Microsoft Flight Simulator X Deluxe DVD Reviews

• Might be worth buying in a year or two...

  
  By A3CYBF7JVKKQET on 2006-11-05
  I should preface this review with a statement:
  
  I've been a fan of the flight sim franchise since I first played Bruce Artwicks' version on Apple II. And no other software title has inspired me to spend as much money over the years to upgrade my pc hardware as much as Flight Simulator. I know this kind of game demands the latest and greatest, and generally, I have no qualms about making this kind of investment when a new FS version comes out. And I really wanted to like this game.
  
  However, I really believe that Microsoft has over-done it this time. What I mean is, I think it will be about a year before the hardware that is required to run this game at acceptable speed and display quality settings will even be available to the average person. Like I said, I expected to need high-end hardware to run FS X, I did not expect that the hardware required would be stuff that isn't even for sale yet. Now, if you're willing (and can afford) to go out today and buy an ultra-super-extreme-high-end gaming rig, with the very fastest core 2 duo cpu available and a water-cooled quad-SLI video subsystem, you can probably get this pig to fly, but if you don't, you won't have much fun with this "game."
  
  Case in point- my machine has an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ cpu, 2Gig of RAM, and an ATI 1900XT video card with 512M RAM. While not quite "bleeding edge," I think by all rational standards this machine is a pretty solid gaming rig. I can play FEAR, QUAKE 4, LOCK-ON, and a half-dozen other graphics-intensive games with all the settings turned up to MAX and I still get very fast frame rates. But when I loaded up this dog, it was like watching a slide show. I am not kidding - 5 or 10fps, tops. Even after turning everything in the graphics and scenery settings way down, turing autogen OFF, it barely got up to 15-20fps. And often it would still dip below 10. This is not a playable frame rate for flight simulation- not even close.
  
  Frankly, I almost think this version is a step backwards- I say this because if you turn down the display settings so that you get flyable frame-rates, the view out the window will look considerably worse than FS2004. By comparision I can fly FS2004, with detail and video settings at or near max, AND MegaScenery installed, and I consistently get 35-45fps. It appears that Microsoft is selling this title primarily based on the improvements in the eye candy, but in order to get that eye candy and have reasonable frame rates, you need to spend at least $3000 to $4000 on a completely new and very, VERY high-end machine. If you're OK with that, knock yourself out. Hell, for that amount of money you could almost get a real pilot's license. But for the vast majority of people out there, I would say, save your money, because FS2004 looks and flies MUCH better on today's hardware.
  
  MAYBE, when the Vista version comes out, AND we give the hardware guys about a year to catch up, then FS X will be a playable game. Because it's sure not right now. =(
  
  

• Great Looking but slow framerates

  
  By A1PN2U0AWXGVML on 2006-10-19
  This is the 3rd Flight Simulator I have owned. First one I bought in the 80s when it was fairly new. The second one I bought was Flight Simulator 2000. I bought that after trying it at Oshkosh Airshow 1999. That game runs great on my Pentium 4 3.2gigahertz Hyper threading, 1.5 gig of memory, 128 meg ATI video card. This game, which I was excited to get as I usually upgrade every 5 years or so, was a source hog! The game runs nice over areas of no populations or tree areas but go to a large city as New York or Paris and you get framerates low enough to be annoying (4-6 fps) but fly 20,000 with no clouds and it runs fine. Now I know that in a few years I'll upgrade my computer and it should run fine but this game should be able to run decently on my system. Only the most EXTREME ($5,000+ computers can handle most situations of this game). If you lower the resolution and lower the complexity it will run better but the water looks bad unless its shimmering in the sun. Maybe after Vista comes out it will run better. LET'S HOPE!
  
  

• From a pilot

  
  By A236HOR5PFM15P on 2006-11-01
  I am a general aviation pilot, flying single engine fixed wing Cessna type aircraft (4 seater). Flight Simulator X gives the feeling of actually piloting a plane. The plane responds to the controls much like "the real thing".
  
  Like other reviewers, I must agree that you must have a great computer. I have a dual processor Pentium D 940 running 3.2 Ghz, 4 gb RAM, 512 mb NVIDIA graphic card. On my system, with maxed out graphics and scenery, it runs very well, with only an occasional slight bump in frame-rates. I am somewhat disappointed with the scenery, which is good in major cities, but still basic in the country-side. The terrain is good everywhere, but the structures lack detail in other than the cities. The detail on airport runways and taxiways is terrific! Aircraft list is extensive. I recommend it.
  
  

• Most fun I've had on my PC in as long as I can remember

  
  By A210PRFGUD4EKD on 2006-11-08
  I got my copy of this edition a week ago. The last copy of FS I owned was the 2000 version so I was about ready for an upgrade! I dropped the first DVD in and installed it; it took a good half an hour to get through all three DVD's. Then I fired it up. I was immediately prompted for what kind of user was I - novice, experienced FS user or an actual Pilot. I picked novice as I'd not played a game like this one in at least four years and needed all the help I could get. It then talked me though some basics and let me control a plane already in the air at one point and that was cool - very easy intro; I was looking at the plane from behind so no confusing instruments or what-have-you. Felt like an accomplishment!
  
  After this it suggested I go through the tutorials, and told me where to find them, and even though I was itching to just take off from a small airport very close to my home in a Cessna or something and just get flying, maybe try to find my house - I resisted the urge and dutifully found the first mission.
  
  It was in a microlite, which is nice and easy to see out of, which was already flying in the air when the mission started. I just had to navigate it though some huge green squares hanging improbably in mid-air, which I just about managed after the second go. I then wandered about, and found it very cool to see a small boat whizzing along a coast I seemed to be over; I worked out how to get down close to it and was racing along just above it! Well, briefly - I got too low and fell in the drink :-p
  
  I only have a keyboard and mouse and found it devilishly difficult to control the thing with the keyboard; it was a little easier with the mouse. I then undertook several other missions, where I learnt to take off, and land, and navigate around the ground in an airport. The computer talked me through the whole thing; it was fairly straightforward and tremendous fun.
  
