Reviews and Problems with Flight Simulator X - Deluxe
Showing 1-10 of 17
Carsten Molle "foomzter", Amazon
2 March 2014
Summary: 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 !
Summary: 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.
Wish to return "Microsoft Flight Simulator x Deluxe.
Edmund Rogers, Amazon
14 August 2013
Summary: It does not work. When put in hard drive the drive runs at a high speed and becomes very hot. I tried both drives. It starts to list all the files on the discs. That is not the normal startup mode for FltSim X. Microsoft no longer supports the product. I would like return this order. #107-8897360-5897825. (08/06/2013) Thank you for your service.
Summary: I have had microsoft flight sim 2002, 2004 and X. Flight Simulator X is by far the worst! If you are used to getting add on airports and aircraft for your flight simulator game you will be totally disappointed. Almost every add on has issues with FSX. Even worse FSX has the base version, service pack 1 and service pack 2. Some add ons are only compatible with the base version, some only work with service pack one, and some only work with service pack two.
Summary: Although there are many features and advanced graphics in this simulator, you won't be able to see or use them with present day technology, if ever! MS goofed in their "future tech" considerations and did not provide dual core technology or SLI and banked on ever higher speed single core cpus - this is not going to happen in the future. The game cannot run with options set above medium settings on today's high-end technology - it is a monumental disappointment!
Summary: When I saw the hype regarding the game, I was interested in buying it as I used version 2004. For those not familiar with Flight Simulator, it is not a game but a simulator as the name implies - and a very good one. Judging by the machine difficulties mentioned here, I felt I should download the demo first and see if my Asus nVidia chipset, AMD 64 X2 4800+ CPU with 2GB of RAM can handle the game. My video card is the nVidia GeForce 7800GTX.
Summary: My Fun rating of 5 is based upon my use of FS 2004 and what FSX is SUPPOSED to do. Like so many users of earlier versions, I was disappointed and dismayed that this program is all but unusable on my Pentium 4, 2.6 Ghz with 512 Mb of RAM, which exceeds the minimum specified by Microsoft. The time it takes from launching the program until you are taking off on your default flight is at least 5 minutes, and that's with all of the graphics settings at minimal quality.
Summary: Half of designing a game is making it available for at least half of the users out there. This game fails because it is simply too demanding on the system. It makes me wonder how Microsoft even tested it. I loaded the Demo on my system and knew it had problems, but figured it was because the demo was referencing limited files and it required more from a DVD... I tried this game out and my system 3.8Ghz with 2GB RAM and a ATI x1800 and I still had to turn everything down.
Summary: 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.
Excellent release but major disapointment at the same time
Pauli Jr, Amazon
31 October 2006
Summary: 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.