Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator

message: 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)
replies: text: Began to rewrite the history section in Microsoft Flight Simulator/Temp history. Bjelleklang  -  talk 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created article at History of Microsoft Flight SimulatorBjelleklang  -  talk 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MSFS version 3.1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: . Halsteadk 12:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could have sworn that the fbi agents recovered microsoft flight simulator from the planners computers. Anyways, Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks says  Atta and al-Shehhi practiced flying on a Boeing 727 flight simulator on December 29 and December 30. The simulator was at the SimCenter flight school in Opa-Locka, Florida."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Er, come again? Halsteadk (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001 (9/11) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flight model accuracy 

message: Does one need a joystick to use FS2004? If not, is using a keyboard reliable? 05:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joystick?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: No. This is the English language Wikipedia and it is policy not to link to non-English language websites unnecessarily. See WP:NONENGEL. I don't see any case for an exception. Halsteadk (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links re-visited (Oct 2006)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Erm, if you're going to criticise me perhaps you could tell me in what way my interpretation is particularly "interesting" compared with anyone else's and up for your scrutiny? Halsteadk (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one imposing your particular interpretations of what constitutes a "worthy" community site. All I am saying is that the characteristic of discussing helicopters on a site does not make the site a "popular community site." Considering that the site hasn't existed very long and doesn't have a singificant usage history makes me believe that it shouldn't belong to the list. FSplanet.com, which you removed a while ago, would probably be more of a popular community site. Why did you remove it? Fsaerospace.com has existed for over 12 years and involves community in various ways. Simflight.com, is a particularly good site that has existed for over a decade. Why not include those sites? What would you think about leaving the current list but adding simflight.com? jetcat33 (18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure why you're asking me about the Hovercontrol site, as I've not posted any particularly strong opinions on it compared with some others - and this was 18 months ago!!  Ultimately the policy for links has to be in agreement with WP:EL - if you haven't read that already, please do, and let me know if you feel I've fallen foul of it. Apart from Hovercontrol which has been treated as a special case (possibly unjustly, but others have made a strong case for it) the general interpretation from both myself and several others has been to use Alexa rankings as an unbiased (but admittedly fairly primitive) means of judging relative prominence.  Also, sites that require a fee or are primarily commercial with some freebies are not acceptable links - that's not my opinion, that's policy.  There has to be a line to stop things becoming ridiculous and the list becoming too long, and I guess fsplanet.com fell the wrong side of the line - looking at current Alexa rankings it is about 130,000th compared with avsim which is ~10,000th - if we originally only wanted 2 or 3 sites, then even accepting Alexa is primitive, that's a very large gap to also include fsplanet (and potentially all the sites in between, including simflight). Possible reasons I'd have removed it without saying are if it was just blindly added by an anon user without discussion, or if they did it and removed another link making it look like they just want to have their favourite site (someone has been doing this a lot over the last few days) - this is definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia. Ultimately there are dozens and dozens of sites that may be just as good as the ones you've proposed or the ones that are listed already. Perhaps as no serious review has been done for 18 months, it's time that was done again? Halsteadk (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hovercontrol 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redefine "Realism" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FSXBoards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Community 

message: It feels like the Trivia section is very badly formed. The third sentence seems as if it was added as an afterthought and could cause confusion. What is being removed, the terrorists, the towers or the rumors? Not sure how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerrybreyette (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its only applicable to FS2000 anyway - As thats when it happened and the patch was released for it. I dont think they were forced, it was more out of a mark of respect... Reedy Boy 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: It'd be nice to list the default AI Traffic airlines (Soar, Pacifica, American Pacific, World Travel, etc) 72.77.5.2 07:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default Airlines 