  I found after a couple of hours of periodically losing control of my various aircraft that I really needed a joystick. I rushed out to my local electrical retailer and bought the Saitek X52 flight System, which costs a third less here on Amazon btw, and I can't recommend it highly enough. I didn't even need to restart the game; I just plugged it in and the whole thing worked immediately. It is so much easier to control the aircraft with this set-up; made a massive difference.
  
  The most fun I've had so far was the mission that introduces you to Jet's. I found myself in the seat of a medium-sized passenger jet, on a slip-road by a runway. In front of me, through the windshield, I could see another passenger jet, ahead of me in the line for the runway. The computer started explaining to me some of the gauges in front of me, about how it was a glass cockpit and so on. I looked around using the "Virtual Cockpit" view, which is ever so lifelike. I found myself pushing the buttons on the display (prompted by the computer) and it was just so cool. All this while "we" (the computer, playing the co-pilot, and the plane in front) waited for a 747 to come in to land, which it duly did. Then the plane in front moved in to position to take off. The tower came over the speakers, and the computer answered it for me, and told me that we should move forward. I can't describe how real it felt to move the thrust forward a little, wheel the plan around and get in position behind the plane in front; I was as nervous in that simulation as I was on my first ever driving lesson. I was worried I was holding people up in the line behind me! That the tower might get impatient! Anyway the first plane took off, and after more instruction I got myself on to the runway as the computer, still playing my copilot, jabbered away about heights, angles, vectors and some similar stuff I was too nervous to take in. Then we had clearance from the tower to take off and I was time to crank the engines and get off the ground! I managed it just fine, mostly by luck rather than taking in the computers' tuition, and followed the computers directions and managed to navigate to a nearby airport and *nearly* landed (I clipped the trees at the front of the airport ). I did it the second time perfectly; the feeling of achievement was just exhilarating!
  
  There are several helicopter missions - I couldn't do those. I will go back and try them later but I found that guy, even with my whizzy new joystick setup, *HARD* so for now I'll stick to planes!
  
  Later I tried the online thing; I found a game hosted by somebody who was prepared for newbies like myself and joined it. I neglected to ask for permission to take off but made it without incident (or rebuke from the tower), and then pottered about the airport flying very low and making a complete nuisance of myself. Finally the guy in the Tower asked that I get above 2,000 feet, which I duly did; when I didn't answer he must have realized that I didn't know how the radio worked and he attempted to explain it to me. This was all via verbal communication, btw. He had a Scottish accent and he was very good about it. I shall go back when I have more of a clue.
  
  I finally tried taking off from an airport near my house and following the roads - it worked! I picked the microlite as I had got the hang of that one and it's nice and slow so it's good for low-flying and checking out the view. There is a large road bridge near my house and I found that easily enough; of course the houses and other buildings around the roads are made up but I still felt like it was familiar and that was cool.
  
  In summary, I can't remember the last time I was so immersed in a computer game - I found the learning process just utterly exhilarating. I recommend everybody give it a try :-)
  
  As for performance, I initially had my graphics settings cranked to Ultimate and got about one or two frames a second so wound them back to somewhere in the middle and it's fine. No doubt my next computer will make it look better which is something to look forward to :-) BTW I am running Vista which maybe helped I don't know. The specs of my notebook, for the curious who care are below.
  
  - Toshiba Tecra M4 with 2Gb of RAM and a NVIDEA GeForce Go 6600 TE 128Mb
  - I ran the game off of an external Maxtore 7200 RPM drive / 16 Mb Cache
  
  

• Easily the best so far, by far.

  
  By A1WGUNNY90U041 on 2006-11-03
  Here are some things you need to know before buying:
  
  This software is not a game. It's a real-time simulation.
  
  You'll need a Cray supercomputer to run it.
  
  The graphics are, hands down, the best in the business... any business.
  
  The flight models are realistic. I know, I'm a pilot.
  
  Where else can you learn how to fly around the world in a range of aircraft with no risk whatsoever for about 60 bucks?
  
  If you enjoy this sort of thing (you know who you are), spend the money for one good dinner out on years worth of aviation discovery.
  
  When I was a kid I never dreamt that something so comprehensive, exhilarating and downright beautiful would ever be possible. How spoiled we are!
  
  
• A big step backwards
  By A2EIX6N07F3BXG on 2006-10-17
  I have thoroughly enjoyed all the Flight Simulator versions, and was eagerly looking forward to this. However, with a 3GHz processor, 1GB RAM and and 512MB video card, this sim is unplayable. Frame rates average from 3-6, even with scenery turned down so much that there are about 20 buildings in all of Manhattan! Unless you have or are planning on buying a new ultra high-end PC, this is a MAJOR step backwards from Flight Simulator 2004.
  
  
• Unless you have a new state-of-the-art computer, forget it.
  By A1HAC616D2Q5TJ on 2006-10-20
  Microsoft has always boasted about Flight Simulator taxing the machines that are out there, but this time they have gone too far. I am running a Dell 3.6 Gig, with 3 Gig of memory, a 512 MB Nvidia card and I still have to turn down the settings to get "smooth play."
  
  What I have is 3 times more than their recommended setup on even the lowest setting. Now some will say that it was built for the Windows Vista but that doesn't come out until November..........if they make that date!!! For Microsoft to put their "minimum" settings on the box to make everyone think that this will play well on most puters is an absolute insult!!!
  
  And god help you if for some reason the game doesn't activate (you know like activating Windows? Oh yes they have created that for FSX) over the internet. Like me it didn't, and I literally spent 3 hours and 42 minutes on hold with tech support to get it activated and the customer service lady (from India no doubt) told me there were 62 people in line ahead of me. 62!!!!
  
  Microsoft needs to get their act together and make some serious flight simmers happy and do it now!!!!
  
  
• With Greatness Comes Great Responsibilities
  By A3FIHI1504HRI2 on 2006-11-08
  This is indeed the greatest Flight Simulator game to date. Never have I seen such detail and graphics like this in any computer game. For the first time, they have also included jetways, fuel stations, and all the other ground traffic that you would see at a regular airport. The aircraft, although missing one of my faves (Boeing 777), are numerous and beautiful in rich detail. This is an extrmely real-looking game.
  
  However, with greatness comes great responsibilities - like the responsibility of Microsoft to make their long-time Flight Sim fans even happier. But they haven't done so with this release! Oh no, as great as it looks, it is probably one of the most horrendous games they could have made.
  
  I don't know how they possibly compacted all of the game files into two discs because it's just a giant space taker. It requires at least 15 GB of free space on your hard drive! As an effect of its large size, it takes anywhere from 5-10 minutes to load only the main menu screen. Loading anything anywhere on this game takes just as long, including when you hit the "Fly Now" button. Apparently, "Fly Now" truly means, "Take a nap and fly in a few hours." Eventually you will get to see your aircraft ready to taxi out, but even then the game is still loading. Depending on your hardware, you probably won't see the full effect of jetways, ground traffic, and the aircraft details for another 5-15 minutes. Also, I've noticed the larger the aircraft you're flying is, the more the game will tend to screw up. For instance, I have yet to take off in a 747 because the game starts messing up in it just as soon as you begin to taxi. Either it moves sluggishly (frame by frame), or it freezes my entire computer. One way I tried to counter this graphics nightmare is to lower all of the settings for display. It seems to increase the game play speed by a miniscule amount, however if you lower the settings, you lose all of the things that make this game real: ground traffic, jetways, etc. In fact, one of the lowest settings removes all airport buildings entirely, which makes it look like we're back in the 1990s...early 1990s. There's a list of things wrong with this game, but if I kept going, it would just anger me more.
  
  So why did I say this is the best FSim ever? Because if you happen to have the latest and greatest hardware in your computer, than just maybe you'll have an extremely awesome game to play. But, I know for a fact that almost nobody (yet) has the graphics card and/or processor speed required to make this game operate correctly. In other words, it's an amazing game, but it's been released way too early. I figure in maybe another 1-3 years the standard, everyday computer just may be able to run this game without error. But not yet!
  
  Best thing to do now: keep on playing FS2002 or FS2004, they were both greats. If you're bored with those, make them intersting again by downloading "home made" aircraft for them from other FSim enthusiasts. But FSim X is no good to Average Joe for years to come.
  
  
• RUN AWAY and live to fly another day!
  By AMD4PBRY4K3F5 on 2006-11-13
  Been a real life chopper pilot for. . . a very long time. Have every release of flight simulator ever made but, this is a futuristic voyeur's nightmare from the anti-Christs at Microsoft. At home, I have an actual helicopter simulator driven by an AMD64X2 clocked to 2.4 on an Abit board, twin 250 Seagate Cheetahs in raid array, two gigs Corsair XMS extreme and a screen display through an Nvidia 7900 card. Even at 16 bit color depth and overclocked to the max on medium settings, the game stutters worse than a preacher caught with his hand in the collection plate. I've read all the tips and tweaks guides proferred so far by "those in the know", HA!, but everything only degrades the program that much further backwards towards FS2004. The box hardware requirements are a bad joke and it never specifically states the game was made for VISTA, not Windows XP, Pro, 64, or otherwise. To find this lack of full disclosure requires the readme file on disk and, you've already broken the box seal, can't return the, then used software and Bill Gates and company pockets your money without a shred of remorse. Try to boot on the minimums and I guarantee if you're young, you'll be too old to focus on the screen by the time the first aircraft which you can only fly at one frame per sec., finally loads up.
  In summary, this product was developed for a processor that does not yet exist in any quantity; based upon an operating system Microsoft won't sell you until big business is satiated; driven by a motherboard that isn't yet complete and a video card which will likely cost more than your hospital bill for the heart attack you haven't suffered yet; until you get the bill for all these new components and software. Right about now the hardware manufacturers are bowing to Mecca, alias Redmond, thanking Microsoft for propping up their slumping hardware sales while bending all of us little people over, as usual. SO, do yourself a favor and shop Amazon for great deals on a good, heavy duty vibrator for both you and your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend and relax your deep muscle troubles away while concentrating on making the most of good 'Ol Mom's apple pie brand FS2004. Maybe by the next release of Flight Simulator in 2008, some of us might be able to afford the transition to this 2006 nightmare.
  
  
• Will not install, support hold time is outrageous
  By ASB6PTVMTKLL5 on 2006-10-28
  Tried about 10 different installations after jumping through various hoops, called Microsoft Support, and they actually started speaking to me after the 110th minute of hold. They were able to tell me within 1 minute that they were aware of the problem ("Error 1722. There is a problem with this Windows Installer package. A program run as part of the setup did not finish as expected. Contact your support personnel or package vendor." near the end of the install, followed by a rollback of the install and a fatal error -1603, if you're wondering) and unfortunately do not have a solution.
  
  If they are aware of the problem, they really could have saved me some time by at least posting the error on the knowledge base and saying they are working on it. Instead I had to wait an hour and a half on hold to be told I had to wait a few more days (weeks?) for them to call me back with a solution. I would have used email support, so I didn't have to wait on hold, but unfortunately in order to use email support you have to have a product ID, and in order to have a product ID you have to have installed the product. Ye olde catch-22.
  
