Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator X/Archive 1

Response/critiques

According to the overwhelming public response, FSX is a very resource hungry game, especially when turned up to max. Other games have a 'public response section', why not FSX?

Just add what you feel is missing with sourced claims. There's never really any special "reason" why a criticism section may be missing. It has probably just not been made. If the information is widespread and easily sourced, it's likely to be useful. -- Northgrove 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Performance on average PCs

Go to the following links:

http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=32 http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=121 http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showforum=103 http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/sim/microsoftflightsimulatorx/forum.html?board_id=m-1-931252&pid=931252

You will get plenty of user feedback on those links!! FSX is very resource intensive. I have been around since the days of FS98 (1997). FS2000 was equally resource-intensive.

Do your research before buying it! Ignore the MS "minimum specs"; those specs will allow you to load the game and play on minimum settings!

I would recommend the following specs as MINIMUM: 2.0GHz CPU (Note that FSX isn't fully optimized for Dual Core processors), and a 128Mb Graphics Card, plus 512 Mb of RAM.

The ideal system specification would be (IMHO): 2Gb RAM, 3.5Ghz CPU, and a 512Mb graphics card. This won't be cheap, but it should perform. (Your mileage may vary - do your homework!)

The average PC will probably slow to a crawl in densely built-up areas, e.g. Seattle. You may have to disable a lot of "eye-candy" to get respectable frame rates. Autogen is a frame rate killer in FSX. The current version of FSX has DESERT textures in large areas of America and Europe .... no kidding! Here's proof:

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=121&topic_id=359750&mesg_id=359750&listing_type=search

Quote - "The video shows that most of the central and western US and much of Canada have been turned into an enormous, nearly featureless desert in this latest iteration of FS. Improved landclass files are needed desperately." This is also the case in Europe.

There are numerous errors in critical scenery areas. Some of the "detailed" cities have flooded rivers and strange "mounds" in rivers ... hmmm.

Thinking about getting FSX as a gift? I hope it goes well for you! You would be better off waiting 6 months or so, unless your loved one is under one of the following categories:

1) He/She loves tweaking. Getting the bumps ironed out of FSX can be time-consuming. Tell them to visit the flightsim forums listed above.

2) He/she has a powerful PC (over 3GHz cpu, over 128Mb graphics card, and over 1Gb of RAM!). This, ironically, doesn't guarantee good performance :-(

Think carefully and use the forums listed above. Good luck!!!! I can't speak my mind on the simulation forums, due to the number of zealouts. ~~WibblyWobbly

On my Pc there´s no problem. Ok...I have a powerful PC, but also on an average PC you can play the game well. At least better than Flight Simulator 2004! Dagadt

--I'm running FSX with AA, normal Autogen, maxed-out Scenery Density, 50% traffic, etc. on a 5-year-old 1.2GHz single core AMD Athlon....(74.177.34.47 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Mapping

I have heard from PC Gamer that Microsoft has mapped out certain cities in the game, does anyone know if this is true. --D-hyo 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft contracted NAVTEQ for such information: "Through NAVTEQ, data such as road network information, ferry landings, railroads, detailed water information (such as oceans, rivers, lakes, harbors, etc.), parks, golf courses, and recreational areas, this information enhances the "Flight Simulator X" user experience." -- Loiosh

--The FSX 3D world is vastly improved upon the older flight sim worlds. The terrain is overlayed with appropriate satellite imagery (atleast for most large cities) and appropriated with regional specific-autogenerated trees, buildings, telephone poles, traffic, and animals etc which all adds to it's authentic look. --70.59.155.91 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the 3 last versions and fs2000 does have mouse as yoke. -- LKLK

In flight sim 9, i flew from the nile delta in egypt to the gaza strip and saw the same farm repeated over and over again. when using the top-down view, the repetition in the autogen terrain scenery was obvious. does fsX have the same problem in top-down view? the demo shows too small an area to find out the answer to this question. feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you can answer this question. also, the problem of mandatory product activation for sessions longer than 1 hour should be mentioned on this page. Iosef aetos 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement resemblance