message: I have added fs-mp to the external links. This not for advertising but because it is recognised by VATSIM, IVAO. The community is very big. Fs-mp offers many features that the other sites in the list do not. Microsoft (Mike Singer) is a member and write about fs-mp often in his blog at FSInsider: http://dev.fsinsider.com/missions/Pages/MissionsandMultiplayer-AllEntries.aspx - So i hope to get a good reason for deleting the link if anyone think that it is inappropriate /sEi 217.157.195.186 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the policy on Wikipedia is to put as few external links as possible, and replace external links by references to articles, if available. The community involvement section already mentions VATSIM and IVAO and links to their respective articles - so I don't think there is a reason to keep the links. It's just my opinion, though, as I didn't remove them. Canwolf 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual independent benchmark for external links on this page has been the Alexa Traffic Ranking. VATSIM and IVAO get rankings of around 50,000 and 80,000 respectively; FS-MP is at about 2,500,000. Even allowing for inaccuracy, that is very very low compared with the other two (and any other link on this page) and hence the link should be removed. If FS-MP is to be kept then it will need to provide evidence of it being comparable in importance to the other two, ie number of active users, number of weekly sessions. It is not enough to say it has 2000+ users - how many in comparison to the others, and these must be active, returning users. Halsteadk 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main air traffic simulation networks 

message: I think this section needs more information on non-aircraft related add-ons. The article only has a few sentences not talking purely about aircraft. I believe that there should be some mention of AFCAD (one of the most important FS utilities ever), possibly TrafficTools, and AI traffic addons. One of the main things, besides the community, that makes this the #1 flight simulator is the sheer number of add-ons. What are your thoughts. 
I also think there should be mention of the amount of people not switching to FSX from FS2004 because of the lack of add-ons and the fact the FSX needs a higher end computer. Gamer9678 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. That would make this resemble a fan site or something. A brief description would be enough probably. --Astroview120mm 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, we don't. There's already too many links and Wikipedia isn't a collection of links.
There's an important factoid missing in this article, it probably belongs in the add-on section. With Flight Simulator, and unlike virtually all other Microsoft Products, MS has released the specifications of Flight Simulator into the public domain. With all of this information easily and legally available, this has meant that it has been relatively simple to create the huge variety of add-ons; all without fear of legal action. This is widely attributed to be the main reason why Microsoft Flight Simulator is the longest living and most popular product in its field. Unfortunately, this factoid may well read like advertising :)
Old_Wombat (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add-ons and customization section 

message: I Think We need a list of flight sim websites for downloads, screenshots, est.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.15.178 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. There's already too many links and Wikipedia isn't a collection of links.
There's an important factoid missing in this article, it probably belongs in the add-on section. With Flight Simulator, and unlike virtually all other Microsoft Products, MS has released the specifications of Flight Simulator into the public domain. With all of this information easily and legally available, this has meant that it has been relatively simple to create the huge variety of add-ons; all without fear of legal action. This is widely attributed to be the main reason why Microsoft Flight Simulator is the longest living and most popular product in its field. Unfortunately, this factoid may well read like advertising :)
Old_Wombat (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discussion 

message: Does the availability subsection really need that much names of developers? Now it looks like a complete mess with everyone that has ever ever ever bent a polygon being listed. I suggest cutting it down a lot, or even removing all those names. To specify even more, many of them don't produce anything, but only distribute addons, so the entire sentence and wording is wrong. I can't help but think "hm every fanboy listed his favourite developer".
The external links section is a mess, phrases as "Selected, frequently visited community sites" is very subjective. Frequently visited by the visitors of those sites, or by all the online flight simmers? In my opinion, the entire external links section should be reduced to just official microsoft links and maybe the ODP link, everything else just looks like spam. Whale plane (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various remarks 

message: Could somebody please change the main pictures? A picture of the latest one would be better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.214.118 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front pictures 

message: I have removed the endless summing up of payware developpers from #availability. It was just an endless list, that added nothing constructive to the article in my view. Have mentioned this before in May, but since nobody spoke out against removel in more than two months, decided to go ahead. Whale plane (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developpers in availability 

message: state-of-the-art product ... Flight Simulator X, released in 2006, has returned to dual editions with a "Standard Edition" and a "Deluxe Edition". ... wide availability
All these phrases in the "history" section sound like something from some advertisment. --80.63.213.182 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree on the first one and have removed it - it has no place in the article. The second and third I'm not convinced at all, maybe just need a slight rewording - they are both ultimately factual statements. Halsteadk (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert 

message: Made a few grammar corrections, and removed paragraph;
"In the world of simulator add-ons, the degree to which an add-on increases realism is often a point of pride for add-on developers.  In other cases, the sheer convenience provided by a particular add-on may lead it to great success."  - As it was unnecessary and didn't seem to have direction. 
Also so edits in the AI Traffic section to remove some spelling errors and seperate some opinion from fact --Kurtvw (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edits

