Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator

Pictures

The collection of CD case covers does not include Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, please add

Please include pictures of other addons, rather than focusing on aircraft solely. For example, airports, terrain, clouds et cetera. I've removed the BAe 146 screenshot as we already have one example which was included earlier. - DeAceShooter 05:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

===Extending history=== Anyone else that think this article should be extended to cover the developement/history better? It mentions some of the early verisons, but what about writing a few sentences about each of the versions, and their improvements? A few screenshots would also be nice, especially of FS3/4 (wireframe), FS5 (first photo-realistic) and FS98/2000. Bjelleklang - talk 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The current history reads very poorly and would probably benefit from a complete rewrite. I'm fairly clueless about MS Flight Simulator, but I did find a site with information about the early versions: http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/versions.htm

A quick summary:

FS_1: (Apple II, TSR-80, ...)

• Black & white 320x200 display (white lines on black background)
• Ground was flat, but had a wireframe mountain in a later release
• 3-6 Screen updates per second
• Had a WW1 Battle scenario with an Sopwith Camel
• You had two viewmodes, out the window or top-down
• Later version had a instrument panel
• Minor features: Raise/lower gears, oil pressure/temp, compass, airspeed, staling, and fuel:
• Lacks: No whether, time, radio, outside view, etc...

MS FS 1/2: (DOS - 1982)

• Runs on IBM PC with CGA graphics
• Uses a new coordinate system (i think)
• Comes with four scenarios (Chicago, Seattle, LA, NY)
• Has simple, buildings, bridges and 20 airports
• Has 'time of day' and whether (clouds, wind, turbulence)
• Cessna 182 aircraft, with AOR, OMI, ATIS and ILS (Instrument Landing), but no GPS or ADF/DME
• One could zoom in top/down mode
• In later versions one can view around in 8 directions
• Includes an expanded version of the WW1 Sopwith Camel battle scenario

FS 2: (Amiga, Apple-II, Atari 800, C64, ...)

• Graphically superior to MS FS 2. (16 vs 8 colors)
• There was 14 different versions (released from 1983-1988)
• Had Joystick support, Instant replay function and multiplayer.
• 5 Sceneries with a total of 120 airports (with correct elevations and radio-beacons)
• More objects (buildings, roads, etc...) thanks to hidden surface elimination
• 47 Flight parameters were weighted during calculations.
• The positioning system had an accuracy of 256 feet (76 meters)
• The Coordinate system had an 1/100 inch accuracy
• Had an outside (spot-plane) view, with visible clouds and fog
• Colors changed with the time of day
• Had the Gates Learjet 25G turbojet
• Now had ADF, DME and autopilot with wing leveler, VOR lock, heading lock and altitude lock.
• Latest version was pretty much equivalent with MS FS 3.0

MS FS 3.0 (DOS-1988)

• Sadly, there is no more information on the site.

Anss123 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can supply some more info, although taken from my own memory.... :)

First a correction; the Learjet wasn't a part of FS2, at least not for the Atari, and there was no spotplane (although there was a map view). It was a part of FS3 for DOS, together with the Sopwith Camel, Cessna 172, and a Schweizer glider. It also offered more colors, and better textures compared to FS2, where the ground was green, sky light blue, with some grey on Meigs field on a few other places. FS3 introduced more ground textures, such as roads, and tried to have one texture for metropolitan areas and one for farmland and similar. Also introduced animated parts, although these were either on/off; and only applied to the landing gear as far as I recall.

FS4 Didn't have too many improvements over FS3, but it had some. It came with the same graphics (256? colors), and also introduced the F-20 Tigershark, as well as a rough aircraft designer interface, allowing the player to 'design' custom aircrafts, by setting certain values (such as wingspan, fuselage length, engine power, amount of fuel carried, engine type, etc.), thus creating a new airplane based on one of the five original aircraft supplied with the game. It also introduced a very basic form of ATC, where the user could request taxi, take-off and landing clearances but little more. I'm not sure if AI traffic was introduced in FS3 or FS4, but I believe the latter, as it used the aircraft models from FS3, in addition to a very basic 737 model, while the player aircraft in FS4 had been upgraded with some more animated parts (rudder surfaces, flaps and landing gear). In terms of scenery, I'm not entirely sure about improvements, but I know for sure that the aircraft carriers outside Los Angeles and San Fransisco were present, as well as 4 F-14's that flew in a little circle to and from the carrier. It was also the last version to include the WWI fighter scenario/game (also included in FS3).

FS5 was the last version for DOS, and also the first with photorealistic graphics, it featured a model of the entire world, but only had airports for the USA, as well as south-east England, and the northern parts of France, and also some areas in the border area between Germany and Austria. The WWI game was dropped together with the F-20 and the aircraft designer, but I believe that a 737 had been included (although I'm not entirely sure about this), and you could also see a model of a Jet Ranger sitting in a hangar at O'Hare. ATC was no longer a part of the sim, but all aircraft models, including AI had been upgraded to look the same. Also featured different cockpits, with different layouts and different instruments for the various aircraft; FS4 and earlier had the same layout, and only disabled or removed some instruments to simulate the various types. Also featured 'real' sounds, and not just computer-generated.

FS5.X/FS for Win 95 I seem to recall that FS for Win 95 was a somewhat improved FS5, that would run under Win95, with few or no improvements over FS5 for DOS.

FS98 Was very improved, and also the first version to feature airports from the whole world, and not just a few selected areas. The graphics was improved quite a lot, and you also had the option to fly helicopters. Installation of additional scenery had been simplified, and the structure of the sim in general is representative for what every version after this one used (in regards of folder/file structure). Used the same graphics engine as Combat Flightsim 1, although CFS1 probably used a slightly improved version.

FS2000 contained additional aircraft, such as the Concorde, and also had improved graphics, sounds, and so on, although at a heavy price; it required a very high-end computer to run with a satisfying FPS, and was heavily critizised for this by several fan sites. CFS2 used a similar (although slightly improved?) version of the graphics engine. Was the first (of two) version to feature a normal and pro version.

FS2002 Not too sure on this one, but I know that it was the first to feature seaplanes. Came as normal and pro version.

FS9 Improved sounds/graphics, more airports, more textures and so on. Had a brand new ATC engine, and was generally more flexible, although requiring a decent computer to run at a satisfactory FPS/quality.

Hope this helps! Bjelleklang - talk 19:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that ATC came somewhere between FS98 and FS2002...I'm not sure which version but know it's in that range. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MSFS version 3.1

Taken from the current version of the article: MS Flight Simulator reached commercial maturity with version 3.1. Why is this? Although I never played version 2 on a PC (only on an Atari), I don't see the big difference between them, and the article doesn't say anything about this. If any of the versions were to reach any kind of maturity, I'd rather point to FS5, for being the first version to feature photo-realistic textures, and airports outside the US, in addition to a model of the world (FS4 and lower only had the US). Could someone please explain this, or should it just be changed or removed? Bjelleklang - talk 23:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Began to rewrite the history section in Microsoft Flight Simulator/Temp history. Bjelleklang - talk 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Created article at History of Microsoft Flight SimulatorBjelleklang - talk 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Why is there no article on Flight Simulator 2004? Please message me. (Or just respond)--TheFSaviator (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there getting too many external links pointing to virtually the same resources (only on different sites)? Unless anyone strongly objects, I'd like to remove all but Avsim, Flightsim.com and Hovercontrol, as the two first probably is the largest sites, and the last one is dedicated to Helicopter simulation only, and the rest of the links just clutters article. Wikipedia is not a bunch of external links, if users need additional sites they can either look under links at Flightsim/Avsim/Hovercontrol, or use Google. Bjelleklang - talk 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. I have no objection. However, whatever we do now, the links section of this page goes in cycles of: purge links, links re-added by anonymous users over a few weeks (with no other useful contribution to the article), purge links. I did add hidden notes to keep the links in alphabetical order which seems to have at least stopped someone continuously adding his favourite site right at the top. Just doing a purge won't break the cycle so I propose this:

We have the 3 biggest sites, either in terms of active membership or freely downloadable files (all the better if they fit both criteria, but it might otherwise mean 3 of each type). This is on the basis that the sites' inclusion, and hence others' exclusion, has to be justifiable. If the top of the list says something like "The three largest FS communities" then someone will have to edit that to add a new one - once it gets above five it will start to sound daft, hence good reason to roll back the edit. (I'm guessing if we start at 3 it will get to 5 - fair enough but I reckon "the six largest FS communities" will sound silly to anyone coming and reading the article.) If they just add a site without changing the top, roll the edit back, likewise if they remove the top bit altogether. What do other regular editors of this page think? Halsteadk 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very in favor of having the top three sites; I just checked all the current links with Alexa, and the top three are Flightsim (just under 10.000th most visited site), Avsim (just above 10.000) and Simviation (approx 20.000).

I'd like to keep the historylinks around, but would rather have them moved to History of Microsoft Flight Simulator as they are more relevant for this article. When it comes to the screenshot links, we might want to consider just creating a gallery at commons instead, as these images are more or less found on every flightsimrelated site, and doesn't offer anything other than the same screenshots released by Microsoft. Bjelleklang - talk 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the FSX screenshots, etc, if they are all available on the official FS Insider site then I think all links to "clones" of that collection should be removed. I'd definitely welcome a concensus from other editors rather than just us two though! Halsteadk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if use of Alexa to determine the top sites is appropriate, as that will only count hits if they started from Alexa search results. I noticed a site I administrate is about 1.6millionth (wow, not) but we definitely don't send anything back to Alexa and few of our hits originate there. Halsteadk 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Using alexa was only a quick attempt to see what sites have the most traffic. Although traffic isn't everything, it does give an ok indication of the popularity of a site, especially considering that many of the other sites had ratings of 200.000+. As I see it, Avsim, Flightsim and Simviation are clearly the biggest ones, but for future debate; the desicion on what sites to include should be something like a combination of the popularity, number of registered users, and available downloads.

Also, if Microsoft have their own gallery online, that would be the preferred collection to link to from the article, and would also avoid any debate on why "why your favorite site is listed and not mine". And more editors would absolutely be positive. Bjelleklang - talk 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are objections by thursday march 2nd, I'll remove most of the external links; will keep simviation, avsim and flightsim.com for being the most likely three largest sites, and replace image gallery links to FS Insider (microsoft-owned site). If people want to find more sites they are free to use Google, or to look at the four abovementioned sites linkpage. Bjelleklang - talk 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It might also be worth including a link to Google Directory: http://www.google.com/Top/Games/Video_Games/Simulation/Flight/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_Games/ Halsteadk 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed all but flightsim.com, avsim, simviation and fsinsider. Bjelleklang - talk 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Bjelleklang. I was concerned that there was nothing there to try to stop people sticking a load of links in again. I've included a "three most visited" note, and a link to Google Directory for all the rest. Halsteadk 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bjelleklang, directed here by yourself. Added Fly Away Simulation flight sim website to the links sections because I believe it's also one of the largest and most popular flight sim websites on the net. I'm an avid member of the forums - it has a great community and many resources. I found the website via a search engine, where upon searching many popular simulator related terms, it appears up top. I have posted here in the talk as advised before I go and re-add the link. Let me know your thoughts. Darklord2000 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC) EDIT: It also appears on the official Microsoft website under the "community" section. Darklord2000 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's okay for me, if sources that indicate that the site is equally large to the three already mentioned can be found. Being listed amongst other communities is okay enough, but doesn't indicate the site's importance. Bjelleklang - talk 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the google directory link you already have there, it appears second with Google rank importance equal of Flightsim.com. I will re-submit the link later this evening if you guys don't disagree. I'm new here, can you guys send me a link where I can find all the Wikicode usage? Darklord2000 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Google directory is the best way to determine the notability/importance of a website, especially not as Avsim, and probably other big sites are missing. I would prefer Alexa or similar, but as Alexa is reporting a rating of 35587, I'd say that it's okay by me as long as you make it clear that the links listed are most likely the most important ones.

I'd also like to propose an upper limit as to additional links, for example excluding all the sites with a higher ranking than 50.000 on Alexa. This way we wouldn't have to debate each and every site, add-on developer and so on... Bjelleklang - talk 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link as discussed and included an edit summary. I'm getting more comfortable with the Wikicode... lets get editing! Darklord2000 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the links - things were a bit out of hand imo. Not sure how good a gauge Alexa is of a site's popularity though. Alexa has become somewhat of a joke lately among site valuators, and one really has to take a more serious look at search engine rankings, raw traffic, membership, and the like. Community membership should definitely be a criteria, not sure about files available though. A couple of sites come to mind that do nothing but provide free FS downloads - problem is they serve spyware, popups and all kinds of other nasties to the poor visitor. The major sites seem to have file libraries covered. And imo sites such as flyaway simulation should be removed since they force visitors to pay to download freeware files. Sure it is only $5 but do we really want to direct wiki readers to a site like that when files are freely available at avsim or flightsim? --Civ 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose then that there is no objection to removing flyawaysimulation? Charging to download freeware files just does not sit well with many of us. --Civ 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, Fly Away does not seem to charge for the specific downloading of files, rather just for the membership of the site and to have a members account. The site offers all of its content free of charge and the only paid option is that of a paid membership, downloads included - this is the same with Flightsim.com and other portals. There does not seem to be anything wrong with this. Darklord2000 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (on a bit of a technicality) - with Fly Away you have to pay a subscription (albeit a tiny one-off one) before you can download - at flightsim.com, membership is free but with an option to pay for an enhanced service and a guarantee of being able to login (but then all freely accessible FTP sites have a maximum number of simultaneous users). Halsteadk 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the community sites listed provide lots of high quality content and articles, reviews, discussion forums and other features; regardless of the debated download sections. The External link section in my opinion stands fine as it is, but should carry on being monitored for future modifications and un-appropriate content.Darklord2000 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Halsteadk, they definitely are charging people to download freeware files. Darklord2000, with all due respect, freeware authors over the years have made it clear that charging for their files is not appreciated. Sites such as FSPlanet have gotten quite a bit of (well deserved) flack over the years for "restricting" free access to freeware and charging for premium access. This flyaway site has gone one step further and *forbidden* access to the freeware files until a premium membership is purchased. We should not be directing Wiki readers to such a place. --Civ 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed flyaway as there were no objections. --Civ 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me placing a link to our dedicated FSX web site? I don't want to play the link now, in case it's seen as advertising! psionmark

Thanks for coming here and asking first psionmark, but unless it's a well-known, respected resource I think the bases are generally well covered right now with respect to FSX.--Civ 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why my Hovercontrol link was removed? I added it because Hovercontrol represents a rapidy-growing segment of Flight Simulation and not only has it been instrumental with the development of Flight Simulator, but it is also getting recognition for becoming one of the premier helicopter flight training websites in general. It's time helicopters earned a bit of respect.

September 11, 2001 (9/11)

Do you think that the speculation regarding September 11 is relevant here? ..Seeing that on the news at the time it was reported that the hijackers complimented their actual flight training with MS Flight simulator and actually practised flying the planes into the twin towers on MSFS?

I have heard about this as well. We should get sources before adding it though. 67.84.82.127 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose this would serve though - seems to me that it's a bit too controversial for an encyclopedia? *shrug* --Civ 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too controversial if it is actually true and there are utterly reliable sources that would not give rise to accusations of libel. However, I cannot find anything more than there being speculation at the time that the terrorists might have used a flight simulator to practise - with no specific mention of MSFS. If that is the case it would be more appropriate for the flight simulation article. The only reasonable link I can find is that on 17 September 2001, MS confirmed that the towers would not be included in FS2002: [1]. Halsteadk 12:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try email MS about this, perhaps they'd be happy to help us. librarianofages

Microsoft commented:

"Thank you for contacting Microsoft Sales and Information. My name is Sri and I would like to address your enquiry regarding Microsoft Flight Simulator.

As I understand it you require information pertaining to the removal of the World Trade Center towers from Flight Simulator. If this is not correct, please let me know.

Microsoft is saddened by the horrible tragedy that occurred on September 11th. Our hearts go out to everyone involved in and affected by this terrible tragedy. We are focused on doing the right thing out of respect for the victims, our customers, partners and employees. To that end, we have created a patch that will remove the World Trade Center towers from Flight Simulator 2000. Once downloaded, this update will place a file in scenedb/cities/newyork/scenery that reflects the changes.

For further information or comments in relation to September 11, please conduct a search with the appropriate key words on the Microsoft PressPass website." Librarianofages 06:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn that the fbi agents recovered microsoft flight simulator from the planners computers. Anyways, Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks says

Atta and al-Shehhi practiced flying on a Boeing 727 flight simulator on December 29 and December 30. The simulator was at the SimCenter flight school in Opa-Locka, Florida."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NO I THINK IT'S IRRELAVANT (tim):, ;;; almost constantly i have been dichotomising with flight simulator 2002, and i find terrorism to vapourise according to PI-XEROX-ABILITY, :, i found it this time when by chance of fate I could try to play the multiplayer 2002 on this URIAH,, ;;; in wondering that it has 'liability' && then thinking "hey" because it was not allowed to be played by microsoft according to what;  ?;, yeah it could be terrorism, but then it will definetly whatever the B survive | so it survives but not biblification of dictionary-version,,,; #i thought myself free#,,, ;;; in this way what did i find then was stopping flight simulator against "Pobles"?,,,;;; it is would be the other name for this article - which is that THE ANIMATION OF THE FALLING DROP is more important;;; so much so it does this to things --- it turns then in this way immortal to the circus, and gives the RINGMASTER full-identity over what the audience is allowed to see;;; the weird thing is that you go NO because look at terrorism stille;;; but i find it to be mastered in this way - because the logical icarus is the fall of valkyries --- it is circumspect to terrorist behaviour but only because psuedo-terrorists are in a way circus-freaks,,,, consider now THE HOLOGRAM OF WATER to exist and find it even more difficult than before to play the thing,,, to me it is PSUEDONAUT... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.214.207 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, come again? Halsteadk (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I found a number of references regarding accusations about the use of flight simulators in security incidents on aircraft, I have added a section to the Flight Simulator after however as this would appear to be the most appropriate place. Please feel free to indicate if you think otherwise. The section is under "Controvesy". I trust this solves the matter. Specifically, Flight simulator software was found on a terrorists computer when he was arrested, and a japanese hijacker stated his fascination with flight simulation was a reason he hijacked a plane (he his sentence was reduced due to mental responsibility issues however...). Everyone's friend Jack Thompson waded into the issue by accusing Microsoft of helping to train terrorists. It's all in the controvery section, and referenced to news sources. Icemotoboy (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight model accuracy

This article needs more information about how accurate the flight models are, in regards to handling, fuel burn, etc. Surely someone has evaluated this, in particular with the default airliners. I don't know how things are nowadays, but in 2001 or 2002 I remember there was a increasingly disproportionate focus on visual realism. For example, from the article:

Perhaps the most well known payware addon is PMDG's Boeing 737NG. This sells for around $35.00 USD. These payware addons feature in-depth systems simulation, extordinarily detailed exterior models (with every single part realistically animated), virtual cockpits/cabins that the simmer can walk around, having many, many animations and high quality textures as well, and 2D cockpits in which every button works, and have an extremely realistic look, all designed from scratch, not off a photo.

Note that every single comment is on eye candy. The "every button works" is the only thing that suggests MSFS might be presenting an accurate functional representation of an aircraft. Accurate layouts of rivets and switches does not imply functional realism. -Rolypolyman 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be worth metioning that the FS world is not truly spherical. Instead the world is shaped like a cylinder, which causes things to act fairly normal near the equater but get a little weird as you near the poles. For instance if you fly north over Greenland your flight path appears as a curve and your plane 'dogtracks'. This is not a subtle effect - you see the ground sliding by at an angle under you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhnsn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this myself in FS2004 ... most certainly acts like a cylindrical world, especially in the poles. However, with FSX this entire problem seems to have been eliminated. I experienced no such 'sliding'. It would appear that ACES managed to implement a truly spherical world model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardOfAhz (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like X-Plane probably has a more realistic flight model so the flight model in flight simulator is probably less accurate than in XPlane. However, the paid addons from outlets like PMDG or PSS offer a lot of systems detail that in many ways can compare to the real thing.Vedant (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Joystick?

Does one need a joystick to use FS2004? If not, is using a keyboard reliable? 05:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) No, but it does make flying a lot easier. Kilonum 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) You most definitly need a joystick or flight contol units sold by a number of differant companies. you can't control an aircraft properly by keyboard.

I disagree with the previous statement that you 'you can't control an aircraft properly by keyboard'. I just booted-up FS2004, disconnected my joystick and other controls, successfully took-off, properly controlled, and landed an aircraft using only the keyboard. Certainly the FEEL was different, and I can't say that I liked it (inputs were very abrupt, as is the nature of a keyboard, and didn't feel very realistic to me) but it most certainly was NOT a requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardOfAhz (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

External links (Sep 2006)

Had a tidyup of a load of spam links as follows:

• fs2004.com - removed, not enough visitors (ref Alexa) and the domain name doesn't mean it is significant
• fsgateway.com - removed, not nearly enough visitors [2]
• simviation - retained, fixed vandalism of link
• flyawaysimulation - removed as it charges a subs fee to download files, see earlier discussion
• international flightsim conventions - removed, very small number of visitors [3]

Halsteadk 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why my Hovercontrol link was removed some time ago? I added it because Hovercontrol represents a rapidy-growing segment of Flight Simulation and not only has it been instrumental with the development of Flight Simulator, but it is also getting recognition for becoming one of the premier helicopter flight training websites in general. It's time helicopters and the simulated aspects of flying them earned a bit of respect.Srosenow 98 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that this had gone. Checking back through the old talk the only discussion is related to keeping it so put it back. I think if the rule is that a link needs to be discussed before it is added, the same has to be true for removing one! Halsteadk 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up again - it's a never-ending battle for several articles I frequent. I ran through the list though and it appears that the fs2004.com link may be as popular or more popular than the simviation.com link, based on the Alexa popularity link you posted. I'm not a fan of Alexa but there does need to be some sort of publicly-available traffic legitimization and they seem to be the only game in town. Thoughts on that link? Civ 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No responses from anyone? Referencing Alexa again it appears that the popularity alongside/over the simviation.com link wasn't a temporary phenomenon. Adding back the fs2004.com link due to the Alexa ranking.

rbrown3rd 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why the link to http://www.fs-freeflow.com/ was removed? This is a large user community that produces high quality scenery for FS9. They have won two awards from the users of flightsim.com and don't charge a penny to be a member of their site or to download their scenery.

I'd assume that it was removed because it is nowhere near the size or scope of the other sites in that list. 1200 members? And dealing solely with scenery design? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.255.210.139 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

External links re-visited (Oct 2006)

There is no need for the amount of external links we have regarding this article. There are always disagreements regarding this issue also; what's a good link, what's a bad link, popularity... etc. Chances are, it's the webmasters of the links that are posting them in the first place. I propose to abolish the external links section, but leaving the official Microsoft Links and external links to Directories only. The article will provide links to the directories, the users can decide on a community site there. There is no "good", "popular" community sites, they are all out to take $$ with their download membership schemes. Take a look at the Microsoft Flight Simulator X links and other popular articles - they don't even come close to the amount of external links we have here. I will amend the link section later on today. Darklord2000 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Darklord 2000, it hasn't grown appreciably since you made your comments in the above discussion that it was fine, and that a fee-charging website was ok for inclusion! Please could you leave it alone until others who keep an eye on this have had a chance to comment. My opinion is that it is still fine as it is. Halsteadk 15:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To me is seems like the only thing that ever gets updated in this article is the external links section. It's about the quality and content of the article, not the external link section. My previous addition of a link was to a community site that I am a member of the forums - however all sites have the same membership charging options, not just the one that I mentioned. I suggest we only provide direct links to official Microsoft Pages and provide community links via "Big Name" directories such as DMOZ and Yahoo Dir, and of course the Microsoft FSinsider Community page. I'll leave this here to let it brew for a while. Let me know your thoughts.Darklord2000 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can agree that the article should focus on content and quality, it should also provide a list of links to various resources that provide 3rd party add-on content, as well as some other resources that the web has to offer. Since Microsoft is all about 3rd party enhancement in terms of Flight Simulator (and has been almost since the beginning) the Microsoft Flight Simulator article here should provide links to those wishing to divulge in those areas.

I should also note that in some cases, it's not the site webmasters posting links. For instance, the very first addition of the Hovercontrol link here was done by me some time ago (and subsequently deleted for no reason). I've continued to post the Hovercontrol link for those wishing to explore a fast and rapidly growing segment of Flight Simulation. I will also state that I am a 3rd party add-on producer for Flight Simulator, but my only affiliation with Hovercontrol is that I'm a member of their messageboards, and I've uploaded some of my works to their download server.

I think that the External Links section should stay, it is a valuable asset to the article.Srosenow 98 09:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed FS2004.com link posted by civ. My link suggestion surpasses FS2004.com massively (traffic), yet it was rejected. FS2004.com has no more valuable content that that of the other community sites mentioned. Adding more external links is not the way to go - if the majority don't agree with abolishing external links as suggested above, lets at least meet half way here. Darklord2000 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by myself and User:Civ, your suggested site (flyaway) was different to the others presented here in that paying a fee was NOT optional to download files, whereas other sites (eg flightsim.com) offer a paid OPTION to have guaranteed ability to login. If this practice has changed, I would agree it should be added, otherwise previous discussions still stand. However, there is no discussion on fs2004.com, it is a spam link with a misleadingly significant domain name given its insignificant visitor numbers. Halsteadk 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have posted my discussion regarding the fs2004.com link here rather than in the Sept 2006 section above, but it made more sense there since that is where the original discussion about that link started. So please see my comments up there - I was careful to solicit feedback here in Talk before adding that link so I hardly consider it spam. Regarding the traffic level comparison of the links in question, a quick check of Alexa produces an Alexa rank of 72,xxx for flyawaysimulation.com & 28,xxx for fs2004.com so as far as Alexa is concerned the latter is the more popular link (the lower number being the higher rank). As there were only anon vandalism edits made to the article after Darklord's removal of the link I posted, and since the low-traffic objection is no longer viable (per Alexa anyway), I'll be reverting back to my version barring reasonable objections. --Civ 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Today I learned a bit more about Wikipedia and "link spamming". As the webmaster of the US/CAN part of Aerosoft (mainly the english language part of this earth) I notice that there seem to be some hesitance in taking up those kind of links. Flight Simulator and Train Simulator are a bit an exception in the "Games" World. Mainly that the creator of the game itself only provides a platform to play with. The platform itself is so popular only because of the provision of 3rd party software. This is an absolute small business and hard working actually... Why we do it? because we're simply devoted to improve the simulation to the very end. And because we need to feed families too, we need to earn some money. As one of the few ones we even provide add ons for free! Just for the incredible fun of it. In Wikipedia I always find a fine source of information and also additional information in the form of links that I really do appreciate. External links are very important in such way if a reader asks himself "what is that fuss al about" he can look further if he wishes. External more-or-less commercial links should not be marked "spam" straight away. The problem is of course that with Flight Sim there could be trazillion links.... there is so many around. But some of the main suppliers or main large forums should be taken up in general to show readers what all is possible besides the great platform only. --plokky 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC-5)

This is getting weird. I am now being accused of linkspamming because I pointed out that the objections (traffic/popularity concerns) to a certain link had been overcome? Darklord, I honestly don't know what else to say. I'm more than willing to discuss this with you (and everyone else who contributes here) but my attempts to do so have been met with vitriolic reversions that border on what most here at Wikipedia would consider vandalism. I can only assume this is a result of my pointing out your admin position over at flyawaysimulation several months ago, combined with my removal of said link. As I stated when I removed it though (and by the way, I asked multiple times for feedback here in Talk before doing so - just look upwards a few sections) it was removed because that site charges a fee for visitors to download freeware files. This has long been a sticky issue in the FS world and the conclusion drawn by the general population was that it was highly discouraged. My removal of it had nothing to do with your position there. So please, let's discuss this like reasonable Wikipedians, and if a resource deserves to be highlighted then it deserves to be highlighted - regardless of what anyone in here may think of the other. Now I think I understand what Srosenow 98 was going through when someone was removing that Hovercontrol link - which after being exposed to it now myself I can say is a fine site worthy of mentioning here. --Civ 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see there's quite a discussion here re external links. I'll leave it to you guys to decide. Does anyone object if I add a link to [http://www.flightsimx.co.uk FlightSimX

You need to at Avsim.com and Flightsim.com, they are by far the most popular web sites. They each get well over 10,000 hits per day and their forums host a number of developer forums. Avsim.com hosts a conference each year that is attended by all the major developers, even Microsoft and the who's-who of the flightsim community are there for lectures.

