Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC)

I have just baught the game off amazon and would like to help the future buyers know what they are getting. you may have viewed the video (on this page of flight simulator x) and be amazed by the quality of the sim. dont be fooled by other peoples reviews on here saying "we dont all have a super computer like bill gates" and letting you down thinking you cant run it. i have installed it on both of my pc's.

1st pc has 2.8ghz intel duel core, 1gb ram, 300gb hdd, and a 512mb graphics card. i can run the game on ultra high settings with no glitches or pauses working with no problems this is full on graphics, detail, scenery, weather etc. my other pc is intel 2.6ghz, 1gb ram, 256mb graphics card and 2x80gb hdd. on the 2nd pc i can run the sim on medium high settings (which is about 3/4's of the full settings on graphics, detail, scenery, weather etc) and runs with no glitches or pauses... i cant say i have tryed the settings higher yet but it may handel a little more. the system spec's on the game case say; at least windows xp or vista, 1ghz or higher, 15gb hdd, 32mb graphics card... i am sure with the lowest spec's even with lowest graphic settings the game will pause and have glitches... very demanding on graphics, BUT if you have any pc with (in my mind) atleast 1.8ghz, windows xp, 256/512mb ram, 64/128mb graphics card you will see a good view from the game. if you have the spec or higher than my 1st pc then definatly buy this... you wont be dissapointed. i hope i have helped people with any questions about this, and be warned... you WILL NEED A DVD ROM!!! wont work with a normal cd-rom. have fun. edd

If your looking to buy Flight Simulator for the PC, I would strongly recommend getting FS2004. The reason I've given this game quite a generous rating is because (set aside the rest) it's actually an excellent game in terms of it's vastly improved content and realism. For the majority of PC owners who do not yet own Vista, you will find FSX rather disappointing. For a start it occupies a staggering 15GB of HD space! (13.5GB higher than FS2004). It requires a processing speed that exceeds the power of even the fastest computers.

I am a flight simulator fanatic and I bought this game soon after it's day of release and at first I was totally addicted; it was way more dynamic than FS2004. Not before long though I started to notice it's pitfalls: The graphics settings had to be lowered all the way down just to prevent my PC dying on me (even though I've got a fairly descent machine), and dozens of little program errors caused glitchy graphics and poor rendering, making the game seem like a botch job on the part of Microsoft. Soon I became tired, and so did my PC. Since then I have been playing on FS2004 instead. The 'Deluxe' edition (at £10 more) merely adds to you're computer's hardship, although it adds more content, offering a few more missions to enjoy, as well as enhanced scenery. I own the deluxe copy and it does improve the game considerably, you can even play as air traffic controller. This however does not redeem the major pitfalls of the game, as you can't escape it's sluggish performance.

I understand that many people are able to run this game no problemo; it's really down to how good your PC is. A lot of people get annoyed when others give it stick, but I am trying to base this review on behalf of the majority of gamers who's PC may not meet the high spec of this game.

I'm sure that if I came back to this game in five year's time once technology has advanced a little, I would absolutely love this game. I feel that the celebration of 10 years of Microsoft Flight Simulator (hence the 'X') has forced Microsoft to deliver this game too soon, and it hurts me to say that the case is beginning to gather dust. It's not cheap, and whether you're looking for a serious FS experience or you just want a bit of fun, get FS2004 for now. Flight Simulator X will just have to wait

A little background first. I have used Microsoft Flight Simulator since its' very beginning, when "as real as it gets" was a series of angled hollow shapes. I can go back further if you want me to, such as a 737 "Simulator" that ran on a ZX81 and you flew from Square A to Square B - if you got it right you saw the "scenery" which was a third Square labelled - er - C.... Enough of this frivolity - Microsoft Flight Simulator has come a long way and can now be viewed as a serious training aid in some respects - I have had an actual licence for 16 years years now and still use FS to refresh such things as instrument navigation.

I also have a pretty decent PC - 3Ghz twin core processor, 4Gb RAM, GTX280 Graphics - in other words, not just a wordprocessor. I have both FS2004 installed which I have used since it came out (in about 2004 I think!) and also Flight Sim X (10). So what are the pros and cons?

FS2004 is smooth stable and reliable. It has plenty of free add-ons available, and is still well served by the aftermarket providers. I can wind this up to full settings and it doesn't flinch. Add ons such as Photographic Scenery have a large margin of performance in which to operate, so the performance remains smooth with frame rates in the order of 50+ (anything over 25 is smooth).

FSX is a great deal more demanding. Functionality is pretty much the same as FS2004, but the graphics are noticeably improved. The glistening of the sun reflecting off the wing of a turning aircraft is magically recreated. As you accelerate down the runway, the graphics make you feel as if you've been pushed back into our seat. There are interior views by the dozen, and wing mounted cameras, etc. There are a host of other improvements over 2004 as well, but nearly all are aimed at pushing the boundaries of sound and vision - or reality if you prefer. Like 2004, FSX is well served by the aftermarket providers and there are apparently limitless add-ons to be sought after. These are excellent buys if you are looking for a continuous source of subsequent Christmas presents!!

BUT, all these improvements in FSX come with a price. Not money - performance. The program is demanding, much more demanding than FS2004, which means that you'll probably be making some compromises and pulling back the graphics sliders. I installed Photorealstic scenery on FSX as I have it on 2004 - my computer just could not cope realistically (it could cope poorly!) and I have now taken it off.

At the end of the day a realistic flight simulator experience requires a number of factors to be present - but right up there at the top is fluidity, smooth flight movement. It doesn't matter how pretty the graphics are if, when you come onto final approach for landing (when the textures that the sim is required to handle are generally at their most complex) the frame rate dips down to 10 or 12 Frames per Second. The illusion is destroyed immediately (and chances are you won't be able to land your aircraft either!).

This could explain why, after all these years with bth FS2204 and FSX on my machine, it is invariably FS2004 that I load up for an evening's "flying". I just find FS2004 is still "as real as it gets".