message: I noticed a curious edit, that accidentally got reverted during the revision of an edit an imagebot did.  There is no reference for this, and I've been unable to find it.  But I have heard some rumors from colleagues myself... can anyone confirm this with a reference? Icemotoboy (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the edit. I probably jumped too quickly. My only reason for taking it out was because of the commentary-style tone. That's all. I don't know if it's true though. E_dog95'   Hi ' 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I think it was well to remove it, not only because of the tone but also because it was entirely unreferenced.  Holy cow.  Just as I was typing this... I finally found a reference... .  I'll update the article shortly.  The article provides a reasonable about of detail... but the fate of the franchise seems unclear... Icemotoboy (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not a true cite, I've heard from current employees that the entire Flight Simulator Team within Microsoft has now been disbanded (i.e., laid
 off).dnrothx (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ACES Shutdown?

message: According to the BBC , "Flight simulator site Avsim has been "destroyed" by malicious hackers.". I have tried  and get no response. The BBC indicates that a new forum has been set up at , which proclaims itself as "AVSIM's Temporary Home". Would someone like to confirm this before removing what appears now to be a dead external link?AlexandrDmitri (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I now see that it was an internal Wikilink to a page which confirms this matter. Apologies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandrDmitri (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Rubbish. You are effectively saying the "rumour" was perpetrated by AVSIM themselves in that case, through this blog post by one of AVSIM's site administrators, Tom Allensworth. He specifically says it was due to hacking and that the server was "destroyed". T18, "planned downtime" doesn't result in parts of the file library being "unrecoverable". If you have evidence to suggest the site was not hacked, why don't you provide an authoritative reference to your claims? Bear in mind your evidence will need to be MORE authoritative than AVSIM's own system administrators and the BBC. Good luck. Halsteadk (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure the hack was genuine and not fabricated by AVSIM staff. If you look on AVSIM's site you'll see that they are filing criminal charges against an individual involved in the hacking of AVSIM.Vedant (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVSIM hacked and 'destroyed' 

message: I can upload some self created pictures of the PMDG 747 landing at Kai Tak if anyone is interested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pictures 

message: It appears that the collection of box art in the infobox may be in violation of WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#3, "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." However, I voice my support for keeping the full set of images; here on Wikipedia we often have separate articles for each version of a popular piece of software, and each article features box art or a logo, both of which are non-free content. We do not have separate articles for any version of FS except for the latest edition, FS 2004. The collection of images quickly informs the reader that the article discusses a long-running series of video games, in a way that the cover of the latest version or a collection of screenshots (which are also non-free, I believe) would not. I think this article, or the article on the History of Microsoft Flight Simulator, is the best place to display these covers.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the article for discussion at WP:FUR#Microsoft Flight Simulator. Rettetast (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding box art in the infobox

message: I believe it's only fair to mention that the user community is not happy about the ACES Game Studio being closed, and that there is strong support for the franchise. For this reason I put the text back, after it has been removed on grounds of soapboxing, but I rephrased it in a manner that I hope represents much more neutral point of view. The link now points not to the petition itself, but rather to the announcement on FlightSimDaily. I'm sorry that I screwed up the edit summary though.
Bilbo (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The open letter and on-line petition 

message: When I search Project Open Sky or POSKY it just brings me to the this page, Project Open Sky or POSKY is a company make planes for Microsoft Flight Simulator and not Microsoft Flight Simulator.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianqing01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to either create an article on one of these two pages ,  (and change the other to point to the edited), or, alternatively, propose them for deletion (however, be sure to check the previous discussion on this matter first).   — Luchesar • T/C   16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POSKY/Project Open Sky 

