User Reviews (1 - 11 of 66)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Flight Simulator Rising?

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 76 / 81
Date: November 26, 1999
Author: Amazon User

I first saw FS back in the early(ish) days around 1988. I just had to have it, and FS2000 was no exception. I ordered my copy sight unseen, and then thought I'd made a bad mistake when I saw some people's comments about processor speed etc.

I'm running a P3 at 450MHz, with a 16Mb graphics card and 128MB of RAM. I'd have to rate the performance as "above acceptable" with all the bells and whistles. I can turn off some of the fluffy stuff and get good frame rates (in the 40fps region).

The graphics are simply incredible. Turn the aircraft around on a sunny day and admire the glare of the sun. Great flight models on all the aircraft (no surprise there). I just love the Concorde and the 777 - it's almost worth getting for those two alone.

A number of new features crept in between FS98 and this version. The flight planner is much more useful (since you can pick waypoints from a map - great if the geography of Iowa isn't high in your mind). I love the GPS addition also.

I miss cockpit communications (unless I just haven't found it yet). It would be nice to Request to Land/Takeoff at a minimum.

On the whole - if you've got a respectable machine, buy it to show off the graphics to your friends, and if you're a pilot, turn down the graphics quality and you'll have a great experience. Trust me.

Don't buy it unless you have a powerful PC!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 68 / 73
Date: November 13, 1999
Author: Amazon User

This may be a great product but Microsoft marketing was inaccurate about it working on a PC as low as a Pentium 166. While FS98 works on "older" PCs, FS2000 needs CPU power and lots of it, probably at least a Pentium II 400. See Microsoft's own FlightSim message board on how angry deceived purchasers are. So be sure you have a more powerful PC to make this work efficiently. Thanks to MS's 30-day back guarantee (on the box) I was able to return it.

Amazing Flight Sim

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 53 / 55
Date: December 17, 1999
Author: Amazon User

This is one of the best commercial flight sims I have ever used. I am a pilot, and I was impressed with the realism of FS2000. I was impressed to find our own landing stript on our farm in Minnesota. Prcatilcally every airport, Public or PRIVATE it available. You can set up flight plans from any airport you wish. For Pilots, this product is defiently worth the money, It is like paying for 1 hour is a real airplane.

The navigation is not as good as Fly! But, the realism is well worth the sacrifice.

It doesn't come with many adventures, but you can always download them on the net (2000net is a good place to start).

I am running a P-III 600 mhz, w/ 128 ram and 32 meg video. And it is absoultly flawless, as it should be. I don't believe MS, when they say it will run on a 166.

If you are just a consumer looking for a flight sim, get the NON-Professioanl edition. But, if you are a pilot, or an aspiring pilot get the professional edition, it was more IFR panels you can use that WILL really help you in earning your pilots license.

If you are looking for a combat flight sim, that you can shoot people down with, get Falcon 4.0. But, if you want the best commercially available flight sim without spending thousands of dollars, get this product. It will blow you mind.

Great game! Will keep you busy for some time

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 39 / 40
Date: December 03, 1999
Author: Amazon User

I am a big fan of Flight Simulator, but have limited time to play. In the prior versions, I never felt that I mastered some of the finer points of flying. In the 2000 version, there is a fantasitc flight school that gives you all the help you need to really know what you are doing. As you go throught the tutorials, you can earn a Flight sim pilot's liscence and an IFR rating. Makes you feel like a real pilot.

I love the flight planning features and all the airports available. Great graphics. I can't say enough good things about this game.

Excellent! but one problem thats sort of annoying...

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 37 / 38
Date: February 12, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This is the best flight simulator Microsoft has ever produced, there no doubt about that... Excellent graphics, new features such as GPS navigation, more airports worldwide, better weather system, and easier to use. There is a downside to all this I think the consumer should know. The speed of the game is NOTICABLY slower compared with MS FlightSim 98 and below... Very glitchy all-around. I could not seem to speed it up (usually averages around 20 frames per sec) even with setting the detail settings lower. To put it in perspective, I have a PII 400mhz computer with 192mb of ram and a 16mb 3dfx Voodoo 3d accelerator card. I even bought the accelerator card to see if it would speed it up... it barely does! I am recommending anyone who wants to buy this program and likes a fast, non-glitchy game to be aware that if your computer has a processor below 300mhz, you will not like what you see... Microsoft says that you must have a 166mhz minimum! HA! You wouldn't even be able to fly the graphics would be so slow.

To recap, If you want the game to run smoothly, you should atleast have a 300mhz PII system with atleast 32mb of ram and I would recommend getting some kind of video accelerator card (if you dont already have one, and if your serious about performance). If you just want to play and don't really care about the slow speed, go with Microsoft's recommendation about having a 166mhz processor system or higher. It will be very slow but will work.

Overall, this is a very good game and would recommend for anyone! Also makes a great gift.

Excelent, but do you have the speed?

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 37 / 41
Date: February 26, 2000
Author: Amazon User

When I bought this game I got cought up in it for a week. People are complaining that it didn't run good on there system. Thats because they have a PII processor. PCGAMER magazine said that if you have anything worse than PIII 450 128mb ram than it won't work good. That is true it works grat on a PIII but the game is not optimxed for PII. I have a PIII 600 128megs of ram and the best graphics board and I installed the 300mb Compact install and it worked fine.

The MSFS2000 Pro edition is worth the extra buck. The extra aircraft are -Beech King Air- 2 engine turboprop. -Concorde- Mach 2 SST(Super Sonic Transport). -777 300- 2 engine jet transport. -Moony Bravo- 1 prop speed craft

In this game you can for the fist time (in 17 years of MSFS) fly from city to city in GPS mode.

Pros-Great game, excellent aircraft. Cons-Need joystick, Bad sys. requirements Bottom line-Best non military flight sim if you have the speed.

The highs and very low lows of Flight Sim 2000 Professional

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 27 / 28
Date: June 08, 2000
Author: Amazon User

A year and a half ago I bought a Compaq 450mhz, PII with 128mb sdram and a 4mb Rage Lt Pro board (which at the time was like flying at Mach 2). The first title I picked up was Flight Sim 98, and Combat Flight Sim, after experiencing the brilliant graphics of the later, 98 was a visual disappointment, so I took it back. When Flight Sim 2000 came out I thought, "now we're cooking with gas!" read the requirements on the box which assured me I could easily run it, loaded it and... and... turns out our family slide shows were more exciting, 166mhz, HA! The graphics were amazing, even with a 4mb video board but the only time I could get a high frame rate (over 20 per second) was when I was flying straight up into the clear blue sky. Needless to say it quickly found its way back into the box. Recently I upgraded to an ATI 128, 32mb board, everything came to life! My jaw dropped when I saw the stunning images of Midtown Madness, Indiana Jones; Infernal Machine, Need for Speed High Stakes, I could read every sign, and see every crack in the pavement. Even when I've got the screen resolution set to the max and am running at 32 bit colour the performance is flawless! So... I thought I would give 2000 another shot, I picked up a copy of the Professional version this time, thinking lets go for it, took it home, loaded it, and... and... SLIDE SHOW! (about 14-18 fps, if all the planets are in alignment). Even when I'm just sitting on the runway at a very low screen setting and 16 bit colour it runs at about 14 fps, and my system is running nothing in the background, ouch! There are moments when you're landing at O'Hare and the runway lights are flashing and you feel the rush of trying to get your 777 through a severe thunderstorm and on the ground in one piece, but most of the time you just sit scratching your head wondering why Microsoft would produce such a flawed product. When they designed it, they surely knew you'd need to have the Godzilla of all machines to run it (smoothly), and PIII 800mhz machines were still something right out of science fiction. It really begs the question, why can't somebody build a great looking Flight Sim, that runs like WWII Fighters or Combat Flight Sim in a commercial aircraft version, one that runs like a Corvette C5 rather than a Yugo. Bottom line, I love the flight models, controls and the rush of slipping into the cockpit of some great commercial airliners but (and this is a big but) it's hardly worth the hefty price of admission, unless you're a fan of still aerial photography.

Why can't they get it right?

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 40 / 48
Date: June 07, 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.

Awesome, but SLLLLLOOOOOWWWW

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 23 / 24
Date: April 16, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This version of the Microsoft Flight Simulator program is easily the most advanced, graphically and sound effects pleasing ever made for the PC. Airports are accurately rendered, coastlines are not "block" drawn, but look like they are in real life, the engine sounds more real than they do in FS 98. You can even see a sunset when you fly, and with the highest resolution, it really looks neat.

The truth is, however, you MUST have the fastest computer in the market to run this thing effectively. I have a 266 speed computer, and I have to turn all the graphics bells and whistles and scenery detail to the lowest setting or I can't land. The frame rate is just too slow, and I was all over the place on the approach! With all the stuff available for download on the internet, you can get scenery just as good, sound effects that come close to the real thing, and any plane imaginable and do just as well with FS98, save some money, and actually be able to fly it with some semblance of control, as the frame rate will be quick enough for you to be able to make those snap control movements needed to land accurately.

If you have a fast enough computer (should be 500 speed or more) with graphics accelerator cards, you would do well with this sim. If not, stick to FS 98.

Great simulator! But, what about the computer?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 23 / 26
Date: March 20, 2000
Author: Amazon User

The 2k version of MSFS is the best civil flight simulator ever created. It has a lot of improvements over the previous version (98). The enhanced graphics and the new engine sound schema (which has different recorded sound for each engine compression stages) are my favorite improvement. The flight models are well built, as well the new weather generation algorithm (The clouds now looks like REAL clouds...).

But...

What about the machine? I think there's no computer to run this simulator with rasonable performance. You see, I have a P-III 500 Mhz, 128 Mb RAM, Viper AGP 770 with 32 MB, a lot of disk space and... 18 FPS in Meigs Field with LearJet. I tried everything to improve the performance (the most updated video drivers and DirectX, MSFS 2k Patch, etc.) and....... well, you know. Nothing! Microsoft released a patch #1 for MSFS 2k, trying to solve some problems concerning turn gauges and others issues. I install it and nothing was changed. Microsoft is working to solve others issues (i.e. no shadows under the planes and buildings, no approach lights, etc.) I hope it's working properly...

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next 

Actions