  I wish I could be writing a bad review on the performance of the actual product, but I am instead forced to write a bad review on my first expeience with the packaged product - the installer. I promise, however, if I do actually get the product to install, I will write another review detailing my dissappointment with the performance. Unless I'm pleasently surprised.
  
  
• I got punked by Micro$oft
  By AYG3NZIVI9JNW on 2006-11-28
  This game is made for computers available sometime next century. It takes a month of Sundays to load (over 5 minutes), chokes when any air traffic is in visual range and must be run with the almost all of the features defeated, features that Micro$oft alleges make this game worthwhile. I have a pretty solid gaming rig, Core II Duo, 2 GB of the best RAM available, ASUS motherboard, RAID 0 SATA drives, NVIDIA Geforce 7950 GX2 card. Does MS really think that this is not an adequate rig to make this game respond? This is the first game I have encountered that will not run at maximum settings and it won't even run at the minimum.
  
  I really think MS should refund the money for misrepresenting the system requirements for this game. It reeks of false-advertising, especially because of the bait-and-switch job they do with the Demo version. I regret I did not more carefully read the on-line reviews. I bought it based on the strength of the very excellent predecessors to this game, most notably FS2004.
  
  Also, the installation is very buggy, it took days on the phone with MS support for me to finally get it installed.
  
  
• What a bust...
  By A3LOXEATOVCAJF on 2006-10-18
  Gameplay-wise, the addition to detail in cities was thrilling, and the very few new planes to try held my attention for a few minutes...
  
  ...but at 3GHZ, 1GB RAM and a brand new $200 NVIDIA Graphics card, this game runs HORRIBLY on even the lowest graphics settings. It is very disappointing that this game seems like it was designed only to work on supercomputers. Save your $70 unless you plan on forking out another $1000 to retrofit your system to play this game.
  
  
  
  
• From a "not-hardcore-gamer" point of view
  By A1HOHT2598S31V on 2007-07-02
  Let me get something of my chest first. I have noticed a lot of bad feedback on reviewers who give higher ratings to products that are developed by Microsoft. So just to make it clear - I am not reviewing Microsoft, I'm reviewing the simulator.
  
  So.. how fun is this game? Well it's your system that can actually answer this question. This game is amazing from my point of view. I have used everything, from FS98 to latest X-Plane.. and nothing is as good as this.
  
  The Good:
  
  - Stunning graphics. This is the most beautiful game I have ever played. From the water effects to shadows from the plane.. every effect and particle is breathtaking.
  
  - Gameplay. It is an amazing gameplay, indeed. You can now fly in any seat you like, control literally any view of the airplane, most of the cockpit controls work and function the way they are supposed to. The weather system is amazing.
  
  - Multiplayer. This one speaks for itself: FUN FUN FUN. It is very entertaining since you get to see people from all over the world. However, there are few cons.. like the Bad ATC guys who often mislead you and cause you to crash etc. It was foggy, so I depended on A/P. I was told to turn 074R, which I did. I heard the ILS Frequency so I put it on APP but ultimately, I was put into wrong direction and as much as APP fought to align me to the right direction (while keeping up with sped and altitude) i still landed in the ocean.. and of course crashed (since you're not able to actually land on water in this game). Of course, there are plenty of pefect ATC's out there but even with few that are not as good it's still VERY fun to play. Try it and see for yourself.
  
  The Bad:
  
  - ATC. ATC has not changed much from FS2004 other than a new "window" that it displays in. Still no ability to declare an emergency which is sort of a disappoint since you ARE able to set engines to fail or to run out of fuel (or both). So.. if your engines die out on you don't you think you deserve a right to report the situation to ATC? LOL
  
  - Crash dynamics. If you're hoping to be able to crash your plane into a mountain and see a giant explosion and earthquakes then I have to disappoint you. While I almost never crash in Flight Sims I still wish there were better crashing dynamics to make it more realistic. For example, if I land heavily on my nose I'd love to see my plane's nose gear to fail and act like it would in physics.
  
  Also, why can't we have the ability to land on water? Boeing 737 CAN do that (if propely executed). Here, no matter what amazing pilot you are.. as soon as you touch the water - you crash. Oh well. It's a very small thing but I wish it was improved a bit.
  
  The Ugly:
  
  - System requirements. I agree with what many reviewers said - this game depends more on CPU than it does on video card. This game will most likely NOT work at the Max settings if you have a brand-name PC (eMachines, HP, Dell).
  
  When I first installed the game I had AMD Sempron 3300 (2.01GHz); 2GB DDR, Radeon X1650 Pro with 512MB. I ran the CanYouRunIT tool from System Requirements Lab.. the report said that I exceed RECOMMENDED requirements and should have a great experience with the game. I didn't really believe that since I have a 3rd class CPU but I played FS2004 and HL2 on the HIGHEST settings with absolutely NO lags so I thought it would work fine.
  
  I was.. wrong. The game was not playable unless I set all of the aircraft, transport and texture settings to Minnimum Low. It lagged horribly on my native resolution of 1680x1050 32 which I had to put into 1440x900 16bit.
  
  I purchased a new video card which is Geforce GTX 8800 with 740mb of RAM and can now play without any lags on my native resolution with settings set to Medium High but still not maxed out. Why? Because this game needs CPU. In this case, the CPU is the heart not the video card. If you buy it make sure to get the SP1 for this ASAP.. there are few performance updates which could be crucial if your video card or CPU isn't the best.
  
  So to wrap up - I highly recommend this simulator to any Aerolover as myself. But make sure you have a GOOD CPU and card. If you have them you'll find yourself spending hours and hours flying above gorgeous landscapes, commmunicating with people all over the world, surviving a dead engine and/or faulty mechanics and generally having fun. This amazing software is both entertaining and educational.
  
  UPDATE: I have got myself a new PC. I built it with Anthlon 64 x2 4600+, 4GB DDR2, 2 GTX 8000 (in SLI mode) and a SLI motherboard/PSU/case. I am now able to run the game to its full potential.
  
  
• Flight Simulator X is AWESOME!
  By on 2006-10-17
  I pre ordered this game and was so glad i did! This game has AWESOME GRAPHICS!!! The Water is SO REAL and Missions ROCK!! On my gaming computer which has a 320GB Hard drive Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2GB of RAM and dual SLi 512mb nVidia graphic cards FSX Runs FLAWLESSLY with all slides at Max. But I know not everyone can afford a high end gaming computer so I also tried it on my low end secondary computer with a 2.93ghz intel celeron D processor 512mb of RAM and a ATI graphics card. Flight Simulator runs pretty good but not great. If you have a computer like my seconary computer I suggest getting Flight Simulator 2004 or 2002.
  
  - Pilot Derick
  
  
• Snore X
  By AAMY8117G1WTL on 2006-10-19
  P4 3.0; 1GB ram; 256MB nvidia graphics card. This configuration is 4 times greater than the minimum requirement for this software.
  
  This game is unplayable; even at the lowest possible graphics settings, it's to SLOW.
  
  Building scenery takes FOREVER. Rebuilds are SLOW.
  
  Also noticed that it uses lots of memory and isn't too good about releasing allocated memory. I had an instance running that started at 200+MB went up to 800+. I closed the app and it never released that memory. Reboot was the only way to get that memory back.
  
  Unless Microsoft plans to patch this game ASAP, I would skip it for now. It's not worth the aggravation. Can't really play this game, very disappointed, but it's pretty typical of Microsoft to release crap before it's time.
  
  
  
• One of the best flight sims on the market
  By A28FT3QZMU0A86 on 2006-10-19
  Flight Simulator X is the newest edition and graphically the best of the flight simulators on the market. Many of the graphics has been improved since flight simulator 2004 like the ground textures. It really looks like the real world. You can even pinpoint many recognizable highways and roads from your own city. You can even see moving cars, moving gates at airports, and even moving baggage carts. The airports look much more realistic as they have real markings and even the airport tiles at the gates. Also mountain ranges look much better. Many of the mountains are sculpted to their acutal sizes and makes it very realistic. The graphics have more depth than in 2004 version and when the new Windows Vista 10 comes out, the graphics will look even more realistic than it is currently. There are also more planes in this game. Included are the usual Boeing and Cessnas, but there are also new jets like the airbus a321, and even a new glider, which is towed by another airplane. You can even go to websites to get more planes and decals for free like (Delta, Southwest) by googling the search flight simulator x downloads. Websites like simviation give you a lot of variety and can make it much more realistic. Another feature is the missions. Some of the mission include just getting from point a to point b. Others include landing a plane on a moving bus, or rescuing people in the middle of the ocean. This new mode adds a lot more depth and you even earn rewards for completing them.
  
  Many of the features from Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 is back. Like the Learning Center. The Learning Center has everything you need to know about in aviation. Including some articles about weather, the planes, and many other features in flight simulator. It is a very comprehensive source of information and can replace buying the strategy guide. Also understanding how to fly IFR like the real pilots is very useful to know just for even gamers.
  
  The only complaint is that you need a very powerful computer to run the game on max textures. The system requirements on the package is the BARE MINIMUM to play the game and at the lowest textures. It makes it disappointing to play the game on shaky framerates. However, many of the new items added to this game won't stop flight simmers from buying this game. All in all a great game and well worth the purchase.
  
  
• Requires Very High End Gaming PC
  By A1UP6CBF2Q7O86 on 2006-10-21
  If you have a computer similar to mine you will be satisfied with this new version of FS. Graphics are very good and the virtual cockpit feature is nice. Took about 10 minutes to load both dvd's with no glitches. Nice selection of background music and if you have used ofther FS editions most of the features will be familiar.
  
  With all settings to maximum including filtering and a resolution of 1680 x 1050 I get slow frame rates. I found that turning off the flare and bloom gave me frame rates in excess of 24 fps. Dropping res down to 1440 x 900 yeilded excellent results with frame rates in the 40's. Antiaisling and Tri-linear filtering is the minimum you can run to get decent graphics - anisotrphic setting is preferred.
  
  Geographic accuracy is good, I flew over my neighborhood and some of the key landmarks were visable, such as the little league field and the cell tower up the road. I live in a town tof 100,000.
  
  Flying around Vegas isimilar to what I have seen with FS 2004 with several big add on's. Will be interesting to see what some of the aftermarket software compaines produce for X Deluxe.
  
  Do not purchase this game unless you have a high end gaming computer with dual video cards running sli or crossfire, minimum 2 gig of memory and one of the latest dual core cpu's.
  
  I run AMD 4600+ Dual Core CPU Overclocked to 2.8ghz, 2x Nvidia 7900GTO in SLI mode, 1 Terabyte Striped DASD Sata Drives 3.0 gps, 2Gig Cosair DDR 800mhz. Bus overclocked 5%. 3DMark05 Score 14,000.
  
  
  
  
• Ahead of the Curve
  By A33ZYFE8XMKKR1 on 2006-11-19
  Flight Simulator X is the culmination of decades of programming and product evolution. As someone who used FS briefly back in the 1980's on a Commodore 64, it was always something I wanted to learn but never had the time required. So after following developments on both Microsoft and FS community websites, I decided to purchase a Dell XPS M1710, FS X, and Saitek X52 stick and Pro Rudder controls. While I have been generally happy with my decision, I am a bit dismayed that my system isn't powerful enough to utilize the full capabilities of FS X.
  
  The current incarnation of FS is quite an accomplishment. However with such advanced features and realism comes the commitment of resources, including cutting-edge computing hardware, money and time. While FS X has added missions with specified tasks, this is NOT a game. More importantly, the programmers at Microsoft were somewhat forward thinking in their hardware demands.
  
  Much of the griping heard from the FS community centers around the incredible computing horsepower required to make the game function. Many of the complaints are valid. However, computing power is continuously increasing. Moreover, the rate of increase in graphics performance is actually exceeding Moore's law. Yet, do expect to make a significant investment in your hardware beyond a high-end business PC. Think cutting edge hardware in Q1 2007.
  
  When in the task manager, I routinely see the memory usage exceed 500MB for FS alone. To make FS function properly, you should have at least a 256mb video card, 2 GB of RAM, and a 2 GHz Core DUO processor. Even with such a system, you will have the urge to upgrade. In fact, I am considering dumping my machine in favor of an M1710 with 512MB GTX graphics. Most hardcore users should strongly consider desktops for upgradeability.
  
  What is demanding such hardware requirements? Realism. Everything from the scenery, ground traffic, water, advanced animations, visual effects, and weather require extensive CPU and GPU computations. These are all adjustable, of course, but the realism is what inspires users to purchase FS X. If you don't have the financial means for the latest hardware, use an older version of FS or just wait until hardware prices come down.
  
  Some examples of the level of realism include missions with walking elephants in an African game park, a burning oil rig, and a jet-powered truck that the pilot races in Oshkosh, WI. When the computer doesn't hang, the scenes are impressive. The detail also adds a sense of urgency to the missions.
  
  Missions such as those above require beginner to expert skill levels. Taking from ten minutes to an hour, they are both exciting and educational. The verbal cues are great instructional aids for beginners. With discrete objectives, they really encourage users to learn FS in a concerted manner.
  
  My personal favorite is the drag race against a jet-powered semi truck in Oshkosh. With 36,000 horsepower, the truck is at standstill while you have a flying start. The trick is getting up to maximum speed during your flying start in a dive without a crossing the starting line early. It took me about twenty tries to win the race.
  
  With my current system, I can use FS with all the sliders maxed out at 1920 x 1200 resolution. I especially like using my Dell 5100mp projector aimed at a 120" screen. Talk about immersion. Depending on the scenery and weather, the machine will stall though. One of the biggest drags is inclement weather where significant precipitation affects your field of view. When taking off in a 747 during a snow storm in Chicago, FS was almost unusable.
  
  Much like a real airplane, the number of settings is daunting. There a learning curve but it isn¡¦t that steep -- at first. Envision it as an exponential function where it initially increases at a gradual pace. Then, the user is allowed to push forward, making the level of play as difficult as he chooses. Fortunately, new users should be able to use FS out of the box, especially when employing proper controls by CH or Saitek. Clearly, Microsoft understands there is both an established FS community and amateurs such as myself.
  
  The Microsoft FS development team deserves a lot of credit for its magnum opus. Both entertaining and educational, FS X can provide a great deal of enjoyment for users of all ages. With a large ecosystem of add-on products, it is much like a model train set where there is no limitation on the expansion of the original product. There will always be more detailed scenery, additional planes, and other enhancements. Few simulation games have such an ecosystem. This leaves the question, is it really the flying or the anticipation that is the draw? I am sure once the average user can afford a suitable system, Microsoft will come out with FS 11 and the whole process will start over again.
  
  
  
  Pros
  Overall realism
  Scenery and animations
  Ecosystem
  Missions and other training
  Voice coaching
  
  Cons
  Incredible CPU, GPU and memory requirements
  15 GB of disk space required
  Requires separate controls which can get expensive
  Learning curve
  Some autogenerated scenery inaccurate (i.e. single family homes adjacent to skyscrapers in downtown Chicago)
  
  
  NOTES
  
  1) Tips
  *Disable all unnecessary processes using msconfig (start >>> run >>> msconfig), including network, restore, help, remote functions, power management, virus protection, etc. forget about Task Manager. There could be 20-30 items to disable
  *Use a separate flight stick and throttle, keyboard/mouse use is pointless
  *Add memory /change video card if possible
  
  
  2) My System (that I am planning to replace)
  *Dell M1710 XPS
  *2.0 GHz Core DUO
  *1 GB Ram
  *Nvidia Geforce 7900 GS graphics with 256 MB
  *Dell 24¡¨ WUXGA monitor and Dell 5100mp projector
  *Saitek X52 Stick and Throttle
  *Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals
  
  
  
• Excellent release but major disapointment at the same time
  By A14OQUE914UAT0 on 2006-10-31
  If you don't have Intel Core 2 Duo processor with a very decent graphic card in your machine, don't even bother to buy it. On my AMD Athlon 3800, 2Gb memory and Nvidia 5800 512Mb runs at about 14 - 18 frames per second with scenery, dynamic scenery and 2D panel set to minimum. The minimum system requirements on the box are waaaaay off.
  
  But if you do have a Core 2 Duo machine, go ahead - it looks awsome.
  
  
• I tried the demo, and now won't be buying the product
  By A2KHHWSAFFUXW4 on 2006-11-15
  Yes, a few of the people here have top-end machines and are having fun with the sim, but the vast majority is seriously disappointed and Microsoft should take note. Also, magazines such as Computer Pilot and PC Pilot should do us all a favor and provide a true review of MSFSX and not just be cheerleaders for Microsoft.
  
  I have a 2-year old Dell XPS, Pent 4, 3.2 GHz, 2 gig memory, and ATI 256 meg card. MSFS 2004 runs great on this machine. But based on the demo performance, my computer will not work adequately for X - bottom line.
  
  I found it strange (or very smart by Microsoft) that the demo places you on a small airport on a sparsely populated island in the middle of the ocean. This is by design a very friendly Frame Rate environment. Microsoft is very smart. This island environment does not represent the Frame Rates you would get in a very populated area with a large airport such as LAX or New York. Microsoft new that if they placed the demo in such a populated place then probably 95% of the people out there wouldn't even get the demo to work and they would not buy the product (very smart marketing). So if you ran the demo and it ran slow but seamed almost ok, as it did on my machine, imagine how slow it will be in your favorite major airport environment?
  
  I assumed that the MSFS X will require a better system that what I have in order to run the Sim at its full settings. However, it seams I will need a top-end system just to run it on lower settings. So if I can't make it look better than 2004, why would I buy it, unless I want to buy a brand new system? I don't.
  
  I ran MSFS 2002 on a lap top. When I upgraded to 2004 I was still able to run it well on that lap top, so it was worth it. Eventually I upgraded my system to the Dell and it works great. However, it seams that the required hardware upgrade to go from 2004 to X is a bit extreme.
  
  I commend Microsoft for making such a beautiful product. Yes it looks awesome, but I can not justify spending 3 to 4,000 bucks on a new system. Those of you who have top-end machines; have fun.
  
  I'm actually happy that MSFS X is getting such bad reviews. It makes me not want to buy it. And now I can load up on all the great add-ons for 2004 now dropping in price.
  Maybe in two years I'll get a new top-end machine for MSFS XI?
  
  
  
• Dissatisfaction
  By AUWJJE9ZJYI4E on 2006-11-26
  I purchased the new Microsoft FSX Deluxe and was very dissatisfied with its performance. It's not the cost of the item, but it's in the two year wait until it became available, the over $1000.00 upgrades to my computer in anticipation of the release of FSX. I have a 3.2 processor, 2GB's of RAM and a 512MB high end graphics card, a 21 inch flat screen monitor which makes my computer over three times the recommended operating levels. When ever I'm flying if I get any where near a populated area the frame rates drop considerably and will even cause the plane to stop in mid-air. Microsoft should do something to remedy these problems. They should feel some obligation to their customers.
  
  
• Flight Sim X - FANTASTIC !
  By A1RT9Q6TQGDARE on 2006-10-18
  OK, first of all if you are running an older PC or a really minimal set-up this program is going to run slow. NO BIG SURPRISE HERE. I have it running on a Dell 3.5 system with 1 GB RAM and an ATI X600 video card. I have the setting set to about 3/4 full on everything and the game runs fine. The only time I see it srunning slow is when you load a new flight or when the initial game starts, this takes a little while to complete (when was the last time you went to the airport, boarded a plane and actually had it take off on time with no delay). Once I am up and flying, it is pretty quick. Yes I can probably turn some of the graphics down and make it perfectly seemless but I really enjoy the graphics I see at this setting and I can easily live with the way it is running, there is no chopiness at all. When you are flying over major roadways you can see vehicles driving below, not static but actually moving. This is true for vehicles on bridges and boats in the water as well. All of the graphics are intense and remember, I have it set to only 75 percent of the high end. Could it run a little better...sure however I would prefer the fantastic visual effects they have included as opposed to just remaking FS 2004.
  
  Once more, if you are running a really slow or low end machine it may not be worth your money but the way games are today, there is not much in the way of graphically intense games that will run on these PC's.
  
  Experiment with the settings, reboot just before playing and turn off any background programs such as anti-virus software and you should be satisfied with this long awaited revision.
  
  
• Disappointed!
  By AZRUMI9LBHULZ on 2006-10-22
  Learn from my $70 "Deluxe" mistake. I have owned all previous microsoft flight simulators and was very eager for this release. I have a new semi-powerful computer (dual-core, high end graphics card, extra memory etc)in which I invested as I anticipated this release. What a waste. Forever to load, extremely low frame rates unless you strip of everything which then makes it look like the first flight similator years ago.
  
  Learn from my mistake, save your money!
  
  
• Microsoft strikes again
  By A12JOMANTTQ7ZQ on 2006-11-29
  I used up my two installation limit getting it to install right once.
  
  After researching what kind of system it would take to run FSX balls-to-the-wall (an aviation term meaning throttle, prop pitch, and mixture controls all the way forward) I would have to spend more than I did to get my private pilots license.
  
  I'll just stick with FS2004
  
  Have a couple of drinks on me Uncle Bill
  
  
  
• Agree overall with other reviewers
  By ASJQ8VJ740BZE on 2006-10-18
  Was excited to pick this up for a while. However, very dissapointed in the fact that with a Pentium 4 2.6 Gig 512 Mb RAM with NVIDIA graphics card and this game is SLOW. Even worse, when all settings are set at low and the game actually runs smoothly, the graphics are the exact same as Flight Sim 2004. I guess I will remain dissapointed until I sink a few grand in a new machine in a few years...
  
  
• Shame On Amazon - POOR SERVICE!!
  By A3QNHVX2GFJ962 on 2006-10-18
  I, too, am extremely unhappy with Amazon for their terrible handling of the release of this product. Despite having pre-ordered over a month ago, my order was substantially delayed. Even more upsetting is I had several other items in this order that were waiting for this game to ship to take advantage of Amazon's free shipping, and now those items are delayed also. If I had known that, I would have just ordered them separately so I would have had them a month ago!
  
  Amazon has become too much of a giant to have decent customer service any longer. It's bad enough to pay the exorbitant prices for priority shipping, but even when you do it still seems to take a week for someone in their warehouse to physically ship it, making it pointless. From now on I'll just pick up the items I need at local stores and save myself the headache!
  
  
• Microsoft did it again!
  By A2TRJFW1XRFH6E on 2006-10-19
  Awsome game. The graphics are unbelieveable. Sounds like people are haveing troubles running it on systems compariable to mine so I don't know what thats all about. I'm running a P4 3.6Ghz HT, 2 GB of ram, 128MB Graphics, and 250GB hard drive. I'm also luckey enough to be one of Microsoft Vista beta testers so I am running it on Vista RC2 which may be the difference. I hope to have my Intel Core 2 Duo system up and running soon so we'll see how much better it runs on that. As I am a licensed pilot myself I have always been impressed with the realism. They still haven't made IFR flying perfect. If your looking for a sim to practice your IFR approches then check out X-Plane.
  