message: I've removed most of the section on Prepar3D. It seemed to be an advertisment for Lockheed Martin. The user who added the section () had only added and edited references to Prepar3D to this and another article. The section is now just the facts and I'm not even sure that this is relevant really.--LukeSearle (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepar3D section 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:FSX PiperCub Accusim.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: under "Versions History", "Flight Simulator X", "Microsoft Flight";
Microsoft Flight
Main article: Microsoft Flight
Microsoft released a new simulator in February 2012, developed and aimed at drawing new users into flight gaming. While claimed to be simpler to use for inexperienced users it is incompatible with Flight Simulator and does not allow the use of existing Flight Simulator add-ons (including aircraft, objects, and photographic scenery). On July 26, 2012, Microsoft cancelled further development of Flight.[14]
*should read...
Microsoft released a new game title in February 2012, developed and aimed at drawing new users into enjoy the experience of Flight. Development of DLC For the Title was canceled with the closing of the Vancouver Studio. "Microsoft Flight" was ended as noted on the the wikpedia page for flight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight
On July 25, 2012 Microsoft announced it had cancelled further development of Microsoft Flight, citing that this was part of "the natural ebb and flow" of application management. Reviewers indicated that sales may have been slow due to competition from other products, such as X-Plane. Glenn Pew writing in AVweb said, "Microsoft Flight provides a less authentic flight experience than its earlier more popular flight simulation programs. Competition in the market includes X-Plane, which offers advanced features for in-program aircraft design and flight testing, wide-ranging parameters for controlling the flight environment, and highly realistic scenery and global real-world terrain mapping." Microsoft will continue to support the community and offer Flight as a free download.[5][6][10]
After announcing the end of development, Microsoft continued to fine tune the core of the program with a post release beta test involving Steam users, with title update 1.1.1.30063 released on September 25, 2012. The update contained no new content, just bug fixes. 
*Note: WHY IS "Microsoft Flight" UNDER VERSIONS of "Microsoft Flight Simulator", the Simulator title series ENDED with Microsoft Flight simulator X (MSFS 10), Microsoft Flight is NOT A CONTINUATION of the simulator series.  
Reference: Microsoft Flight FAQ page. 
How does Microsoft Flight differ from Microsoft Flight Simulator?
With Microsoft Flight, we’re approaching the virtual flight genre from the ground up, with the focus on the universal appeal of the experience of Flight. We believe the simplicity of Microsoft Flight perfectly captures that vision while welcoming the millions of existing Flight Simulator fans. The new Microsoft Flight retains a lot of the high-fidelity simulation longtime fans have come to expect while offering an updated look and feel, a wide range of immersive game play and challenges, persistent experiences and social connectivity.
https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/faqs/#general
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Flight 

message: http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/microsoft-sells-license-to-fs-franchise-r2295
HoworHow 22:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FS Franchise Possibly Sold 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151123034447/https://fsxinsider.com/dovetail-games-flight-simulator-announced-at-gamescom-2015/ to https://fsxinsider.com/dovetail-games-flight-simulator-announced-at-gamescom-2015/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Former hatnote:-
: 
is not sufficient, since users not already aware that the similarly-titled "Microsoft Flight" is a different product in the first place will not think to go there. If anything, there is more reason to have Microsoft Flight in there than the general dab page, since the title includes "Microsoft" and is most likely to be confused with the other MS product.
Changed to:-
: 
Ubcule (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation hatnote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightsimulatornetwork.com/group/flightsimulatornews/forum/topics/breaking-news-aces-studio
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708122902/http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/press_release/ to http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/press_release/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817022736/http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing to http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104080755/http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ to http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713125615/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/05172010Prepar3d.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/05172010Prepar3d.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129174505/http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/01/end-of-era-part-ii-links-and.html to http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/01/end-of-era-part-ii-links-and.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006110455/http://uk.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-x/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review-6159886/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-x/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review-6159886/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The article currently states that this version, "contained its own operating system, which displaced the installed one as long as the program was running". I'm uncomfortable with that description as I don't think it accurately describes the way this version worked. This version of FS came on a bootable disk which was not a DOS disk at all - DOS couldn't read it. To run FS you put the disk in the floppy drive and rebooted your PC. When you were finished you took the disk out, put your DOS disk in (unless you had a hard drive) and rebooted. Also, to say it contained its own operating system is putting it a little strongly. It wrote direct to video memory and used the ROM BIOS to handle interaction with the keyboard. It didn't really have anything I would describe as an operating system - no file system, no memory management, etc. --Prh47bridge (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight Simulator 1.0 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion