User Reviews (21 - 31 of 66)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Great simulator

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 11 / 12
Date: July 16, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This is a great flight simulator, if you have the computer to handle it. I'm running an 866 pIII so I have no problems running the game. The best part about this game in my opinion are the lessons that allow you to get virtually licensed to fly. They have everything from a private pilots license to the airline transport pilot certificate. Although you still won't get a real feel for an aircraft, it is still a good virtual tool for when you get your real license. I also like the gps system that is in 2000. As long as you have a computer that can handle it, this is a great flight simulator.

I'm going Back to FS98

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 9 / 9
Date: February 04, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I was about to purchase FS98 when I heard about FS2k and waited for the "as real as it gets" edition. I am so disappointed in FS2K that I returned it to the store and bought FS98. Don't get me wrong, the graphics, planes, etc on FS2K are out of this world, but you need a system capable of running the Space Shuttle to run the thing. My system meets all requirments for FS2K, but what I have is a slide show, not a sim. For the average amatuer user, its not worth the extra money to upgrade your system for a flight sim. Chances are you'll be disappointed.

Still can't get it right

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 14 / 18
Date: September 28, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I've played almost every flight sim available today, and some that are so old that they haven't been available in years. I have hoped and waited for Microsoft to release a Flight Simulator program that not only gets the flight dynamics of a real plane correct, but also gets the graphics up to par with some of the other less realistic simulators (combat sims mostly). Flight Simulator 2000 disappoints again. I am running a very high end system with a very powerful video card and the graphics on this game still are bad. When you look out of the sides of the airplane (left, right, back, etc) the program requires 'loading time' in order to render the cockpit art. Totally unacceptable in my book. No amount of settings adjusting could correct this on my computer.

If the largest software company in the world is going to release a program, and charge 50 bucks a pop for it, I think that the graphics should not only be adequate but should absolutely kick some behind! Flight Simulator is a serious disappointment in that department.

The dynamics are interesting. I guess if all you want to do is look straight ahead and instrument fly you are in luck here because the dynamics seem to be fairly realistic. The adjustable difficulty settings are nice and the variety of airports to take off and land on are a nice feature as well (though there isn't much difference between runways as far as particular problems in approach are concerned, because the MS flight sim world is COMPLETELY FLAT).

Poor showing Microsoft. Hire some coders who can make the artwork something other than ameturish and you may just have something. Look to some of your competitors work for an example, or take a ride in a real plane and make an attempt to recreate not only the way it handles, but how the world really looks and what it is like to turn your head around in a cockpit. I guarantee it is nothing like FS 2000.

IFR flight in flight sim 2000 Pro

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 10 / 11
Date: January 22, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I hold a commercial multi-engine instrument rating; my CFI expired after 3 renewals in 1981. I have not activly flow in many years. the first game I purchased with my PIII 500MHZ was flight sim 98. I enjoyed that but did not really get the sensation of actual IFR flight. In flight sim 2000 pro; I have been able to set up my old airports and IFR approachs with the actual avionics settings. I have found ILS/DME approachs VERY REAlISTIC. I would throughly recommend this simulator to any pilot who is looking to sharpen their Instrument skills in their own living room. Great Job Microsoft!

You need a good graphics accelerator.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 11 / 13
Date: July 24, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I keep reading about people with fairly fast systems (800 mhz) and up running this game and hating the frame rates. I'm also reading that these same people are using 8MB or 16MB graphics accelerators... The truth is, if you have a such a system, flight simulator WILL work reasonably well, IF you get rid of the slow graphics accelerator. This is because 8 MB graphics cards are a joke to this game, and they make the main processor work much harder, slowing things down. An 8MB card is like running a race car on snow tires; the two don't work well together to produce speed. So don't get a new computer, get a 32MB or better yet, a 64MB graphics accelerator for your system. (And if you can afford it, I'd also suggest you get some RAM.) You'll see that you DON'T need a brand new Pentium IV 1.7 GHz or anything that fast that to effectively run the game. One last thing: I suggest running the display at 1024 X 768 at 16 bit. Fiddle around with the display and scenery settings until you get a "decent" frame rate. Good luck!

Excellent, but...

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 10 / 12
Date: March 18, 2000
Author: Amazon User

The scenery is out of this world, and the choice of aricraft is phenominal! The treatment of clouds is nothing short of spectacular. The real-world weather feature is enough to justofy the cost alone. However, you better be using a top-of-the-line machine, or it won't work well. I use a PIII and can barely get the frame rate above 18, expecially near airports or mountains.

BEWARE IF YOU ARE NOT RUNNING A HOT! MACHINE

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 7 / 7
Date: June 05, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I agree that this is a great sim as far as graphic detail and features go, but if you do not have an EXTREMELY FAST machine with LOTS OF RAM, and a GREAT VIDEO CARD, you are in for a disappointment. I tried all of the tips and techniques for squeezing extra juice out my computer, but it was still a very slow jerky, frame rate. It also takes a VERY long time to install. I am running a PII333, with 96MB RAM, and a VOODOO 3 video card. I ended up removing it from my machine and reinstalling FS98, which runs fantastic on my machine. I think Microsoft could do a better job of tuning this thing up so it will run better on less powerful machines. It is not that much better than FS98 unless you use maximum scenery complexity, etc. I even tried to use FS2000 on Sparse everything, but it was still very slow. At the least Microsoft should put the real requirements on the box. I wouldn't have bought it if the box had said it required as much power to run smoothly. Hope this helps someone from making a mistake. I am keeping it until I get that monster machine sometime in the not too distant future.

Very Nice!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 6 / 6
Date: January 31, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I recently installed FS2000 Pro and am blown away! The graphics are smooth and detailed. The flight instruction makes getting up to speed fun and easy. It is fun not only for professional pilots, but for rookies (like me).

I am running this on a 500 mhz Pentium3 with 128MB RAM and a 16MB 3DFX Voodoo 2000 video card with a Flat Panel Monitor.

I suspect that some of the mixed reviews on frame rate may be related to the different video cards used.

If you have a newer processor and plenty of RAM, I highly recommend FS2000.

The best as far!

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 9 / 12
Date: March 06, 2000
Author: Amazon User

Best civilian flightsim on the market, no doubt.

If only Microsoft would finally implement ATC and improve the cockpits to the new standard set in Fly! /also, the outside airplane ground shadows were removed, missing them a lot/.

The game is extremely hardware hungry, and it should be clear that the visuals and framerate are great only on the high end systems. Not sure, but the game might be unsuitable for anything under P300 /64MB and 16MB 3d video...The Microsoft released, shortly after the game came out, the patch addressing the slow framerates and other minor bugs. It helped a bit.

Run on PII400/128MB, GeForce256DDR 32MB video, Windows98SE

Too big, too slow.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 7 / 8
Date: May 18, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I had both FS98 and FS2K on my P-333 128M RAM, and I'm running FS98 right now because FS2K is just too slow. Actually, FS2K was deleted from my machine since it takes over 1G of space with typical installation. You'll need a really expensive machine to get this thing flying.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next 

Actions