Links to non-official blogs are inappropriate. See WP:EL. --Yamla 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

umm.. you forgot Preflight which can help alot of ppl on the net looking for skins and airplains.. its an herbew site.. but its a very good site.. here: *Preflight, an Israeli simulation fan site with an active Flight Simulator community check befor adding in main article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.131.159 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No. This is the English language Wikipedia and it is policy not to link to non-English language websites unnecessarily. See WP:NONENGEL. I don't see any case for an exception. Halsteadk (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hovercontrol

It seems as though a certain user STILL keeps on being insistant that the link to Hovercontrol be removed from the External Links section. This activity has got to stop. It's quite odd that the first form of flight ever conceived by man was that of a helicopter (Lenoardo Da Vinci's conception of manned flight depicted a helicopter-like device). Additionally, helicopters are a valuable asset to aviation, and assist in saving far more lives than fixed-winf aircraft ever can. Not only that, but the rotor-wing segment of Flight Simulation (introduced in 1998 when Microsoft forst released a helicopter simulation with the Bell JetRanger in Flight Simulator 98) has exploded, and is now one of the most popular components of Flight Simulation in general. Hovercontrol is a valued, and highly revered website that that has led the way in rotary flight dynamics improvements. The days of helicopter-related flight being the "bastard-stepchild" in Flight Simulator are long over. I'm not a Hovercontrol website official, or an administrator here at Wikipedia, but I will keep putting up the Hovercontrol link until this unnecessary B.S. regarding the Hovercontrol external link stops. It's nonsense, and it's time Hovercontrol earns the respect it deserves. Srosenow 98 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The IP address you have been reverting has a history of vandalism it seems. I suggest you see if you can get it blocked. On a different note, please see the discussion above as that would remove Hovercontrol altogether. Halsteadk 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Added: May 17, 2008 - Hovercontrol is not a popular community site regarding Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's focus on Helicopters is not a significant qualification that sets Hovercontrol apart from other community sites. The focus of this links section should be on "community" appeal and not "novelty" or "rarity." Helicopters do not signify strong community appeal. Flightsim.com or simflight.com or other similar sites, in contrast, have a proven record of community involvement. Both of these sites, by the way, have probably a greater database of helicopter materials than Hovercontrol has ever had. If you suggest Hovercontrol be added, I petition for including fsaerospace.com which focuses on specific reviews and downloads of outstanding free for use aircraft - that's quite novel. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean it's a community link - despite being in existence for over 12 years. Halsteadk - you have an interesting interpretation of what constitutes a significant community link worth including.

Erm, if you're going to criticise me perhaps you could tell me in what way my interpretation is particularly "interesting" compared with anyone else's and up for your scrutiny? Halsteadk (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one imposing your particular interpretations of what constitutes a "worthy" community site. All I am saying is that the characteristic of discussing helicopters on a site does not make the site a "popular community site." Considering that the site hasn't existed very long and doesn't have a singificant usage history makes me believe that it shouldn't belong to the list. FSplanet.com, which you removed a while ago, would probably be more of a popular community site. Why did you remove it? Fsaerospace.com has existed for over 12 years and involves community in various ways. Simflight.com, is a particularly good site that has existed for over a decade. Why not include those sites? What would you think about leaving the current list but adding simflight.com? jetcat33 (18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.47.126 (talk)

I'm still not sure why you're asking me about the Hovercontrol site, as I've not posted any particularly strong opinions on it compared with some others - and this was 18 months ago!! Ultimately the policy for links has to be in agreement with WP:EL - if you haven't read that already, please do, and let me know if you feel I've fallen foul of it. Apart from Hovercontrol which has been treated as a special case (possibly unjustly, but others have made a strong case for it) the general interpretation from both myself and several others has been to use Alexa rankings as an unbiased (but admittedly fairly primitive) means of judging relative prominence. Also, sites that require a fee or are primarily commercial with some freebies are not acceptable links - that's not my opinion, that's policy. There has to be a line to stop things becoming ridiculous and the list becoming too long, and I guess fsplanet.com fell the wrong side of the line - looking at current Alexa rankings it is about 130,000th compared with avsim which is ~10,000th - if we originally only wanted 2 or 3 sites, then even accepting Alexa is primitive, that's a very large gap to also include fsplanet (and potentially all the sites in between, including simflight). Possible reasons I'd have removed it without saying are if it was just blindly added by an anon user without discussion, or if they did it and removed another link making it look like they just want to have their favourite site (someone has been doing this a lot over the last few days) - this is definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia. Ultimately there are dozens and dozens of sites that may be just as good as the ones you've proposed or the ones that are listed already. Perhaps as no serious review has been done for 18 months, it's time that was done again? Halsteadk (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Redefine "Realism"

I just thought I should mention that the article tends to lean twards the idea that Microsoft Flight Simulator is "Realistic". Though it may look realistic (particularly the new Microsoft Flight Simulator X) it should be known that Microsoft Flight Simulator DOES NOT use realistic flight dynamics. Cbale2000 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. This is the page to discuss changes to the article in question. If you're proposing that this be mentioned in the article, you're going to have to give some sources and make this verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator has been rated well by real world pilots, and does follow some realistic flight dynamics. Toa of Sound 13:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alot of the high end aircraft addons such as PMDG, Level D and Dreamfleet have been developed by pilots current with the type of aircraft they develop. These aircraft fly excatly as they do in real life. A number of models have been used in teaching. As for atmospheric conditions, a weather generator called Active Sky, faithfully reproduces vortesies comming off aircraft. (get to close an risk lossing control). They also replicate the turbulance and winds caused by storm cells, including down drafts. I will agree that the default airplanes that come with the software are not realistic but, we have many talented developers doing GREAT work to bring the community a vast array of top-notch products.

Stating, blanket-statement like, that MS Flight Simulator isn't 'realistic', despite the fact that it's been developed alongside real-world pilots since it's very inception isn't going to yield any credible sources, I would think. I think the following article goes a long ways towards explaining how realistic MS Flight Simulator is, along with a few other sims - and, in fact, it is already being used as a source on Wikipedia over on the 'Flight Simulator' article. (the article is located at http://www.pilotweb.aero/content/articles/view_article.aspx?id=3230) To summarize: "IFR in PC-based simulators feels remarkably like the real thing." This tells me that if the fidelity of the simulated aircraft/systems is accurate for IFR, then coupling this fidelity with adequate scenery will yield a realistic VFR simulation as well - meaning the flight simulator is very true-to-life. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator has nothing to do with realism - it's a game, a very good game but it's only a game. Many effects in real live avaitation wich can be simulated with a PC-base simulator are not simulated. For example the donut-effect (helicopters), wind situation in valleys or behind montains. A lot of add ons are developed by the help of pilots - but they creating entertainment software with an realistic acpect. But also add ons like PMDG 747 or Level D 767 lokks like realistic, but they ar not. Spend some bucks, rent an hour in a full motion simulator, switch full motion off (for simularity with FS) and feel the differences in behavior of the aircraft! With Level-D 767 you can fill up the tanks, put all passengers on his seat to reach MATOW, takeoff an land with MATOW. You need a lot of additional speed, but it works. Try this in a professional simulator - but only there - an feel the force of gravity. Something in the basic algorithm in MSFS is wrong - and it can not be fixed by the best add-on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.114.34 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with realism? This is just ignorance, or a refusal to acknowledge that the simulation is what it is for unknown reasons. You basically just said that the time I spent studying IFR with the simulator, and then took my simulated experience to help me with the real thing is moot. There were certain IFR procedures that I found to be tricky, and the simulator DID help --- and at no time would anybody have said that it was merely a "game" being played. A game is an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement", and neither of those two things was ever done. Innumerable pilots from every walk of life have acknowledged the realistic merits of FS!

And why in the world would I spent money to use a full-motion simulator when my local instructor has an Elite station? I'm not training to fly a 737 or something - get real. The setups from CAE cost 9-16 million dollars, and about $500 an hour to rent! You're honestly trying to tell me that you laid-out that kind of cash (not to mention paying for a ticket, and maybe even a hotel room, so as to get a round-trip flight to the actual nearest training centre) to try one? Sorry if I don't believe you.

And several of your other comments are just nonsense. The doughnut effect from helicopters?! All that means is the downward flow of air from the blades doesn't produce turbulence directly beneath the craft! And?!

And I don't know what the comment of "Something in the basic algorithm in MSFS is wrong - and it can not be fixed by the best add-on" is supposed to mean, because there is no 'basic algorithm' within FS. And I'd have to see a good source on how you know for sure that nothing will solve such a perceived problem.

Bottom line is this: If you feel so strongly about this, then help improve the article, and provide good sources for your claims! Telling me about it here on the talk page is just pointless. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FSXBoards

Ok, someone keeps reading FSXBoards.co.nr to the external links page. It isn't suggnificant enough to be added to an encyclopedia. NOTE: Wikipedia is not an advertising space. Toa of Sound 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Community

March 24,2007

So why has all reference to the FSX COMMUNITY been removed ( by someone who initially edited the community section to include:

"The community is so homosexual. :) :) :) :) Stay away if you want your booty in one piece."

The FSX Community is a major part of FSX, as is Multiplayer ( VATSIM, IVAO ). With FSX, Microsoft has pushed even more the COMMUNITY aspect of Flight Sim.

I find it disturbing that someone who would initially post :

"The community is so homosexual. :) :) :) :) Stay away if you want your booty in one piece." --   

would also delete ALL REFERENCES to the Community aspect of FSX.

I am new to the Wiki, but I hope that those who manage this FSX area, will note this, and consider reverting such a major deletion.

I have reverted the VANDALISM from user: Hmmmmm3 - Since no comments was given at his deletion it must be considered vandalism just to delete stuff. - So lets see if he gets back. /sEi 217.157.195.186 12:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a regular editor of the page and "tidy-up-er" of the external links section, I would agree the edit by User:Hmmmmm3 was vandalism. The info initially included about MS-FP.com was literally just an advert, which is inappropriate, so I salvaged what I could to make it objective, which was then edited and improved slightly to get to where we are now. Hmmmmm3's complete removal of the entire section is vandalism (even without the other remarks) as others have said, as the user completely removed all reference to the community aspect of FS. (Please do note this article is not FSX specific.) Halsteadk 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a WikiGnome - much appreciated! About the entry for fs-mp i agree that the first entry by someone else was pure advertising. But the info in the "Community involvement" about fs-mp i see fit for wikipedia as it is now. /sEi 217.157.195.186 16:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree, I've made a minor tweak ("LIVE ATC" to "live Air Traffic Control") to make it more accessible and less like the "live" is emphasised. Would be useful to clarify what "7110.65R" is for non-experts! Halsteadk 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added "7110.65R ATC Specification" as it a bit better explains whats behind the 7110.65R. To not cludder the page then i dont think further explanation is needed (you can anyway read about it by clicking the link). /sEi 217.157.195.186 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to FS-MP as it still reads like an advertisement, and seems awkward in this article. You could try adding it to the FSX page. Canwolf 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

It feels like the Trivia section is very badly formed. The third sentence seems as if it was added as an afterthought and could cause confusion. What is being removed, the terrorists, the towers or the rumors? Not sure how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerrybreyette (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Its only applicable to FS2000 anyway - As thats when it happened and the patch was released for it. I dont think they were forced, it was more out of a mark of respect... Reedy Boy 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Default Airlines

It'd be nice to list the default AI Traffic airlines (Soar, Pacifica, American Pacific, World Travel, etc) 72.77.5.2 07:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Main air traffic simulation networks

I have added fs-mp to the external links. This not for advertising but because it is recognised by VATSIM, IVAO. The community is very big. Fs-mp offers many features that the other sites in the list do not. Microsoft (Mike Singer) is a member and write about fs-mp often in his blog at FSInsider: http://dev.fsinsider.com/missions/Pages/MissionsandMultiplayer-AllEntries.aspx - So i hope to get a good reason for deleting the link if anyone think that it is inappropriate /sEi 217.157.195.186 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the policy on Wikipedia is to put as few external links as possible, and replace external links by references to articles, if available. The community involvement section already mentions VATSIM and IVAO and links to their respective articles - so I don't think there is a reason to keep the links. It's just my opinion, though, as I didn't remove them. Canwolf 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The usual independent benchmark for external links on this page has been the Alexa Traffic Ranking. VATSIM and IVAO get rankings of around 50,000 and 80,000 respectively; FS-MP is at about 2,500,000. Even allowing for inaccuracy, that is very very low compared with the other two (and any other link on this page) and hence the link should be removed. If FS-MP is to be kept then it will need to provide evidence of it being comparable in importance to the other two, ie number of active users, number of weekly sessions. It is not enough to say it has 2000+ users - how many in comparison to the others, and these must be active, returning users. Halsteadk 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Add-ons and customization section

I think this section needs more information on non-aircraft related add-ons. The article only has a few sentences not talking purely about aircraft. I believe that there should be some mention of AFCAD (one of the most important FS utilities ever), possibly TrafficTools, and AI traffic addons. One of the main things, besides the community, that makes this the #1 flight simulator is the sheer number of add-ons. What are your thoughts. I also think there should be mention of the amount of people not switching to FSX from FS2004 because of the lack of add-ons and the fact the FSX needs a higher end computer. Gamer9678 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That would make this resemble a fan site or something. A brief description would be enough probably. --Astroview120mm 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

I Think We need a list of flight sim websites for downloads, screenshots, est. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.15.178 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. There's already too many links and Wikipedia isn't a collection of links.

There's an important factoid missing in this article, it probably belongs in the add-on section. With Flight Simulator, and unlike virtually all other Microsoft Products, MS has released the specifications of Flight Simulator into the public domain. With all of this information easily and legally available, this has meant that it has been relatively simple to create the huge variety of add-ons; all without fear of legal action. This is widely attributed to be the main reason why Microsoft Flight Simulator is the longest living and most popular product in its field. Unfortunately, this factoid may well read like advertising :) Old_Wombat (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Various remarks

Does the availability subsection really need that much names of developers? Now it looks like a complete mess with everyone that has ever ever ever bent a polygon being listed. I suggest cutting it down a lot, or even removing all those names. To specify even more, many of them don't produce anything, but only distribute addons, so the entire sentence and wording is wrong. I can't help but think "hm every fanboy listed his favourite developer".

The external links section is a mess, phrases as "Selected, frequently visited community sites" is very subjective. Frequently visited by the visitors of those sites, or by all the online flight simmers? In my opinion, the entire external links section should be reduced to just official microsoft links and maybe the ODP link, everything else just looks like spam. Whale plane (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I've removed a few non-existant links from the article-mainly because they are useless at this point in time. If anyone wants to write articles on them, they can put the links back if they want to no problem.

