Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Microsoft Flight Simulator X  
User currently offlineKrje1980 From Norway, joined Feb 2006, 193 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12083 times:

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/fsx0104.htm

Wow! I'm already so excited. I don't know if I can wait another year. Argh! I just really hope, in addition to all the upgraded scenery features, the time zone problem will be fixed once and for all. I mean, in flight simulator 2004, Singapore is two hours behind what it is supposed to be in the real world!

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12081 times:

WOW i can't wait for this to come out. if you open up the link and scroll 2/3s of the way down to were the 747 house colours are and open that screenshot up you might notice there is no nose wheel yet all the other aircraft are completed so whats up with that.
I rate the graphics and world from those screenshots 9.5/10

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineAircanada333 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12052 times:

I'll also say WOW! Because the graphics are just great and also the views of the city and the sun setting. I just can't wait for it.

Thanks for posting this link mate!

Benjamin wave 



De-icing RULZ!!!
User currently offlineGSM763 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

Sounds great. My only problem is I don't have £500 to upgrade my system to play FSX. I currently have a 1 year old system that play FS2004 fine on fairly high settings. The idea of forking out huge amounts of money to buy Vista more RAM and whatever other cr*p Micro$oft wants us to buy is painful at best.

User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12029 times:

Nice to see Airbus involved in this one, one of the aircraft included is the A321  
Its a shame that the 747 doesnt have any nose gear, i thought this gonna be the most realistic sim yet.

Glenn

[Edited 2006-02-14 18:03:11]


http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12018 times:

I wonder if once I get this simulator will it start saying, some of your aircrafts features are incompatible with FSX such as my latest project opensky aircraft and now I click accept and voila! the 767-200 works, but without gears and the flaps wont animate!

you know how that was when some planes from FS2000/FS2002 could not import well to FS2004.



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineLawrenceMck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12017 times:

FSX looks amazing! The graphics look so sharp! One problem though is (like some people have already stated) that you will probably have to buy a new PC to get the best performance.

Lawrence  Wink



Love It To Live It
User currently offlineAC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11987 times:

Quoting www.flightsim.com (Reply 7):
To gear up properly for FSX, I'm recommending a fast CPU starting at least with a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 533 FSB. My best recommendation is a system with an Intel Pentium 4 Processor 670 that runs at 3.8 GHz with an 800 MHz front Side Bus (FSB). You'll also want hyperthread technology (HT), 2MB cache and Intel PCI Express graphics for maximum performance and mind-blowing results. It's a good thing that PC prices are dropping lower every day. Best of all is the fact that if you gear up now, you'll also enjoy a spectacular improvement in your FS2004 experience.

Commentary: Thanks, for the memories...
Gear up with a minimum of 1GB dual channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533 MHz. Best would be 2GB at 667 GHz.

Although the screenshots look absolutely incredible, I am severely dissapointed in Flightsim.com. I could understand a large corporation being sold out to one brand, but the information provided is extremely misleading and wholly intel-biased.

Fact of the matter is: AMD chips are more efficent with both electricity draw AND thermal output, better at their job computing-wise, as well as cheaper for the performance output compared to intel. It is widely known in the gaming community that AMD systems outpreform Intel systems in most cases.

Another dissapointed read:

Quoting www.flightsim.com (Reply 7):
Commentary: Get PCI Express and double your GRAM
You'll want an Intel PCI Express capable video card with minimum of 128MB of GRAM. You'll also want a minimum NVIDIA 6800 or ATI Radeon X850. Best would be NVIDIA 7800 with 256MB GRAM. But, save your money on the 512MB models. That's probably overkill and over-spending.

The ATI X850 chipset is sub-par by today's standards. Why they're reccomending that for a game that will be released 10 months from now, we shall never know. As a minimum, I would have an ATI X1900 or an Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX 512mb card (mabye even two running SLI for those extra frames).

Here's the deal: Windows Vista will undoubtedly be Multi-threaded, which means those with dual-core processors will have an OS that will actively use both cores. I expect FSX to do the same since it's 'optimized' for Vista. A 64bit processor is basically a MUST if you want playable framerates at max settings.

Am I saying buy this stuff now? No, because the items I listed here are still top of the line currently. By the time the game is released, these items will be relatively cheap due to new stuff being released.

Don't let www.flightsim.com lead you on, if you want FSX to run at the settings they ran to get the preview screenshots, you'll need a computer with at least the hardware I've mentioned here.

-Aaron


User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11921 times:

awww I have to trash my 6800GT AGP and my Athlon 3200+ Barton with 1Ghz 400 FSB and get a dual core 64bit AMD.....

But is FSX going to be 64Bit format or still 32Bit?

sometimes its hard to make the commitment on whether to run your windows at 64 or 32 bit on a 64bit CPU cause some valuable 32bit programs dont run right on a 64bit windows.



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineDelboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11850 times:

I'm not going to be smug, arhh f**k it, I am.

I said ages ago that when MS finally get FS10 out there , simmers would need to have upgraded PC's. Everyone said rubbish, FS10 would run on existing systems...well this is crap and you're gonna find out you will need to spend a shed load of cash to get decent results out of FS10. Forget 2000/XP, revisit CPUland, upgrade graphics card and add extra memory.

So there, told you so.

p.s. I wouldn't expect to see this much before the very end of 2006/early 2007 earliest. My sources are still satying this is more realistic that MS's statement of Summer 2006.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11846 times:

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 7):

Fact of the matter is: AMD chips are more efficent with both electricity draw AND thermal output, better at their job computing-wise, as well as cheaper for the performance output compared to intel. It is widely known in the gaming community that AMD systems outpreform Intel systems in most cases.

Intel are the 'owners' of the x86 instruction set, therefor its prudent to benchmark your requirements against their offerings.

And AMD have lost nearly all their crowns with the release of hte new Core series of chips, with Intel coming in better performance wise, cheaper, cooler and less power usage at all but idle, so its better to buy a Core chip than an AMD chip now.

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 7):
Here's the deal: Windows Vista will undoubtedly be Multi-threaded, which means those with dual-core processors will have an OS that will actively use both cores. I expect FSX to do the same since it's 'optimized' for Vista. A 64bit processor is basically a MUST if you want playable framerates at max settings.

All OSes are 'multithreaded', its the application itself that has to be specifically written to be multithreaded for it to benefit from a multicore processor setup. Its not magic, its programming, and multithreading is pretty damn hard to do properly with no bugs. As it stands, Windows 2000, XP home and pro will handle a multiple core processor fine (all versions can handle up to 2 physical CPUs, and an unlimited number of logical processors fine - and a dual core system counts as logical processors).

And having a 64bit processor doesnt necessarily mean its faster. The bit count in a cpu simply means it has larger registers with which to handle larger data sizes, it wont simply run code faster just because it has double the bit count.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11834 times:

Quoting Delboy (Reply 9):
Everyone said rubbish, FS10 would run on existing systems...well this is crap and you're gonna find out you will need to spend a shed load of cash to get decent results out of FS10.

Well, I may have missed that thread but it's not quite what I remember from the threads I did see. Some said FSX wouldn't run at all without Vista and quite a few said that was very unlikely to be the case. Some wanted FSX to run like lightning on three-year old systems and quite a few (including me) said it would be exactly the same situation as FS9 - you'd need a top end system to get the full benefits.  Smile

I just don't see how anyone can be surprised that you'll need a top end machine to run FSX with all the sliders at maximum. The only way that could be done would be to limit its capabilities.


User currently offlineAC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11814 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):
And AMD have lost nearly all their crowns with the release of hte new Core series of chips, with Intel coming in better performance wise, cheaper, cooler and less power usage at all but idle, so its better to buy a Core chip than an AMD chip now.

Even though this didn't make much sense, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Even though Intel's newest chips are fast, they don't really obliterate AMD's latest offerings. AMD and Intel are still pretty close as far as top end performance goes. I'm not completely sure where you got your information, but AMD chips are still using less power AND putting off less heat compared to their Intel counterparts. Read around, you'll find proof of my words in many places.

-Aaron


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11814 times:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=12

Have a read of that and see what you think. Infact have a read of the entire report, its quite eye opening.

I dont trust THW, theyve been proven to significantly skew their results in the past to benefit a vendor that is 'sponsoring' them.


User currently offlineAC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11814 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
I dont trust THW, theyve been proven to significantly skew their results in the past to benefit a vendor that is 'sponsoring' them.

I agree with you on this one, I have noticed Tom's leaning towards one direction or another from time to time, but personally I find them to be unbiased most of the time.

The reasoning I use when battling the Intel v AMD war, it's that AMD's new stuff with slower clock speeds AND the slower FSB is doing as good as Intel's new stuff which uses the better memory and higher clock speeds. All of AMD's 939 chips use DDR400, whereas Intel's newest uses DDR2 up to DDR566. Even though Intel uses the potentially faster Northbridge and FSB, AMD chips on the the Nforce4 chipset and DDR400 are still putting down competetive numbers. AMD has made major advances with their memory controllers, as well as the switch to the 90nm process for the core dies.

I don't want this to turn into a flame war, I aint got no hard feelins towards ya, I'm just putting my opinion out there.   

-Aaron

[Edited 2006-02-15 20:55:48]

[Edited 2006-02-15 20:58:15]

User currently offlineDelboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

Have just got the latest issue of PC Pilot and on page 8 they feature a FAQ report on FSX.

One of the questions was when will it be available. The answer given stated "in the holiday 2006 timeframe, around November". This has to be a US holiday timeframe, no self respecting European would be taking holidays at that time of the year. My sources still maintain this is highly unlikely and it will more likely be early 2007.

Another of questions featured asked whether FSX required Windows Vista. The exact answer was "No, While FSX will not require Windows Vista, it will be optimized for the latest in Windows gaming hardware and fans will get the best experience by running on Windows Vista". So guys, you decide. I'll bet a good wedge that if you continue to use XP and lower, the performance of FSX will be 'compomised' to say the least.

Anyone heard how much Vista will cost and whether any other parts of the PC will need to be upgraded to cater for it's use??


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

Quoting Delboy (Reply 15):
"No, While FSX will not require Windows Vista, it will be optimized for the latest in Windows gaming hardware and fans will get the best experience by running on Windows Vista"

But at least we no-one will be forced to get Vista at the same time as they get FSX... as most of us already suspected.  Smile


User currently offlineDelboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

You may be 'forced' to get it if you want to achieve a good standard of simming.

It's like most of the add ons you buy. They give a minimum system requirement to run the programme, yet I've never found one so far that gives decent results with the minimum requirements.

My only fear is that this will be the case with FSX, time will tell.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Quoting Delboy (Reply 17):
You may be 'forced' to get it if you want to achieve a good standard of simming.

Well, yes, obviously, and that goes for hardware too, but some people were saying you wouldn't be able to run FSX at all without Vista. Now we know people can buy FSX first and wait a few weeks or months before buying Vista if they want to or have to.

You're always going to need the best hardware and software to get the best out of something.  Smile


User currently offlineDelboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11674 times:

David L

You are missing the point of what I am trying to say. I always suspected that FSX would run with XP but wouldn't give you the perfomance that it would do with Vista, lets face it, it has been designed with that programme in mind.

It's like buying a Ferrari with a speed limiter, the Ferrari runs ok but you never bought it to run at 50mph max!!


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11660 times:

Quoting Delboy (Reply 19):
You are missing the point of what I am trying to say.

No I'm not  Smile. You're saying that to get the best out of FSX you'll need Vista and all the very best hardware. It was the same for FS9 and for previous versions and its the same for any game or application that uses a lot of resources. And that's the way it should be. Imagine the uproar if FSX wasn't optimised for Vista. A great new all singing, all dancing OS and our brand new FS doesn't take advantage of it! Think what would have to be left out if all new products had to run like lightning on older, slower machines.

I think you're missing my point - that those who said FSX could not run under XP were wrong.  Smile


User currently offlineDreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11653 times:

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Come you guys, if you want to get the inside information and everything that is known about FSX and it's hardware reqs, please visit http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=248&page=
not everything there is true either, but some of the FS developers post and reply in there AND read up on their blogs, example:
http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/default.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/default.aspx
http://www.steve-lacey.com/

and many more..
They cover information on both the HW used for the demo and what it will run on.

Regarding Vista and FSX, its like chicken and the egg, both are getting developed at the same time, so what features comes where first? One of the developers also talks about this.

I can at least repeat one of the things they say, don't buy your HW for FS now, wait until it gets out. And when you do purchase get the best you can afford. FS is made to run on many different systems, and will run on both lower grade as top end, but quality will be accordingly. Hopefully low setting still will look good.

Lastly one of the developers also said that FS likes videocards with loads of memory over very fast processors. They originally wanted FS to use DirectX10, but now they say they can't get there in time.

Oh and BTW I am installing my second G of RAM tonight and a new ASUS extreme 7800GT, I refuse to upgrade my PC until I know it sucks, hopefully it'll run FSX ok, if I bother upgrading from FS9 ..........  rotfl  I bet I do



still dreaming after all these years
User currently offlineAC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11648 times:

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 21):
I can at least repeat one of the things they say, don't buy your HW for FS now, wait until it gets out. And when you do purchase get the best you can afford. FS is made to run on many different systems, and will run on both lower grade as top end, but quality will be accordingly. Hopefully low setting still will look good.

I agree, it's what I've been preaching for weeks.

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 21):
Lastly one of the developers also said that FS likes videocards with loads of memory over very fast processors. They originally wanted FS to use DirectX10, but now they say they can't get there in time.

Yep. Apparently FSX will use Shader Model 3, and mabye even Shader Model 4 for lighting and effects. I think DX10 will be more than out there by the time this game is releasd. That being said, Microsoft has no reason to NOT use it in FSX.


I've preached it once and I'll preach it again, when the time comes, don't expect your game to look like those screenshots AND be playable, unless you've dropped some coin into your system

-Aaron


User currently offlineDreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11640 times:

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 22):
don't expect your game to look like those screenshots AND be playable, unless you've dropped some coin into your system

Just to be clear, neither shader 4 nor DX10 was used in the demo... just a normal high-end system, much like what many of us simmers have right now



still dreaming after all these years
User currently offlineAC21365 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11640 times:

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 23):
Just to be clear, neither shader 4 nor DX10 was used in the demo... just a normal high-end system, much like what many of us simmers have right now



Quoting AC21365 (Reply 22):
Yep. Apparently FSX will use Shader Model 3, and mabye even Shader Model 4 for lighting and effects. I think DX10 will be more than out there by the time this game is releasd. That being said, Microsoft has no reason to NOT use it in FSX.

Yep.

I was only that FSX could possibly end up using SM4 and DX10. SM3 is already going strong (as can be seen in F.E.A.R., COD2, and the FSX screenshots). SM4 should be in full swing by summer, and DX10 by the end of the year. From what we keep hearing, FSX shouldn't be on the shelves til the very end of the year, which is plenty of time to still make changes to the gaming engine.

We'll see what really happens as the time nears.

-Aaron

[Edited 2006-02-17 21:40:44]

25 Delboy : That's the beauty of these Forums, everyone has their own opinion which is democracy in my book. I still maintain that FSX will suck unless you have V
26 Malaysia : I want a BattleField Addition to FSX so you can just fly the C-172 into some grass opening in the jungle in Colombia and just run out and start shooti
27 Clawviper : To depart from your systemspec discussion: Didn't I read somewhere that they would use satelite pictures, like google earth, and make hyperrealistic w
28 Post contains images AirPacific747 : hey.. I see you are still a first class member.. thats awesome!
29 Dan2002 : Thats iffy, because even if you got decent detailed sat. images for just major cities, that would suck up alot of space. It would be nice, and defina
30 Malaysia : download from Microsoft as you fly then empty cache on exit? hehe but would need very good download speed.
31 B727-200 : Well that article showed and told us very little. Who gives a stuff about the fancy bits'n'pieces - let's hope they have at least fixed the real crapp
32 Krje1980 : I would also like to see areas outside the US get more details. When you fly over US cities, lots of extra and distinctive buildings and landmarks hav
33 ReguPilot : You're comparing mobile chips here. It is well known all over the world, that Intel controls the Mobile segment, and their Pentium M processor's are
34 Post contains links ReguPilot : This article is quite interesting. Its from the the Tech Report. Try to compare Intel and AMD chips: Intel chips: - Have a faster clock speed (Ghz) -
35 RichardPrice : The entire Core series of processor, the newest Intel line, is all based on the same core as the PentiumM series and provide just as great a performa
36 Post contains links Dan2002 : When you are writing code for a game, nothing is ever "simple". I do agree things need improving, but read this first before you say that stuff is "s
37 RichardPrice : The simulator you want has already been created, but unfortunately the entry requirements are a lot more pricey and the potential endings when you cr
38 AC21365 : Finally!! Someone understands why I keep preaching AMD!1 -Aaron
39 AAden : nice, i'm glad to see an airbus finally even if it is only one.
40 Post contains images Justplanecrazy : FSX looks great.A Better world for my virtual passengers to crash and burn.
41 Post contains images David L : It'll be interesting to see how they implement the autoflight systems. But no-one should be surprised if you have to go to a third party for top qual
42 LouA340 : It looks great and I cant wait until its out. I hope they upgrade the ATC system on the game. It somtimes gets annoying how it handles takoffs and lan
43 Kappel : I wonder if the Windows Vista delay will affect FSX...
44 Trekster : Cant wait. Thnak god im getting a new comp next week. Looks like i will need it
45 Post contains images Viper911 : Glad i have new PC i cant wait for FSX , i hope ill see some Airbuses there, anyway it looks Great.
46 GSM763 : I would think they would want to avoid that as FSX is a product that would do quite well out of the Christmas rush.
47 Post contains images Goinv : The UK magazine "Micro Mart" has recently featured an article on Windows Vista and suggests that at least 1Gb of RAM and at least a 4Ghz processor are
48 Post contains links KDTWFlyer : Thats insane! Microsoft would never release a OS with such drastically higher base requirements than its predicesor. But then again anything could ha
49 David L : But those may be recommended requirements rather than base requirements. Compare the "recommended" specs for FS2004 with the specs you need to get de
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Microsoft Flight Simulator X
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Microsoft Flight Simulator - Good Or Bad? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 18:23:56 by B777A340Fan
What Do You Think Of Microsoft Flight Simulator? posted Thu Aug 28 2003 02:39:27 by Tony Lu
Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 Features posted Thu Jul 25 2002 00:04:22 by Propilot83
Landing On Microsoft Flight Simulator posted Sun Nov 4 2001 18:18:22 by Avion757
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2001 posted Wed Aug 30 2000 20:27:52 by Azeem
Please Help With Flight Simulator 2004! posted Tue Nov 7 2006 18:34:54 by Fll2993
Flight Simulator X posted Thu Oct 12 2006 07:00:46 by TUSaadvantage
I Want A Flight Simulator But I Got A Laptop Only. posted Mon Oct 9 2006 22:23:35 by Musapapaya
New MS Flight Simulator? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 13:43:32 by KWI
MS Flight Simulator X: Demo! posted Sun Sep 10 2006 06:25:57 by Zone1

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format