This entire article resembles an advertisement for FSX. I took out the worst parts of the article, but it still needs attention. This is the bulk of what I deleted (heading levels altered, but otherwise verbatim). C. M. Harris 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but most articles about software are like that. There's even whole articles devoted to new features and such (see Features new to Windows XP). If someone else agrees, I think it should be added back. —Mets501 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mets501. These sections mostly describe new features in the upcoming version of the product, and would be of particular interest to those who own any previous version of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The content seems quite objective to me, and does not encourage anyone to purchase a product. - Canwolf 23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As with the comment above me, I agree as well. The main point of interest when it comes to this game is where it differs from its predecessors. Why remove that? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's my response:

Just because most articles about software are like that doesn't mean they should be like that.

If I wanted to know about the new software, I could go to the official site of the game and learn every bit of information in the article.

That site is much more informative than this article.

That site is a more appropriate place for the aforementioned information than an encyclopedia meant to conform to WP:NPOV. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is non-neutral or irrelevant about a list of features? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Are we, or are we not, trying to make Wikipedia a resource comparable to Encyclopædia Brittanica in quality?
   1. If we are, then:
      1. Is the Brittanica at least a somewhat accurate guide to what Wikipedia should be like?
      2. Would you find a list of new features in Flight Simulator X in the Encyclopædia Brittanica?
         1. If you did, would you still credit the Brittanica with being a reliable source?
      3. How should different rules apply to Wikipedia?
   2. If Wikipedia differs from Encyclopedia Brittanica sufficiently to not have to follow the same content guidelines, then:
      1. Are we trying to make Wikipedia a repository of all human knowledge or an encyclopedia?
         1. If the former, then:
            1. The list of features can stay in the article.
            2. However, I, a relatively unknown secondary-school student, will be forced to write an article about myself in order to further Wikipedia's mission, as I am a piece of human knowledge that is not currently (to my knowledge) in Wikipedia.
         2. If the latter, then:
            1. The list of features, being informative but unencyclopedic, will have to come out. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is in between the two extremas, while is is NOT a repository of all knowledge, it has grown far beyond a classic encyclopedia(like Brittanica). That said, to add an entry about 'you' would have to meet several criteria set out by wiki or it will be prompty deleted: the information presented must be objective and verifiable, thus 'I am the most popular kid at school' does not count unless you have prof to back that up. the subject of the article should carry some significance, your mere exsistance in this universe does not justify an entry in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.123.40 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Now I'm starting to see some problems. While I still think mentioning the new features is useful, most of the list is of minor additions that will have little use for most readers. The whole thing should probably be converted properly to prose as well, though I'm not exactly sure how to make that work. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Demo

A limited demo of Flight Simulator X was released to the public on August 9, 2006, and can be downloaded from the official website, as well as from FilePlanet and Gamespot. The demo features Saint Maarten, Netherlands Antilles and the surrounding area, including the famous Princess Juliana International Airport, notable in the real-world for its short runway and low approaches over the beach. There are four playable aircraft (Bombardier CRJ-700, Beechcraft 58, DHC-2 Beaver and an ultralight aircraft), and three missions, one of which is actually an introductory tutorial. Even though playable, the demo still represents a beta release of the product, and has a few bugs, some which are recognized in the installation README file.

Standard vs. Deluxe Edition

Flight Simulator X will be released in two editions, Standard and Deluxe. As can be seen below, Deluxe incorporates some additional features, which are known to include, an on-disk Software Development Kit (SDK), three airplanes with the Garmin G1000 Flight Deck and player Air Traffic Control.

is there a difference in the level of detail between standard and deluxe for the same cities? right now the article implies that not only are there more cities for deluxe but that the cities that are featured on both versions are in an even higher level of detail in the deluxe version than in the standard version, just fyi. -drew, april 3 '07.

New features

The presently known new features in Flight Simulator X include:

• Improved graphics including enhanced texture resolution, new Earth model facilitating polar flights, true road data, region-specific textures, 3D animals, star constellations, etc. Also, the scenery textures now line up with the automatically generated (Autogen) buildings. Maximum rendering-engine-supported scenery resolution of 7cm/pixel (not available with default scenery).