Sorry, forgot to sign this TEA14 (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link to VAFSMP, please discuss here if you would like to add an external link. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed:

• Fsplanet.com
• Simviation.com
• Project Open Sky
• Vista Liners

Because there are far too many external links. If people have a problem with the two community links I left up (AVSIM and Flightsim.com), then I think we should just remove those links too. This is not google or open directory, its not gamespy or IGN, and this is not a game guide. We don't need external links unless they add to the article. Even the two community ones I have left probably don't either. A simple google search turns up these anyway. Please discuss link additions here and not add them directly. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed:

• Selected, frequently visited Flight Simulator AI sites
  • ProjectAI
  • World of AI
  • Military AI Works

For the same reasons as above. I did this as a seperate edit in case anyone particulary feels the need for a revert.Icemotoboy (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the links to specific community sites, lest a revert/link war developed. All the linked sites are available through the link to Open Directory, and FS Insider directory. Icemotoboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, due to the behaviour of some editors who don't understand how to maintain a "sustainable" list of links (ie one based on some sort of measurable criteria of notability), I think this is the only permanent solution. These two directory links are more than adequate - anything not found there is going to be too specialist for inclusion here anyway. Halsteadk (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Front pictures

Could somebody please change the main pictures? A picture of the latest one would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.214.118 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Developpers in availability

I have removed the endless summing up of payware developpers from #availability. It was just an endless list, that added nothing constructive to the article in my view. Have mentioned this before in May, but since nobody spoke out against removel in more than two months, decided to go ahead. Whale plane (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Advert

state-of-the-art product ... Flight Simulator X, released in 2006, has returned to dual editions with a "Standard Edition" and a "Deluxe Edition". ... wide availability

All these phrases in the "history" section sound like something from some advertisment. --80.63.213.182 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree on the first one and have removed it - it has no place in the article. The second and third I'm not convinced at all, maybe just need a slight rewording - they are both ultimately factual statements. Halsteadk (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Made a few grammar corrections, and removed paragraph; "In the world of simulator add-ons, the degree to which an add-on increases realism is often a point of pride for add-on developers. In other cases, the sheer convenience provided by a particular add-on may lead it to great success." - As it was unnecessary and didn't seem to have direction.

Also so edits in the AI Traffic section to remove some spelling errors and seperate some opinion from fact --Kurtvw (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ACES Shutdown?

I noticed a curious edit, that accidentally got reverted during the revision of an edit an imagebot did. There is no reference for this, and I've been unable to find it. But I have heard some rumors from colleagues myself... can anyone confirm this with a reference? Icemotoboy (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the edit. I probably jumped too quickly. My only reason for taking it out was because of the commentary-style tone. That's all. I don't know if it's true though. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think it was well to remove it, not only because of the tone but also because it was entirely unreferenced. Holy cow. Just as I was typing this... I finally found a reference... [4]. I'll update the article shortly. The article provides a reasonable about of detail... but the fate of the franchise seems unclear... Icemotoboy (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Although not a true cite, I've heard from current employees that the entire Flight Simulator Team within Microsoft has now been disbanded (i.e., laid

off).dnrothx (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

===== A real monkey wrench..?

Closure of the ACES Game Studio

On January 22, 2009, it was reported that the development team was heavily affected by Microsoft's ongoing job cuts, with indications that the entire Microsoft Flight Simulator team had been laid off.[5][6] Microsoft confirmed the closure of the ACES studio on January 26, 2009, in a post on the official FSInsider Web site.

=== you guys might to read this missed part of the story

plub date: February 18, 2009 (5 days before the Closure of the ACES Game Studio)

I’ve learned a little more about the aftermath of Microsoft’s decision to close the Aces studio and end development of its longest-running title, Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The games group has formed a new team, apparently called something like "Flight/Live," which ties into the Games for Windows Live initiative. Details about the flight-related game that the group may produce are sketchy. Apparently it will be designed to have "broad appeal." At present, the flying game doesn’t have a name.

(http://bruceair.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/microsoft-flight-simulator-a-change-of-perspective/#comments)

AVSIM hacked and 'destroyed'

According to the BBC [5], "Flight simulator site Avsim has been "destroyed" by malicious hackers.". I have tried [6] and get no response. The BBC indicates that a new forum has been set up at [7], which proclaims itself as "AVSIM's Temporary Home". Would someone like to confirm this before removing what appears now to be a dead external link?AlexandrDmitri (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I now see that it was an internal Wikilink to a page which confirms this matter. Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandrDmitri (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who started that nasty and totaly untrue rumor. Everything i have read to date says that the downtime was planned and intentional and saw various posts syaing the site was not hacked. Avsim updated theier system which required an extensive down time for thier file library the forums never were down.--T18 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. You are effectively saying the "rumour" was perpetrated by AVSIM themselves in that case, through this blog post[8] by one of AVSIM's site administrators, Tom Allensworth. He specifically says it was due to hacking and that the server was "destroyed". T18, "planned downtime" doesn't result in parts of the file library being "unrecoverable".[9] If you have evidence to suggest the site was not hacked, why don't you provide an authoritative reference to your claims? Bear in mind your evidence will need to be MORE authoritative than AVSIM's own system administrators and the BBC. Good luck. Halsteadk (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

When i asked why the file library was down i was told that it was not hacked but that they were migrating hosts. It is possibl;e that i was told wrong or that I am misunderstanding what they mean when the site was hacked and 'destroyed'--T18 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the hack was genuine and not fabricated by AVSIM staff. If you look on AVSIM's site you'll see that they are filing criminal charges against an individual involved in the hacking of AVSIM.Vedant (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

I can upload some self created pictures of the PMDG 747 landing at Kai Tak if anyone is interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding box art in the infobox

It appears that the collection of box art in the infobox may be in violation of WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#3, "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." However, I voice my support for keeping the full set of images; here on Wikipedia we often have separate articles for each version of a popular piece of software, and each article features box art or a logo, both of which are non-free content. We do not have separate articles for any version of FS except for the latest edition, FS 2004. The collection of images quickly informs the reader that the article discusses a long-running series of video games, in a way that the cover of the latest version or a collection of screenshots (which are also non-free, I believe) would not. I think this article, or the article on the History of Microsoft Flight Simulator, is the best place to display these covers.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the article for discussion at WP:FUR#Microsoft Flight Simulator. Rettetast (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• One cover is sufficient. Having all the covers is blatant overuse. If sub-articles regarding the other versions do not exist, they can be created if they are notable enough. If they are not notable enough, there's no reason to include a cover on them here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• The multiple images are indisputably contrary to non-free content policy and I have removed them. I have also amended the image use guidance at WP:VG which did not adequately explain that being fair use is insufficient. CIreland (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want this to sound facetious, in principle I agree that it is a bit excessive, and if there is a risk to the project in having them all, they must go. But if it had been one single image showing all boxes, would we be insisting that it was replaced with an image of just one? Would it make a difference if it was a photo someone had taken of all of them, rather than scanning them? Halsteadk (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A user created montage of 10 images is still 10 images. The idea of montages to skirt around NFCC policy is frequently suggested, and shot down every time. Every time. See point #1 under WP:NFLISTS. As to user created photographs of all ten covers, say sitting on a table in someone's dining room, that is considerably safer and often viewed in a kinder light around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, just checking. That's presumably on the basis that they are all going to be at different angles, different lighting, etc so aren't a perfect reproduction. Whether anyone would have all 10, and be a Wiki editor, is a different matter! Halsteadk (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The open letter and on-line petition

I believe it's only fair to mention that the user community is not happy about the ACES Game Studio being closed, and that there is strong support for the franchise. For this reason I put the text back, after it has been removed on grounds of soapboxing, but I rephrased it in a manner that I hope represents much more neutral point of view. The link now points not to the petition itself, but rather to the announcement on FlightSimDaily. I'm sorry that I screwed up the edit summary though. Bilbo (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POSKY/Project Open Sky

When I search Project Open Sky or POSKY it just brings me to the this page, Project Open Sky or POSKY is a company make planes for Microsoft Flight Simulator and not Microsoft Flight Simulator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianqing01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have to either create an article on one of these two pages [10], [11] (and change the other to point to the edited), or, alternatively, propose them for deletion (however, be sure to check the previous discussion on this matter first). — Luchesar • T/C 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Prepar3D section

I've removed most of the section on Prepar3D. It seemed to be an advertisment for Lockheed Martin. The user who added the section (Eviljonbob (talk · contribs)) had only added and edited references to Prepar3D to this and another article. The section is now just the facts and I'm not even sure that this is relevant really.--LukeSearle (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:FSX PiperCub Accusim.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FSX PiperCub Accusim.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight

under "Versions History", "Flight Simulator X", "Microsoft Flight";

Microsoft Flight Main article: Microsoft Flight

Microsoft released a new simulator in February 2012, developed and aimed at drawing new users into flight gaming. While claimed to be simpler to use for inexperienced users it is incompatible with Flight Simulator and does not allow the use of existing Flight Simulator add-ons (including aircraft, objects, and photographic scenery). On July 26, 2012, Microsoft cancelled further development of Flight.[14]

• should read...

Microsoft released a new game title in February 2012, developed and aimed at drawing new users into enjoy the experience of Flight. Development of DLC For the Title was canceled with the closing of the Vancouver Studio. "Microsoft Flight" was ended as noted on the the wikpedia page for flight

On July 25, 2012 Microsoft announced it had cancelled further development of Microsoft Flight, citing that this was part of "the natural ebb and flow" of application management. Reviewers indicated that sales may have been slow due to competition from other products, such as X-Plane. Glenn Pew writing in AVweb said, "Microsoft Flight provides a less authentic flight experience than its earlier more popular flight simulation programs. Competition in the market includes X-Plane, which offers advanced features for in-program aircraft design and flight testing, wide-ranging parameters for controlling the flight environment, and highly realistic scenery and global real-world terrain mapping." Microsoft will continue to support the community and offer Flight as a free download.[5][6][10]

After announcing the end of development, Microsoft continued to fine tune the core of the program with a post release beta test involving Steam users, with title update 1.1.1.30063 released on September 25, 2012. The update contained no new content, just bug fixes.

• Note: WHY IS "Microsoft Flight" UNDER VERSIONS of "Microsoft Flight Simulator", the Simulator title series ENDED with Microsoft Flight simulator X (MSFS 10), Microsoft Flight is NOT A CONTINUATION of the simulator series.

Reference: Microsoft Flight FAQ page. How does Microsoft Flight differ from Microsoft Flight Simulator?

With Microsoft Flight, we’re approaching the virtual flight genre from the ground up, with the focus on the universal appeal of the experience of Flight. We believe the simplicity of Microsoft Flight perfectly captures that vision while welcoming the millions of existing Flight Simulator fans. The new Microsoft Flight retains a lot of the high-fidelity simulation longtime fans have come to expect while offering an updated look and feel, a wide range of immersive game play and challenges, persistent experiences and social connectivity.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

References

FS Franchise Possibly Sold

http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/microsoft-sells-license-to-fs-franchise-r2295

HoworHow 22:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoworHow (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151123034447/https://fsxinsider.com/dovetail-games-flight-simulator-announced-at-gamescom-2015/ to https://fsxinsider.com/dovetail-games-flight-simulator-announced-at-gamescom-2015/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote

Former hatnote:-

This article is about the Microsoft product. For all other uses, see Flight simulator (disambiguation).

is not sufficient, since users not already aware that the similarly-titled "Microsoft Flight" is a different product in the first place will not think to go there. If anything, there is more reason to have Microsoft Flight in there than the general dab page, since the title includes "Microsoft" and is most likely to be confused with the other MS product.

Changed to:-

This article is about the original Microsoft flight simulation series. For the similarly-titled but different product launched in 2012, see Microsoft Flight. For all other uses, see Flight simulator (disambiguation).

Ubcule (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightsimulatornetwork.com/group/flightsimulatornews/forum/topics/breaking-news-aces-studio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708122902/http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/press_release/ to http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/press_release/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817022736/http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing to http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104080755/http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ to http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713125615/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/05172010Prepar3d.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/05172010Prepar3d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129174505/http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/01/end-of-era-part-ii-links-and.html to http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/01/end-of-era-part-ii-links-and.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006110455/http://uk.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-x/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review-6159886/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-x/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review-6159886/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20000901020346/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/9078.html

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Microsoft Flight Simulator Logo 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Flight Simulator 1.0

The article currently states that this version, "contained its own operating system, which displaced the installed one as long as the program was running". I'm uncomfortable with that description as I don't think it accurately describes the way this version worked. This version of FS came on a bootable disk which was not a DOS disk at all - DOS couldn't read it. To run FS you put the disk in the floppy drive and rebooted your PC. When you were finished you took the disk out, put your DOS disk in (unless you had a hard drive) and rebooted. Also, to say it contained its own operating system is putting it a little strongly. It wrote direct to video memory and used the ROM BIOS to handle interaction with the keyboard. It didn't really have anything I would describe as an operating system - no file system, no memory management, etc. --Prh47bridge (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Microsoft Flight Simulator X Steam Edition Airbus A320 flying over Lisbon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Microsoft Flight Simulator 2.0 → Microsoft Flight Simulator (1984 video game)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator 3.0 → Microsoft Flight Simulator (1988 video game)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator 4.0 → Microsoft Flight Simulator (1989 video game)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.0 → Microsoft Flight Simulator (1993 video game)

– None of these titles are official, even though their official titles are all identical. On the topic of retronyms and article titles, Superman 64 was only able to get by using a retronym because the official title was unique (i.e. no title at all). I am typing this on Xbox, so do not get mad if I mistakenly include the occasional error here and there. Ægc's friendly xbox alt (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current names are overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAMEs. They're not really retronyms as I believe all of them (at least beginning with the release of FS4) were predominately referred by their version at the time of their release. Skynxnex (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would however, like to offer some key points I missed before:

  We do not call the original PlayStation "PlayStation 1" on Wikipedia, despite the latter title being the common name;

  The 1982, 1986, and 2020 releases of Flight Simulator use the correct naming scheme – the 1982 release in particular being moved from Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0 to the current title even though the old title was the common name, meaning the other four games with incorrect titles have no reason to be different Ægc's friendly xbox alt (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Take for example Gaming Matters: Art, Science, Magic, and the Computer Game Medium (2011) where it shows the list of releases (p. 114). They are referred by their version. Mellk (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  For the PS1 example, there was a recent-ish RM that closed as not moved, finding that sources are split on referring to it as "PlayStation" or "PlayStation 1", so to stay at the title originally released as.

  I am not arguing for moving the original MS Flight Sim back to 1.0 (although I missed that RM and haven't really thought about it strongly). In contrast to flight sim 1, the later ones are almost universally both now and at release referred to with their versions (similar to how we name the Microsoft Windows articles).

  It seems both the 1982 and 1986 releases are pretty commonly referred to without the version so this set up seems plausible. Same for the 2020 release. People are just calling it Microsoft Flight Simulator.

  In general, English Wikipedia prefers WP:NATURAL disambiguation (I think overly so, honestly) and Microsoft Flight Simulator 4.0 is both natural disambiguation and more recognizable. I'm pretty sure more of our readers will know the difference between 3.0 and 4.0 more than 1988 and 1989 for which game it's referring to. Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Skynxnex. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per above. Numerical order is undoubtedly more popular than chronological order. Svartner (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.