Customer Reviews


98 Reviews
5 star:
 (45)
4 star:
 (23)
3 star:
 (12)
2 star:
 (7)
1 star:
 (11)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


29 of 30 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars FSX or FS2004 - a considered view after 2 years
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...
Published on 9 Nov 2010 by John A. Stedman

versus
49 of 54 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Way ahead of it's time
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...
Published on 25 Jun 2007 by Louis Vallance


‹ Previous | 1 210 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

29 of 30 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars FSX or FS2004 - a considered view after 2 years, 9 Nov 2010
By 
John A. Stedman (Rye UK) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
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".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


102 of 111 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Flight simulator x detailed review, 5 May 2007
By 
E. Bowers (England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars 
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
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
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


49 of 54 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Way ahead of it's time, 25 Jun 2007
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
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
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


23 of 26 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Need a monster PC, 1 May 2007
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
This simulation is very demanding on your PC - make no bones about it. I installed it on my old rig (AMD 64 4000+, 2GB, 256MB 7800GTX) and it chugged, but it was just about playable on low to mid settings (configuration settings are all important to get the best performance). I've since built a new PC (Quad core QX6600 OC to 2.67GHz, 8800GTX 768MB, 2GB, RaptorX etc.) and it runs pretty smoothly on almost max settings (@ 1280x1024 - the max my current TFT panel supports, so I can't comment on higher resolutions) and load times are much reduced.

Don't think of it as a 'game' - it's going for realism over f.p.s., and don't try and run it on max settings and silly resolutions on a PC which isn't state of the art ...you'll be bitterly disappointed (see other reviews). However, if you like proper flight simulation, and you're prepared to invest in the proper kit to run it, it can be very rewarding. I'm really glad Microsoft invested so much time and effort in making this, although they should have been up-front about the 'real-world' minimum spec.

FYI - There's a service pack due in May 07, which should address some performance issues (optimised for multi-core etc.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Invalid product code, 27 Jun 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
After installing the product code was invalid, re-installed as suggested but still not working. Allowed half hours play then advised free trial expired. contacted help line, all automated and unable to speak to anyone. Prompted to enter product code but not recognised. On line chat unable to assist, no choice but to return this item.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


32 of 37 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Slow start to the tarmac., 21 Oct 2006
= Fun:1.0 out of 5 stars 
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
I have owned all Microsoft Flight Sims but before you purchase this one DO make sure that your computer is really fast.

My machine is pretty fast and normally can handle any amount of demand without flinching.

However Flight Sim X is just too much. Taking over an hour to load initially it will only run anywhere near acceptable when all the settings for scenery, traffic, weather etc. are turned to very poor settings. When selected it takes an age to start.

Having said this the range of aircraft and scenery are pretty good compared with FS2004.

If you have a really (and I mean really) high end PC and a load of patience then this could amuse you for hours, and hours.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Re-visiting an old favourite, 24 May 2012
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars 
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
My original installation of Microsoft Flight Simulator X had stopped working some time ago. I decided that the problem lay in my having updated my operating system to Windows 7. Since a brand new disc of FSX was available for just 11 - I decided to buy one. It installed perfectly and I have been enjoying flying to Las Vegas, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney. Choose everything from a microlight to a 747. Get close to the Pyramids or Niagara Falls. Most of the airports of the World in real time with real weather. Clear skies or horrendous storms. You choose and experience it all from the comfort of your own home. What ever happened to Meigs on the edge of Lake Michegan though? It has completely disappeared.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars FSX is really good on a suitable PC, 29 April 2012
By 
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
I've used Microsoft FS in its various versions over the years. FS 2004 is a good simulator and less demanding than X and I have used it as certain aircraft are only available to be used on 2004. As for FSX I've never had any performance problems as my PC is mostly used for 3D graphics and has a dual quad core processor coupled with a Nvidia 560Ti gx card. My computer is about 18months old by now but FSX is a relatively old application and so any average current PC should have a sufficient processor to run it providing you get a current Gx card, even the PC I used previously ran it quite well. At various times I've loaded various scenic add ons and airports etc etc and I've had no performance problems. You actually don't need to run it full screen anyway as you'll need screen estate for a map and another flight view to assist with positioning etc.
I think its true what others have said about FSX being ahead of its time regarding computer power- you needed a top flight PC about three years ago to cope with it- now most PCs are up to the job.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars I'm left wishing I'd bought FS2004 in the first place, 19 Aug 2007
By 
D. Laurie - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
= Fun:3.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
Flight sim 2004 looks just as good as this, except that 2004 runs way faster. I have a Geforce 6600 GT and Athlon 64 2800+ with 1.5GB of ram, and even with the settings on minimum the game runs sluggishly. In some areas simply looking around in virtual cockpit mode causes the game to stutter badly, regardless of how low I turn the settings. The rest of the time the game never approaches the smoothness that 2004 runs at. This might be justifiable as the game is technologically more advanced, EXCEPT THAT FLIGHT SIM X DOESN'T LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN 2004.

There are also more quality freeware planes out there that you can add for 2004, as well as scenery and other objects.

My advice would be to wait a couple of years, then upgrade your PC, then buy Flight Simulator X.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Real Reason Why Planes Were Made, 16 Aug 2008
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) (Video Game)
This game is amazing! I was stunned when I bought this, the snow lanscapes are truly stunning! Every time you go on it you want to explore the world! One minute i was flying over the pyramids over Egypt the next minute i was travelling to the alps! Seriously if you are a trainer pilot or a person who loves viewing the landscapes in the air, then this game is certainly for you! (make sure you have the required hard drive space (15GB) otherwise your experience my not be so good) honestly this game is amazing, 5/5.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 210 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC)
Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC) by Microsoft (Windows Vista / XP)
8.41
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews