User Reviews (1 - 11 of 47)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

The System Requirements are Very Misleading

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 13 / 15
Date: May 03, 2000
Author: Amazon User

The packaging states minimum requirements P166 32MB RAM, however the game is unplayable on my system which is a P200 64MB RAM. The graphics remind me of games I played on my old half meg Amiga and the speed is slower than a snail feeling under the weather. Unless you have a fast computer (and I mean fast) DO NOT buy this game. Microsoft is cheating you seriously by stating such low requirements. DO NOT BUY.

This is outrageous!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 57
Date: September 22, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I've just bought a new (admittedly somewhat not state-of-the-art computer) and installed FS2K and I'm terribly disappointed!

My new computer is an IBM!

It's a couple of years old (it's an XT though!), but this new FS version locks up before I even get started!

I don't know what the hell to do.

I love to fly.

My new machine has a processor speed of 4.77 megahertz! If the new FS won't run on this they shouldn't be selling it!

Any advice would be appreciated.

MikeS

Laser147@Juno.com

Just another warmed over game.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 14
Date: May 05, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Microsoft, in their "infinite wisdom",has decided to warm over their FS98 version with this "clunker". After gobbling up more than 1 gigabyte of hard drive to do a custom load they still want you to do a lot of CD swapping just to play the game. At least with FS98, you can load it and play it off your hard drive. Iv'e spent more time loading and, swapping cd's than I have playing FS2000. Nothing too "whoopee" about their so called improved graphics either. A few little "frills" here and, there. I'm sure MS is proud of the fact that to start the game you have to verify each time by loading the CD's, taking from 1 to 3 minutes. "bummer".

Very Disappointed with MS FS 2000

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 12
Date: July 28, 2000
Author: Amazon User

No enginge sound with Win95. Graphics are very pixelated, slow, with poor resolution similar to an old Commodore 64. I am using a new AbitBE6II/PII350Mhz/128Mram100mhz/8meg3dvideo card/7200RMP HD/50XCD. I will try to return it to Amazon.

It sucked

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 34
Date: December 14, 1999
Author: Amazon User

nothin like the old one..so much slower hard to countrol and even complicated...its a waste of money!

Incredibly Useless

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 21
Date: November 27, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I don'y know if you've ever paid almost 60 dollars for something you and up hating. Flight Simulator for windows 95 IS BETTER THAN the 2000 version. You can't even run it on a slow machine or in many regualar computers: you have to have a PENTIUM PC. Please reconsider if you're thinking about buying it. There are better simulators aut there.

DIM SIM

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: March 11, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Two years ago I tried Flight Unlimited on an old power mac. It was soooo much better than MS Flight Simulator 2000. I now have a P3 866 with 128DRAM, so this machine should work well with MS FLT SIM 2000, but no such luck. The graphics are slow and choppy and generally pathetic. Even when I fooled around with the settings I couldn't make the sim work as well as Flight Unlimited did on an old mac two years ago! This is a prime example of bigger not being better. Buy Flight Unlimited and wait for MS to learn how to fly. I've been a licensed pilot for 18 years, and MS FS 2K is a real lead ballon.

Flight Simulator 2000

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 6
Date: March 17, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Well if you are a commercial pilot then you and only could really enjoy this. I could not endure the slow going of this software. Sorry but unless you enjoyed being bored to death hunt for something else!!

Where is the Mississippi River?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 8
Date: August 17, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I give Flight Simulator 2000 one star because it works. It only crashes my system after I exit the game and try to play something else. I am outraged at the poor quality of the game. Realism? Who ever heard of flying anything with the fuel pump turned off and instruments working with the Pitot Heat switch in off position? Graphics detail? Where is the Mississippi River? I can't find it and it should be 3 miles from the main runway at St. Charles County Smartt Field. It's trash and I am going to mutilate the CDs and ship the game box back to Bill Gates. I have my pride.

Sierra Software pioneered the flight simulator and for many years was quite successful with it. It's unbelievable that this product put Sierra out of the flight simulator business. Sierra's Pro Pilot 98 is miles ahead of Flight Simulator 2000. If you can find a copy of Pro Pilot 98, Pro Pilot 99 or any flight simulator other than this one, buy it.

Don't even TRY it without a 3D graphics accelerator!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 11 / 13
Date: December 20, 1999
Author: Amazon User

The graphics performance of this game is very slow and pixelated without a 3D graphics accelerator. I don't recommend playing the game without one.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next 

Actions