Simviation Forums

Ahh yes, Wikipedia...the only encyclopedia who's users can supply their own information...

There is a reason that those of us in the college acadermic community frown upon its use as a reference.

There it is, right on the cover of my copy of FSX Gold.

Games for Windows.

Microsoft evidently considers FSX a game too, so I guess that forum is in the wrong category too.

cheers,
Joe

There it is, right on the cover of my copy of FSX Gold.

Games for Windows.

Microsoft evidently considers FSX a game too, so I guess that forum is in the wrong category too.

cheers,
Joe

There you have it. The definition is the opinion of the user. Microsoft has always considered FS a game. As a matter of fact so have I.

You made the statement that you and your college academic community frown upon using Wikipedia as a reference. Will you tell me why so I will know if I am breaking some kind of rule.

I don't have to write it.  Here's a smattering:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki

http://gnovisjournal.org/2009/10/29/aca ... -part-one/

http://www.infotoday.com/online/mar08/Badke.shtml

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2007/ ... ependency/

best,

................john

www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

Flight is Microsoft's successor to FSX. Both Flight and FSX are classified as games by the publisher and retailers no matter how much that ruffles serious simmers' feathers. I can't help but think it's a little bit pretentious to insist that flying make-believe airplanes on a computer screen MUST be called a simulator and not a game. And I say that as I'm paging through a detailed XB-70 checklist and making an IFR flight plan. Keep Flight where it is.

You can say anything you want , this forum ,free will , But My sense my brain tells me MSFT will never be the replace of anything
For a simple reason , I have EYES ,and common sense

ACE TEAM remember? those who made the entire world in MSFS series and then M$ Sold it ?
That then this ACE team Was destroy By the same Microsoft for money?

The Only way that this Flight or further Fight Version would "Come to replace FSX" Its by gather & bringing back the team who spend years and several versions of MSFS to build the whole world,but as we and the whole world knows that never going to happen ..its M$

so yes Keep saying that "Flight" its the best Simulator ever made like a FANATIC RELIGIOUS PERSON

In comparison to FSX it is clear that Flight is currently not as fully featured and offers less opportunity for modification and configuration. However I believe that Flight is just as much a flight simulation game as FSX. Therefore it should stay where it is.

It would be nice to see this forum becoming more of a support and informational resource similar to other sim forums. I've noticed that even Avsim's Flight forum has moved towards that.

As some have already pointed out it may well be worth reviewing whether Flight School and Adding Aircraft Traffic etc should be relocated to a different area of the site.

You made the statement that you and your college academic community frown upon using Wikipedia as a reference. Will you tell me why so I will know if I am breaking some kind of rule.

I don't have to write it.

MS probably just get their PR staff to do the wiki entries - almost 100%    ... so it's really just an ad.
& it will get vandalized ... they'll get the notification email and fix it -- & this can also be done automatically ..

................  As you probably already know that Wikipedia favors consensus over credentials. In simpler terms getting the acceptance of many minds even though one original dissenter may be a professor at Harvard. I learned this, not by completing my graduate degree at USC, but in a major corporation that made decisions based on reaching consensus of many at all levels of education. ...........

Wikipedia's issues are exactly that lack of some form of seriously accredited peer review, and as Pete just pointed out...... lack of control of content generation.

I'm well aware of the idea and import of concensus... as someone who has spent much time working in Japan  .

best,

.................john

Wiki info is of good value for light info on some stuff (I use it often for a general light info resource about historical stuff, etc ... but it's not in any way authenticated material) -

To take it as a fact site -- or particularly to read it as fact about commercial products - is really hanging your brains out to dry ....

Case in point.
Years ago I lived in a very small town/village. Population less than three hundred, out in the middle of cornfields.
Out of curiosity, not long after Wiki started becoming known, I looked up the town just to see if anyone had listed it.  For years now, there has been an edit war, where at any given time the town is listed has a suburb of Chicago, or a subdivision of McHenry. It is niether. Not less than an hour from McHenry, and quite a bit further from Chicago, it is it's own villiage, with it's own independant government.
Every once in awhile I check it, and once in awhile it's correct, but that's rare. Have no idea why it happens. Today it's correct, next month it won't be.
Sometimes when you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, you don't get Shakespeare.  Sometimes you just get a room full of poo and a broken typewriter.

Game or simulator. I suspect that MS Flight will not be getting a certification for use from the FAA any time soon for use in instrument training

What MS call FSX on the box is not really relevant, after all a Porsche tell us a Cayenne is a 4 wheel drive off roader

FSX like all MS entertainment products has a game label only due to MS wanting a streamlined product category. Otherwise there would be debate about what catagory any game could go into. Car race "simulations", game or sim. Halo, game or futuristic military simulator. Game covers everything and saves the arguments. As for FSX, the title tells us everything we need to know no matter what is on a flag in the corner of the box. FSX, Flight Simulation 10.
MS Flight in MS's own words is a game, advertised as a game, sold as a game and aimed at the gamer market.
For these reasons, it should be in either "games and software" or possibly "other sites"

That's my opinion

Matt

Game or simulator. I suspect that MS Flight will not be getting a certification for use from the FAA any time soon for use in instrument training

What MS call FSX on the box is not really relevant, after all a Porsche tell us a Cayenne is a 4 wheel drive off roader

FSX like all MS entertainment products has a game label only due to MS wanting a streamlined product category. Otherwise there would be debate about what catagory any game could go into. Car race "simulations", game or sim. Halo, game or futuristic military simulator. Game covers everything and saves the arguments. As for FSX, the title tells us everything we need to know no matter what is on a flag in the corner of the box. FSX, Flight Simulation 10.
MS Flight in MS's own words is a game, advertised as a game, sold as a game and aimed at the gamer market.
For these reasons, it should be in either "games and software" or possibly "other sites"

That's my opinion

Matt

VERY good point. I forgot that flight schools use FSX -- and why does anyone think Lockheed Martin purchased it?

NO flight school would consider MS Flight as a training product .... the thought of it is a joke.

Anyway there is no debate about it. I have it from the inside at MS that the 'Flight Simulator' series was created and treated as a genuine Flight Simulator for the PC. Whereas they made it clear to me that 'Flight' is being created and marketed as a flying game - NOT a simulator.

I agree with those pushing the 'give it some time' line. It is too hard to tell currently where it will lead. In its current form I don't suspect I will use it much, however that is not due to its being a 'game.' Rather, it is due to its pricing model and lack of third party support.

The discussions here seem to have proved that it is arguable both ways (Simulator vs game), I think what it becomes will define it, not what it currently is.

The whole 'simulation vs. game' argument is specious at best. It boils down to this; the more you have invested in anything, the more you will be resistant to that thing changing.  If you have spent thousands of dollars on pay ware and thousands more on a home built cockpit and thousands more building the perfect rig to fly it with, of course you're going to ascribe as much prestige as you can to FS. If you're more casual about your flying, then it won't be as big a concern.

It's important to recognize that neither of these viewpoints are wrong or right, but just different.  FS is both a game and a simulator and so is Flight.  Once again, you decide your own level of participation...

To be followed up on later...