Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Microsoft Flight Simulator Talk Archive

Contents 1 Pictures 2 Extending history 3 MSFS version 3.1 4 External links 5 September 11, 2001 (9/11) 6 Flight model accuracy 7 Joystick? 8 External links (Sep 2006) 9 External links re-visited (Oct 2006) 10 Hovercontrol 11 Redefine "Realism" 12 FSXBoards 13 Community

[edit] Pictures

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)

[edit] 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)

I agree. The current history reads very poorly and would probably benefit from a complete rewrite. I'm fairly clueless about MS Flight Simulator, but I did find a site with information about the early versions: http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/versions.htm

A quick summary:

FS_1: (Apple II, TSR-80, ...)

• Black & white 320x200 display (white lines on black background)
• Ground was flat, but had a wireframe mountain in a later release
• 3-6 Screen updates per second
• Had a WW1 Battle scenario with an Sopwith Camel
• You had two viewmodes, out the window or top-down
• Later version had a instrument panel
• Minor features: Raise/lower gears, oil pressure/temp, compass, airspeed, staling, and fuel:
• Lacks: No whether, time, radio, outside view, etc...

MS FS 1/2: (DOS - 1982)

• Runs on IBM PC with CGA graphics
• Uses a new coordinate system (i think)
• Comes with four scenarios (Chicago, Seattle, LA, NY)
• Has simple, buildings, bridges and 20 airports
• Has 'time of day' and whether (clouds, wind, turbulence)
• Cessna 182 aircraft, with AOR, OMI, ATIS and ILS (Instrument Landing), but no GPS or ADF/DME
• One could zoom in top/down mode
• In later versions one can view around in 8 directions
• Includes an expanded version of the WW1 Sopwith Camel battle scenario

FS 2: (Amiga, Apple-II, Atari 800, C64, ...)

• Graphically superior to MS FS 2. (16 vs 8 colors)
• There was 14 different versions (released from 1983-1988)
• Had Joystick support, Instant replay function and multiplayer.
• 5 Sceneries with a total of 120 airports (with correct elevations and radio-beacons)
• More objects (buildings, roads, etc...) thanks to hidden surface elimination
• 47 Flight parameters were weighted during calculations.
• The positioning system had an accuracy of 256 feet (76 meters)
• The Coordinate system had an 1/100 inch accuracy
• Had an outside (spot-plane) view, with visible clouds and fog
• Colors changed with the time of day
• Had the Gates Learjet 25G turbojet
• Now had ADF, DME and autopilot with wing leveler, VOR lock, heading lock and altitude lock.
• Latest version was pretty much equivalent with MS FS 3.0

MS FS 3.0 (DOS-1988)

• Sadly, there is no more information on the site.

Anss123 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can supply some more info, although taken from my own memory.... :)

First a correction; the Learjet wasn't a part of FS2, at least not for the Atari, and there was no spotplane (although there was a map view). It was a part of FS3 for DOS, together with the Sopwith Camel, Cessna 172, and a Schweizer glider. It also offered more colors, and better textures compared to FS2, where the ground was green, sky light blue, with some grey on Meigs field on a few other places. FS3 introduced more ground textures, such as roads, and tried to have one texture for metropolitan areas and one for farmland and similar. Also introduced animated parts, although these were either on/off; and only applied to the landing gear as far as I recall.

FS4 Didn't have too many improvements over FS3, but it had some. It came with the same graphics (256? colors), and also introduced the F-20 Tigershark, as well as a rough aircraft designer interface, allowing the player to 'design' custom aircrafts, by setting certain values (such as wingspan, fuselage length, engine power, amount of fuel carried, engine type, etc.), thus creating a new airplane based on one of the five original aircraft supplied with the game. It also introduced a very basic form of ATC, where the user could request taxi, take-off and landing clearances but little more. I'm not sure if AI traffic was introduced in FS3 or FS4, but I believe the latter, as it used the aircraft models from FS3, in addition to a very basic 737 model, while the player aircraft in FS4 had been upgraded with some more animated parts (ruddersurfaces, flaps and landing gear). In terms of scenery, I'm not entirely sure about improvements, but I know for sure that the aircraft carriers outside Los Angeles and San Fransisco were present, as well as 4 F-14's that flew in a little circle to and from the carrier. It was also the last version to include the WWI fighter scenario/game (also included in FS3).

FS5 was the last version for DOS, and also the first with photorealistic graphics, it featured a model of the entire world, but only had airports for the USA, as well as south-east England, and the northern parts of France, and also some areas in the border area between Germany and Austria. The WWI game was dropped together with the F-20 and the aircraft designer, but I believe that a 737 had been included (although I'm not entirely sure about this), and you could also see a model of a JetRanger sitting in a hangar at O'Hare. ATC was no longer a part of the sim, but all aircraft models, including AI had been upgraded to look the same. Also featured different cockpits, with different layouts and different instruments for the various aircraft; FS4 and earlier had the same layout, and only disabled or removed some instruments to simulate the various types. Also featured 'real' sounds, and not just computer-generated.

FS5.X/FS for Win 95 I seem to recall that FS for Win 95 was a somewhat improved FS5, that would run under Win95, with few or no improvements over FS5 for DOS.

FS98 Was very improved, and also the first version to feature airports from the whole world, and not just a few selected areas. The graphics was improved quite a lot, and you also had the option to fly helicopters. Installation of additional scenery had been simplyfied, and the structure of the sim in general is representative for what every version after this one used (in regards of folder/filestructure). Used the same graphics engine as Combat Flightsim 1, although CFS1 probably used a slightly improved version.

FS2000 contained additional aircraft, such as the Concorde, and also had improved graphics, sounds, and so on, although at a heavy prize; it required a very high-end computer to run with a satisfying FPS, and was heavily critizised for this by several fansites. CFS2 used a similar (although slightly improved?) version of the graphics engine. Was the first (of two) version to feature a normal and pro version.

FS2002 Not too sure on this one, but I know that it was the first to feature seaplanes. Came as normal and pro version.

FS9 Improved sounds/graphics, more airports, more textures and so on. Had a brand new ATC engine, and was generally more flexible, although requiring a decent computer to run at a satisfactory FPS/quality.

Hope this helps! Bjelleklang - talk 19:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSFS version 3.1

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)

Began to rewrite the history section in Microsoft Flight Simulator/Temp history. Bjelleklang - talk 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Created article at History of Microsoft Flight SimulatorBjelleklang - talk 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

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)

No, it's not just you. I have no objection. However, whatever we do now, the links section of this page goes in cycles of: purge links, links re-added by anonymous users over a few weeks (with no other useful contribution to the article), purge links. I did add hidden notes to keep the links in alphabetical order which seems to have at least stopped someone continuously adding his favourite site right at the top. Just doing a purge won't break the cycle so I propose this:

We have the 3 biggest sites, either in terms of active membership or freely downloadable files (all the better if they fit both criteria, but it might otherwise mean 3 of each type). This is on the basis that the sites' inclusion, and hence others' exclusion, has to be justifiable. If the top of the list says something like "The three largest FS communities" then someone will have to edit that to add a new one - once it gets above five it will start to sound daft, hence good reason to roll back the edit. (I'm guessing if we start at 3 it will get to 5 - fair enough but I reckon "the six largest FS communities" will sound silly to anyone coming and reading the article.) If they just add a site without changing the top, roll the edit back, likewise if they remove the top bit altogether. What do other regular editors of this page think? Halsteadk 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very in favor of having the top three sites; I just checked all the current links with Alexa, and the top three are Flightsim (just under 10.000th most visited site), Avsim (just above 10.000) and Simviation (approx 20.000).

I'd like to keep the historylinks around, but would rather have them moved to History of Microsoft Flight Simulator as they are more relevant for this article. When it comes to the screenshot links, we might want to consider just creating a gallery at commons instead, as these images are more or less found on every flightsimrelated site, and doesn't offer anything other than the same screenshots released by Microsoft. Bjelleklang - talk 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the FSX screenshots, etc, if they are all available on the official FS Insider site then I think all links to "clones" of that collection should be removed. I'd definitely welcome a concensus from other editors rather than just us two though! Halsteadk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if use of Alexa to determine the top sites is appropriate, as that will only count hits if they started from Alexa search results. I noticed a site I administrate is about 1.6millionth (wow, not) but we definitely don't send anything back to Alexa and few of our hits originate there. Halsteadk 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Using alexa was only a quick attempt to see what sites have the most traffic. Although traffic isn't everything, it does give an ok indication of the popularity of a site, especially considering that many of the other sites had ratings of 200.000+. As I see it, Avsim, Flightsim and Simviation are clearly the biggest ones, but for future debate; the desicion on what sites to include should be something like a combination of the popularity, number of registered users, and available downloads.

Also, if Microsoft have their own gallery online, that would be the preferred collection to link to from the article, and would also avoid any debate on why "why your favorite site is listed and not mine". And more editors would absolutely be positive. Bjelleklang - talk 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are objections by thursday march 2nd, I'll remove most of the external links; will keep simviation, avsim and flightsim.com for being the most likely three largest sites, and replace image gallery links to FS Insider (microsoft-owned site). If people want to find more sites they are free to use Google, or to look at the four abovementioned sites linkpage. Bjelleklang - talk 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It might also be worth including a link to Google Directory: http://www.google.com/Top/Games/Video_Games/Simulation/Flight/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_Games/ Halsteadk 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed all but flightsim.com, avsim, simviation and fsinsider. Bjelleklang - talk 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Bjelleklang. I was concerned that there was nothing there to try to stop people sticking a load of links in again. I've included a "three most visited" note, and a link to Google Directory for all the rest. Halsteadk 09:15, 3 March 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)

It's okay for me, if sources that indicate that the site is equally large to the three already mentioned can be found. Being listed amongst other communities is okay enough, but doesn't indicate the site's importance. Bjelleklang - talk 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the google directory link you already have there, it appears second with Google rank importance equal of Flightsim.com. I will re-submit the link later this evening if you guys don't disagree. I'm new here, can you guys send me a link where I can find all the Wikicode usage? Darklord2000 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Google directory is the best way to determine the notability/importance of a website, especially not as Avsim, and probably other big sites are missing. I would prefer Alexa or similar, but as Alexa is reporting a rating of 35587, I'd say that it's okay by me as long as you make it clear that the links listed are most likely the most important ones.

I'd also like to propose an upper limit as to additional links, for example excluding all the sites with a higher ranking than 50.000 on Alexa. This way we wouldn't have to debate each and every site, add-on developer and so on... Bjelleklang - talk 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link as discussed and included an edit summary. I'm getting more comfortable with the Wikicode... lets get editing! Darklord2000 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the links - things were a bit out of hand imo. Not sure how good a gauge Alexa is of a site's popularity though. Alexa has become somewhat of a joke lately among site valuators, and one really has to take a more serious look at search engine rankings, raw traffic, membership, and the like. Community membership should definitely be a criteria, not sure about files available though. A couple of sites come to mind that do nothing but provide free FS downloads - problem is they serve spyware, popups and all kinds of other nasties to the poor visitor. The major sites seem to have file libraries covered. And imo sites such as flyaway simulation should be removed since they force visitors to pay to download freeware files. Sure it is only $5 but do we really want to direct wiki readers to a site like that when files are freely available at avsim or flightsim? --Civ 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose then that there is no objection to removing flyawaysimulation? Charging to download freeware files just does not sit well with many of us. --Civ 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, Fly Away does not seem to charge for the specific downloading of files, rather just for the membership of the site and to have a members account. The site offers all of its content free of charge and the only paid option is that of a paid membership, downloads included - this is the same with Flightsim.com and other portals. There does not seem to be anything wrong with this. Darklord2000 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (on a bit of a technicality) - with Fly Away you have to pay a subscription (albeit a tiny one-off one) before you can download - at flightsim.com, membership is free but with an option to pay for an enhanced service and a guarantee of being able to login (but then all freely accessible FTP sites have a maximum number of simultaneous users). Halsteadk 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the community sites listed provide lots of high quality content and articles, reviews, discussion forums and other features; regardless of the debated download sections. The External link section in my opinion stands fine as it is, but should carry on being monitored for future modifications and un-appropriate content.Darklord2000 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Halsteadk, they definitely are charging people to download freeware files. Darklord2000, with all due respect, freeware authors over the years have made it clear that charging for their files is not appreciated. Sites such as FSPlanet have gotten quite a bit of (well deserved) flack over the years for "restricting" free access to freeware and charging for premium access. This flyaway site has gone one step further and *forbidden* access to the freeware files until a premium membership is purchased. We should not be directing Wiki readers to such a place. --Civ 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed flyaway as there were no objections. --Civ 05:25, 18 May 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

Thanks for coming here and asking first psionmark, but unless it's a well-known, respected resource I think the bases are generally well covered right now with respect to FSX.--Civ 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why my Hovercontrol link was removed? I added it because Hovercontrol represents a rapidy-growing segment of Flight Simulation and not only has it been instrumental with the development of Flight Simulator, but it is also getting recognition for becoming one of the premier helicopter flight training websites in general. It's time helicopters earned a bit of respect.

[edit] September 11, 2001 (9/11)

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 don't think it's too controversial if it is actually true and there are utterly reliable sources that would not give rise to accusations of libel. However, I cannot find anything more than there being speculation at the time that the terrorists might have used a flight simulator to practise - with no specific mention of MSFS. If that is the case it would be more appropriate for the flight simulation article. The only reasonable link I can find is that on 17 September 2001, MS confirmed that the towers would not be included in FS2002: [1]. Halsteadk 12:30, 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)

[edit] Flight model accuracy

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)

[edit] Joystick?

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)

[edit] External links (Sep 2006)

Had a tidyup of a load of spam links as follows:

• fs2004.com - removed, not enough visitors (ref Alexa) and the domain name doesn't mean it is significant
• fsgateway.com - removed, not nearly enough visitors [2]
• simviation - retained, fixed vandalism of link
• flyawaysimulation - removed as it charges a subs fee to download files, see earlier discussion
• international flightsim conventions - removed, very small number of visitors [3]

Halsteadk 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why my Hovercontrol link was removed some time ago? I added it because Hovercontrol represents a rapidy-growing segment of Flight Simulation and not only has it been instrumental with the development of Flight Simulator, but it is also getting recognition for becoming one of the premier helicopter flight training websites in general. It's time helicopters and the simulated aspects of flying them earned a bit of respect.Srosenow 98 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that this had gone. Checking back through the old talk the only discussion is related to keeping it so put it back. I think if the rule is that a link needs to be discussed before it is added, the same has to be true for removing one! Halsteadk 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up again - it's a never-ending battle for several articles I frequent. I ran through the list though and it appears that the fs2004.com link may be as popular or more popular than the simviation.com link, based on the Alexa popularity link you posted. I'm not a fan of Alexa but there does need to be some sort of publicly-available traffic legitimization and they seem to be the only game in town. Thoughts on that link? Civ 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No responses from anyone? Referencing Alexa again it appears that the popularity alongside/over the simviation.com link wasn't a temporary phenomenon. Adding back the fs2004.com link due to the Alexa ranking.

rbrown3rd 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why the link to http://www.fs-freeflow.com/ was removed? This is a large user community that produces high quality scenery for FS9. They have won two awards from the users of flightsim.com and don't charge a penny to be a member of their site or to download their scenery.

I'd assume that it was removed because it is nowhere near the size or scope of the other sites in that list. 1200 members? And dealing solely with scenery design? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.255.210.139 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] External links re-visited (Oct 2006)

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)

Darklord 2000, it hasn't grown appreciably since you made your comments in the above discussion that it was fine, and that a fee-charging website was ok for inclusion! Please could you leave it alone until others who keep an eye on this have had a chance to comment. My opinion is that it is still fine as it is. Halsteadk 15:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To me is seems like the only thing that ever gets updated in this article is the external links section. It's about the quality and content of the article, not the external link section. My previous addition of a link was to a community site that I am a member of the forums - however all sites have the same membership charging options, not just the one that I mentioned. I suggest we only provide direct links to official Microsoft Pages and provide community links via "Big Name" directories such as DMOZ and Yahoo Dir, and of course the Microsoft FSinsider Community page. I'll leave this here to let it brew for a while. Let me know your thoughts.Darklord2000 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can agree that the article should focus on content and quality, it should also provide a list of links to various resources that provide 3rd party add-on content, as well as some other resources that the web has to offer. Since Microsoft is all about 3rd party enhancement in terms of Flight Simulator (and has been almost since the beginning) the Microsoft Flight Simulator article here should provide links to those wishing to divulge in those areas.

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)

As has been pointed out by myself and User:Civ, your suggested site (flyaway) was different to the others presented here in that paying a fee was NOT optional to download files, whereas other sites (eg flightsim.com) offer a paid OPTION to have guaranteed ability to login. If this practice has changed, I would agree it should be added, otherwise previous discussions still stand. However, there is no discussion on fs2004.com, it is a spam link with a misleadingly significant domain name given its insignificant visitor numbers. Halsteadk 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have posted my discussion regarding the fs2004.com link here rather than in the Sept 2006 section above, but it made more sense there since that is where the original discussion about that link started. So please see my comments up there - I was careful to solicit feedback here in Talk before adding that link so I hardly consider it spam. Regarding the traffic level comparison of the links in question, a quick check of Alexa produces an Alexa rank of 72,xxx for flyawaysimulation.com & 28,xxx for fs2004.com so as far as Alexa is concerned the latter is the more popular link (the lower number being the higher rank). As there were only anon vandalism edits made to the article after Darklord's removal of the link I posted, and since the low-traffic objection is no longer viable (per Alexa anyway), I'll be reverting back to my version barring reasonable objections. --Civ 15:59, 1 November 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 FlightSimX?

Links to non-official blogs are inappropriate. See WP:EL. --Yamla 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hovercontrol

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)

The IP address you have been reverting has a history of vandalism it seems. I suggest you see if you can get it blocked. On a different note, please see the discussion above as that would remove Hovercontrol altogether. Halsteadk 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redefine "Realism"

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)

Okay. This is the page to discuss changes to the article in question. If you're proposing that this be mentioned in the article, you're going to have to give some sources and make this verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 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)

[edit] FSXBoards

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)

[edit] Community

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.

I have reverted the VANDALISM from user: Hmmmmm3 - Since no comments was given at his deletion it must be considered vandalism just to delete stuff. - So lets see if he gets back. /sEi 217.157.195.186 12:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a regular editor of the page and "tidy-up-er" of the external links section, I would agree the edit by User:Hmmmmm3 was vandalism. The info initially included about MS-FP.com was literally just an advert, which is inappropriate, so I salvaged what I could to make it objective, which was then edited and improved slightly to get to where we are now. Hmmmmm3's complete removal of the entire section is vandalism (even without the other remarks) as others have said, as the user completely removed all reference to the community aspect of FS. (Please do note this article is not FSX specific.) Halsteadk 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a WikiGnome - much appreciated! About the entry for fs-mp i agree that the first entry by someone else was pure advertising. But the info in the "Community involvement" about fs-mp i see fit for wikipedia as it is now. /sEi 217.157.195.186 16:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree, I've made a minor tweak ("LIVE ATC" to "live Air Traffic Control") to make it more accessible and less like the "live" is emphasised. Would be useful to clarify what "7110.65R" is for non-experts! Halsteadk 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added "7110.65R ATC Specification" as it a bit better explains whats behind the 7110.65R. To not cludder the page then i dont think further explanation is needed (you can anyway read about it by clicking the link). /sEi 217.157.195.186 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to FS-MP as it still reads like an advertisement, and seems awkward in this article. You could try adding it to the FSX page. Canwolf 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)