This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Flight Simulator article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Microsoft Flight Simulator" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)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."
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)
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)
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)
Had a tidyup of a load of spam links as follows:
Halsteadk 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
rbrown3rd 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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).
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
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]
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 [1]
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.
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
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Former hatnote:-
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:-
Ubcule (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)