(everything is popping up all over the place..weird), and when topped with generic textures it makes for boring flight. The worst part about the way FS now manages the graphics is that in a generic area where i'd get 60-80 FPS on FS98, I now only get 25-30 on flat spots in FS2000.When in elevation detailed ares i'm lucky to get 15 fps and my system crawls along at 5 fps when near that one Mountain(Mt Ranier)they show off on the box...get real Microsoft.This happens even when turning down the detail...it gives 3-5 fps..WOW! Why i dunno, scenery looks the same save for a different texture and more detailed elevation. I have a 504a,128 megs and a tnt2ultra..but I feel like im running a p133! The only good things in FS2000 are the new horizon/sky, real time weather(downloadable...ok at best, trust me it doesn't replicate the weather to a tee, just the basics)The cumulous clouds are a JOKE! Talk about fake..they are just as bad as the stacked cube clouds of fs98.

Don't waste your money if you have fs98!

Steve


[This message has been edited by MiataSteve (edited 11-06-1999).]