  
• Slideshow deluxe
  By AYVL36PE5YRN0 on 2006-12-10
  To start with my system specs: D830, 3Gb DDR2-800, 7950GT 512MB OC, 2xSATA2 NCQ in RAID0
  
  I was pretty confident I would be able to run the game - with the default scenery - at reasonable FSP's. I was wrong as wrong can be. With the sliders in medium range, I was enjoying FS-Slideshow Deluxe !
  So I started fiddling with the settings and really, I was actually getting flyable values but for which price ! Autogen almost off, all the advertised bells and whistle not present !
  So I started to to look what FSX would offer me. Did anyone at MS ever look at the textures? Who came up with that idea of a fixed mipmap setting ? The more I looked around, the more I got ticked off. Improvements of ATC over FS9 - negative. Better designed mde's (flightmodels) - negative. I'll spare the rest of it...
  I am sorry Microsoft but unless you people come up with some major patches - or better FS-XI - i'll stick to my trusty FS9.
  I've been simming since Apple2e times and cursed those neccessary hardware upgrades more than once, but almost always I did get rewarded by improvements - not this time! Oh, sure, if your priority is on animated birds, underwater reefs, swinging pamtrees or the ability to control a plane with your x-box controller, THIS IS YOUR GAME.
  
  
• Obsolete. A look under the hood.
  By ABM99C75OV8OC on 2007-10-10
  What the heck, you might ask: The game was recently released, I get only 10 fps with everything maxed out and you call it obsolete? That is my point exactly. You need to take a look under the hood to understand why you get such poor mileage. Simply put, the game isn't designed to take advantage of multi-threading, ie it doesn't split tasks to run in parallel to take advantage of multi-core CPUs that we have today. FSX was designed in 03-04, when mainstream CPUs were in the MHz race. A few years later AMD and Intel dropped the clock speed factor in favor of multi-core architecture, but by that time FSX was well in implementation phase, and it was too late to change it. That is the reason you get slow FPS. You can wait for 10,000Mhz CPU to improve things but don't hold your breath. SP1 improved it somewhat by multi-threading couple of tasks but MS was limited in what it could do with a finished product.
  
  A word about graphics. Many people were hoping for DX10 and Vista to improve things. But, as MS team admitted, SP2 (DX10 upgrade) has barely any graphics improvements, so you'll be hard pressed to see the difference beteeen DX9 and DX10 graphics. They claim, that DX10 pipeline improved framerates by 10-20% by offloading more tasks to video card, and you get better performance. The problem is, DX10 runs only on Vista, and Vista is much slower than XP. So you give up performance by upgrading from XP to Vista (bog down your CPU), then regain it back by using DX10 (offloading some tasks from CPU to graphics card). At the end of this exercise you'll be left with basically same graphics/performance, at a cost of measly few hundred greenbacks. MS claims the DX10 spec was raw when they were working on FSX, and other schedule constraints (such as Acceleration pack) let them pretty much drop any significant DX10 work.
  
  So, at the and of the day, you're left basically with FS2004 graphics, poor framerates and nothing new and noteworthy. Had they improved the flight model, that alone would have been worth the price of admission, but alas, we see more of the same: higher res textures, finer mesh, etc, all of which have been available for FS2004 for quite some time via commercial add-ons, without the performance penalty to boot.
  
  Some philosophies advocate building classics: things that stand the test of time and get better with age. Common philosophy these days it to build disposable items, from ligthers to automobiles that go out of fashion before you can count to ten. MS has been a leader in building fad software. This time they have outdone themselves: delivered a product that was obsolete on release and a lot more obsolete now, with DX10 features dropped. The bug of technical progress bit them in the backside, hard. So long, on to FS11.
  
  
• Not ready for flight simulation
  By A2ASOXJMMPC3P on 2007-04-02
  FSX is the result of 25 years of development. If things continue to go this way, we can surely count on another 25 years of wait before it becomes acceptable. It is true that it has some nice features. Beautiful skies, clouds, nice water surfaces, so-so terrain, and some nice airplane virtual cockpits. But the planes don't simulate flight properly, controls pitching violently, and this product doesn't even have customizable adjustments compensating for different joysticks/controllers. The missions are FULL with bugs, giving you wrong directions, jetways/baggage carts sinking into the ground, to numerous to mention. It is a real disappointment to see that a product this poorly finished can be released. MS appears to expect the flight simulator community to write add-ons that will make it more usable. You can expect to pay $20-25 for each add-on which could make this product's true cost in the hundred of dollars. This lack of polish characteristically is sold as an "extendability" feature, since MS provides a Software Developer Kit. When I buy a car I do not expect buying another engine, seats, or steering assembly just so that it behaves like a real car. And build it myself in my garage!
  Read the hundreds of complaints about this product on the Flight Simulator community websites. Don't think that buying your super-duper gaming computer will solve the problems either. You can read accounts of people spending $3,000 and up for a new computer just to run FSX and still fall short of its hardware demands. Well, you can't say you weren't warned.
  
  

• Microsoft Flight Simulator X For Pilots Real World Training
• Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid: A Guide for Pilots, Instructors, and Virtual Aviators
• Space Shuttle Expansion for Flight Simulator X
• Legacy - Executive Jet for Flight Simulator X
• Cargo Pilot Expansion for MS Flight Simulator X/2004 DVD

• CH Products Flight Sim Yoke USB ( 200-615 )
• CH Products Pro Pedals USB Flight Simulator Pedals ( 300-111 )
• Microsoft Flight Simulator X For Pilots Real World Training
• Microsoft Flight Simulator X Acceleration Expansion
• Logitech Extreme 3D Pro Joystick (963290-0403)