• Improved default airport functionality -- appropriate dynamic vehicles, jetways etc. now featured by default where they exist in reality.
• The built-in GPS has been upgraded to the Garmin G1000 integrated glass cockpit -- featured in select aircraft in the Deluxe version only.
• Improved ATC featuring, for the first time, regional voice sets and also certain non-FAA procedures where appropriate (for example, altimeter/QNH scale in European units) and numerous minor updates such as an improved progressive-taxi feature.
• Improved and new default aircraft including, for example, an Airbus A321.
• Revamped weather system.
• Revamped multiplayer functionality featuring Shared Skies, a feature allowing multiple users to share the same cockpit.
• The Deluxe version will feature Tower Controller, allowing users to simulate local control at many airports worldwide (multiplayer only).
• Revamped sound system with support for 5.1 surround sound.
• API to allow FSUIPC-like access to Flight Simulator functions and variables.
• Mission engine allowing creation of dynamic missions with developer control of many simulation variables, sound file playback, AI aircraft traffic etc. in relation to what the user is doing -- essentially an evolution over the APL and ABL adventure programming languages featured in previous versions of the software. Dozens of missions ship with the product, and a mission level editor is expected to be released on-line shortly after release of the main product.
• Most of the vintage aircraft that were a key theme in the previous version have been dropped, with the notable exception of the DC-3, which is even featured in one of the default missions that ship with the product. On the other hand, mouse-as-yoke, a feature that allows the mouse to be used in steering the aircraft, is re-introduced, after having been absent for 2 versions. This will make FSX more accessible, for instance, to many users with motor disabilities.

I added the Piper J-3 to the part about the vintage aircraft. Red1530 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

XBox

Unless anyone can come up with a reference for the suggestion that a version of FS may be released for XBox, I suggest that reference, marked citation required, is removed - anyone agree?

Yah, and done. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well FSX is not being released for any other system. I have the game and the manual says you can use an Xbox 360 controller to fly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendo 4 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Early store release

Best Buy has planned to sell MFSX early, but was instructed by Microsoft to sell on the scheduled release date of October 17, 2006 in the U.S.

The actual release date is confusing; It is supposed to be officially released in Europe on Friday the 13th, and in America on the 17th I think. But some places have changed these dates over the last few days, and I know that Amazon.co.uk and Play.com have already released it. WASTREL 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to release my product on Friday the 13th either. 68.62.133.196 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Start-Up DVD requirement

Can somebody actually write in the article about start-up process (will DVD need to be inserted in order to start the game?) --147.197.215.16 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth noting the product activation requirement and refusal of the product to function after making certain number of hardware changes, since this is the first version of FS to contain such features. Can't really find a suitable place in the article, though. 59.167.225.121 16:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whaaat? You're gonna have to activate it? =S ??? Thats mad Reedy Boy 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to write up both of them. Activation is required. I received mine (UK Version) today. It said that we have to activate, though I haven't tested it yet due to my computer in repair centre. --147.197.214.104 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have to activate it to use multiplayer and play for more than an hour at a time. --Madman6510 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard/Deluxe Aircraft

I was thinking to put a list of just the Deluxe edition aircraft, and include the ones in both standard and deluxe below?

Saves a huge list of duplicated aircraft!

Reedy Boy 09:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to list deluxe airports, cities as well. People who don't have access to flash website to access the list in MS website might want to know.--147.197.214.104 19:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mission List

Chungwoon 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) How about a list of the missions -- this could be merged with the rewards so it'll be easy to see what you get for doing what..

Also, how about some kind of comparison of available missions in the standard vs. deluxe edition like the aircraft section? I haven't been able to find any specific list on which missions are included in the standard edition (besides the PR crap about 30+ vs. 50+ missions).. I guess someone with the standard edition could contribute to this?

I´d say it´s an excellent idea to make a list of all Flight Simulator X games! Unfortunately I only have the german version of the game. Maybe you can write down the Mission names and later we write a short describtion of any mission. Dagadt

New idea! We could write what you would become in case of managing the mission. Dagadt

I have the whole list of FSX missions but they are for Deluxe Version. Is that anyway helpful? --202.95.200.12 11:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! Of course it is!!! Great!!! :D Dagadt 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Missions & Rewards

Hi Folks

Many simmers appreciate having a reference page listing the available missions & their respective available rewards.

The listing is not a "how-to", tutorial, walk-through, instruction manual, or video game guide.

On four seperate occassions, I've recently found the page to be defaced by stupid unrelated additions, or the section deleted entirely.

If you have no interest in FS - Do not edit the page.

I agree with many of the points raised above, that much of the content, now the product has been released, is no longer relevant.

With time this will be rectified.

Please do not just delete the section, add your comments to this discussion as to why it should not be included.

Many thanks Basys 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)basys

Then add this information to a game wiki or a flightsim wiki. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide. A list of rewards is not interesting, notable, important, or relevant except in the context of a game guide. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi CC Exactly the same argument could be postulated for the List of Messier objects. It's a narrow field that the majority of others may have no interest in, but some do.

Again the same could be said of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy#Common_themes_and_motifs and all the equivalents already incorporated.

FSX is just recently released.

I think the Missions & Rewards listing should be included, as they're part of the aims of this version, but they should be incorporated as a subpage(s).

Let us at least get the content roughed out / populated, and correctly contextualized then come back & see whether it's appropriate or not.

Basys 19:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)BASys

You must understand how this differs from each of those. It doesn't teach anything important about the subject at hand. The Final Fantasy thing? Those are common elements in each game, and do impart useful knowledge about the series to those who read it. A list of rewards in Flight Simulator X? That doesn't really impart any knowledge about the game at all, unless you think it's somehow critical to the game that you recieve a Blurry Photo of a UFO after completing a certain mission. The only thing it provides to the reader is a list of game accomplishments to shoot for, which is indeed game guide material. It belongs in a game wiki or other more focused website, not in a general knowledge encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi CC

I do understand where you're coming from, and their relative differences.

However I'd consider the list to be a place holder ATM, for a more expansive description of the missions themselves, (but not as a how-to).

As previously, this content should be in a subpage.

Objectives are not nescessarily a guide.

Outlining a strategy is however a guide.

HTH Paul Basys 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)BASys

Outlining each individual mission is the matter of game guides. This would likely be deleted if added to a subpage (try if you wish), but it certainly doesn't belong in the main article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Poohman0 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Price

How much does the dang thing cost? Basic information, that should be in the infobox. Sagittarian Milky Way 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

70.00 For Deluxe and 50.00 for Standard.Pendo 4 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Dollars? Euros?--viriatus 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The median price for FSX Deluxe is 70.00 USD, however it has been available at stores such as Circuit City for 59.00 USD and up. CompUSA where I live is selling it for 69.00 USD right now, target for 69.99 USD, and Best Buy for 59.00-69.00 USD depending on sales. The price for the Standard version also flucuates. I have seen it for 39.00-59.00 USD.

Another Aircraft to add

The TBM Avenger should also be added as an AI only plane, as it is featured in the mission: Lost in the Triangle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.82.78 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I thought its only featured as a 'Ghost' plane, when I reffered to the Program files. I haven't flown the mission so I dont know enough about it. Lawnmowers Rock! 02:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which way do I go to find this 'Ghost' Plane? TaylorLTD 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Max altitude?

Is that maximum altitude correct? 100,000,000 feet is, well....outer space. Banpei 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct indeed. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

heh...I gotta try that. Which plane will get you that high? Banpei 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle? ;) Reedy Boy 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Slew mode, and then straight down. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

I've temp semiprotected the article to put off the spammer. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline Expansion Pack / DX10 update distinction

As far as I'm aware this expansion pack won't have DirectX 10 capability as the wiki suggests- Adrenaline is a seperate and distinct upgrade to the DX10 update and SP1 (due next week). "In addition, work continues on the DirectX 10 visual update for "Flight Simulator X", which will be available as a free download around the launch of the "Flight Simulator X" expansion pack." FS Insider - Zoltuger 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

SP1

I suppose FSX SP1 needs mentioning somewhere!

Reedy Boy 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dash 8 download

Who said that the Dash 8 is on AI only but can be downloaded on the Deluxe version? I've searched the Internet for this fact but I can't find it!

--202.95.200.12 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. Reedy Boy 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the "history" of the FSX page. It says a user named "-Majestic-" added info about the Dash 8 download claiming that it's also availible on the Standard version. He probably even put the info about a download for Deluxe version. I suspect he knows about the download. If you are there -Majestic-, please inform us on where you got this info from so it can be explained on the FSX page. 202.95.200.12 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenses

Some of this article readds as though the game has yet to be released, eg: According to Microsoft's Web site for the game, a standard edition (USD $49.99) will feature everything from navaids, GPS, and airways. It will also include 18 planes, 28 detailed cities, and 40 highly detailed airports. A deluxe version (USD $69.99) will feature 24 types of aircraft, 38 highly detailed cities, and 45 highly detailed airports.

This really could do with correcting. A-Nottingham | Talk 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes in the aircraft table

I just noticed that only one of the two notes at the bottom of the aircraft table appears on the page. The other note has ended up in the Notes section and every single bit of writing from the editing page for that note appears there. I've tried to fix this but...er...there's nothing I can do. Can anyone fix this problem? Surely, there IS a way! 124.107.20.50 07:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, the ref tag wasn't closed. 82.69.1.235 09:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FS9 Paradox

Has anyone else noticed that the majority of flight simulator addons are for FS2004, rather than FSX? This is a major paradox, considering FSX was released a year ago ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.67.205 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've also noticed that FSX lags on my fairly decent machine way more (over 50% fps drop) than FS9, even at minimum settings. This is a major paradox, considering I don't see a notable improvement in visuals when using default aircraft and scenery. Seriously though, from my experience, relatively few people in the community currenly use FSX due to its high resource demands. I would especially hesitate to get extra addons on top of FSX's already laggish default features. Canwolf 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article- it isn't an FSX forum. Could comments please be kept on topic. A-Nottingham | Talk 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the the article that most payware developers and freeware developers in the community have abandoned FSX and continue to develop for FS9 which is widely considered to be the superior platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.213.45 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did you have a sourced reference for that statement? Its a fairly bold assertion. Abacus have released their FlightDeck software for FSX, XtremePrototypes have released their X15 for FSX, CaptainSim have released nearly all their addons for FSX, to name but a few I am familiar with. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond FSX ?

FSX is already 1.5 years old. When will a newer version be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zybez (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A long, long time away. Vinni3 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

More Missions!

We've already got a mission list at the moment but.......does anyone think we should add the Acceleration missions to the list?! --202.95.200.17 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yes... Poohman0 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Are you willing to try?

Professional Edition

Do you know, Are 'Deluxe Edition' and 'Professional Edition' same? Which edition is comprehensive so far?

• Thank you
• --88.240.55.185 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Simulator X was released in two editions, Standard and Deluxe. Deluxe Edition incorporates some additional features, including an on-disc Software Development Kit (SDK), three airplanes with the Garmin G1000 Flight Deck, and player Air Traffic Control. In addition, the Deluxe Edition features 24 aircraft compared to 18 in the Standard Edition, 45 high-detail airports compared to 40, 38 high-detail cities compared to 28, and 51 structured missions compared to 30+. Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Gold Edition combines the Deluxe Edition and the Acceleration expansion pack into one. Also, it has more missions than the two editions/packs combined. So, in answer, I supposed the Gold Edition would be the most comprehensive.Icemotoboy (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archive

I think the talk page is getting a bit tad long. Does anyone agree that it should be archived? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinni3 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed photo

Hope it's OK that I changed the photo. I felt that the old one did not really fit because it showed an aircraft and scenery not seen in the default version. Also, the new picture is in the Standard vs. Deluxe section, and shows the G1000 which is only available in the deluxe version. I think it shows a better example of the game. Please before removing it, put something on my talk page. Thanks, -|->TheFSaviator-|-> (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New FS?

Will Micosoft be coming out with a new flight sim soon? Anonymous07921 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight. I don't think it will be better than FSX.--Westnest ^message 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No .... the great FSX fiasco killed the MSFS franchise. Two thirds of freeware addons are made for FS2004. Most people are still using FS2004, nearly four years after FSx was released. The market was fragmented, ACES (the software designer) came under intense flak from users and 3rd party devs ...

AI Aircraft Scnery?

Are AI aircraft really "used as scenery" like the article states? I didn't realise aircraft can be called scenery. Twistor96 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They are in the air traffic only.--Westnest ^message 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The main problems with the article is that multiple parts of the page is without sources as well as the lack of mentioning of "Development" or "Reception" of the game. For that I'm gonna have to fail it. GamerPro64 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Accelaration

Acceleration Missions are not present in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Pigeon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

just how demanding IS it?

Reputation aside - if I've, say, a 1.73Ghz single-core CPU (Pentium M), 2GB RAM (533mhz) and an intel 915 graphics chipset (uses ???MB of system RAM - presumably 32+ as I've played some relatively graphically complex games with it before, and it's allegedly compatible with DirectX 9.0c), how likely is it that I'm going to have a good play experience with this game if I get hold of it? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but Wikipedia is not a forum. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

...not a good time, sorry mate. Every part of your system is underpowered - FSX is hugely CPU-intensive but you can't even expect to get 2 FPS with an integrated graphics card. And only 2 GB of ram? 76.187.37.109 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban threat

Does anyone have any idea why the hidden statement "Do not add the fix or else you get banned with no warning" was locate under "Hardware Compatibility"? I encountered it while recent-change patrolling and softened it to "do not add the fix" temporarily. Is the statement there for any appropriate reason, or should it be removed entirely? dci | TALK 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed entirely. There is no place for this. Whoever wrote it was trying to be nasty and does not even understand the difference between a ban and a block. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is information deleted?

Over a few years I realized that a lot of changes to the page have been made. However, they are all deleting stuff. I wonder why do the admins want lists of aircraft omitted, development omitted, the criticism section blank and no background development? A few years ago these information are present. However, now, the page is almost 'blank', with only an introduction to the game, nothing else. Is it possible that we add those information back, as wiki pages on other games are way more comprehensive. Uuu100145j (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There never were sections or comprehensive content with regard to development and reception. I added those (empty) sections for the very reason you point out: other game related articles have them and should have them according to the guideline. The lists of aircraft, airlines and features contained excessive trivial details and possible original research and I think deleting them was a good call. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Learning Center

The article should address the fact that the Rod Machado lessons are very inflexible. The program cuts the lesson off, if the user is having difficulties. Rod says "this isn't going so well. We'll end this lesson here." I have had numerous attempts at the ILS lesson, where I've stayed in the glide-cone, but "Rod" cuts the lesson off, if I touch the upper or lower boundary of the glide-cone. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's one that isn't. It's the one where you "re-position" the Orbit CRJ to another airport. I got bored of flying, so once I saw the airport, I turned and lined up well before I was supposed to, landed without clearance (to which Rod said "umm, we weren't supposed to land"), and STILL ended up passing! 65.24.40.85 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gold Edition?

IMO there should be a mention of the Gold Edition somewhere -- perhaps only a sentence in the Patches and expansions section, Flight Simulator X: Acceleration subsection. Give the release date and what it includes (I believe it's Deluxe, SP1, SP2 and Acceleration combined in one package, but please verify).108.13.99.101 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110101110123/http://www.microsoft.com:80/games/flightsimulatorx/product_info.html to http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/product_info.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101208190239/http://store.microsoft.com:80/microsoft/Flight-Simulator-X-Gold-Edition-PC-Game/product/25ACE6F8 to http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Flight-Simulator-X-Gold-Edition-PC-Game/product/25ACE6F8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070823063007/http://www.fsinsider.com:80/downloads/Pages/FlightSimulatorXServicePack1.aspx to http://www.fsinsider.com/downloads/Pages/FlightSimulatorXServicePack1.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219000421/http://www.microsoft.com:80/games/pc/fsxacceleration.aspx to http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/fsxacceleration.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)