Microsoft Flight Simulator on Mac

UNIVSOUTHFLA

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 13, 2006
4
0
Hi. The only game I play is Flight Simulator 2004, and I am curious if anybody has had success running Flight Simulator without resorting to Boot Camp (Virtualization, Crossover Codeweavers, etc)
Thanks in advance!
 

Richdmoore

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2007
1,778
251
Troutdale, OR
I would buy the program at the xplane site, since you get both pc & mac versions on the same disc. The retail copies only include one version, not both.....
 

dimme

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2007
1,569
3,623
SF, CA
The only way to run MS flight simulator is by installing Bootcamp/Windows. I an running Windows 7 and flight simulator X and it runs very well on my Macpro. I also have X-Plane but don't use it much. The aircraft do not handle as well, and nothing beats Flight Simulator X for eye candy.
 

doh123

macrumors 65816
Dec 28, 2009
1,302
1
I have had X-plane and others... and sadly MS Flight sim is still the best flight sim.

Does ti work with Crossover or Wine? who knows... try it out and see!
 

Dragonforce

macrumors 6502a
Apr 9, 2008
585
0
Germany
The only way to run MS flight simulator is by installing Bootcamp/Windows. I an running Windows 7 and flight simulator X and it runs very well on my Macpro. I also have X-Plane but don't use it much. The aircraft do not handle as well, and nothing beats Flight Simulator X for eye candy.
Well, the better sim is X-Plane, the better "eyecandy" game is MSX.
I prefer realism over graphics, and like I said, X-Plane 10 will come
out soon which uses Open Street Maps and advanced aircraft models.
 

dimme

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2007
1,569
3,623
SF, CA
Well the main issue I have with x-plane is the joystick feel. I not sure if it is my equipment (Logitech force 3D pro) or x-plane. However the joystick works fine in windows and MS Flight Simulator X. When I am in xplane the joystick is very sloppy. I have adjusted the setting in the xplane prefs but it does not help. It kinda kills the realism for me. Any Advice would be helpful.
 

firebirdswm

macrumors newbie
Mar 18, 2009
22
0
Would an iMac G5 from 2005 run FSX through Virtual PC good enough to make it worthwhile or am I going to have to cave and buy an Intel Mac in the near future?
 

dimme

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2007
1,569
3,623
SF, CA
Would an iMac G5 from 2005 run FSX through Virtual PC good enough to make it worthwhile or am I going to have to cave and buy an Intel Mac in the near future?
Sorry it won't run in Virtual PC, it does not even run right in VMware or parallels. You need windows running without emulation. Time to go shopping!
 

maccompaq

macrumors 65816
Mar 6, 2007
1,152
3
I have had X-plane and others... and sadly MS Flight sim is still the best flight sim.
I have X-Plane 9 on my Mac and MS FSX on Windows. FSX is not bad, but X-Plane is so much more responsive. For me, as a long time licensed pilot and airplane owner, X-Plane is much more realistic. I can keep my real airplane flight skills current with X-Plane. I cannot keep current with FSX, which is more like a game than a Flight simulator.
 

Dragonforce

macrumors 6502a
Apr 9, 2008
585
0
Germany
I have X-Plane 9 on my Mac and MS FSX on Windows. FSX is not bad, but X-Plane is so much more responsive. For me, as a long time licensed pilot and airplane owner, X-Plane is much more realistic. I can keep my real airplane flight skills current with X-Plane. I cannot keep current with FSX, which is more like a game than a Flight simulator.
QFT.
 

lamina

macrumors 68000
Mar 9, 2006
1,754
41
Niagara
Go ahead and try running FS in Parallels or Fusion. lol. Unless you have an octo Mac Pro with 32 terabytes of RAM, it's gonna be pretty darn sluggish.
 

maccompaq

macrumors 65816
Mar 6, 2007
1,152
3
What is your high/low frame rate in X-Plane 9? I know it varies depending on the scenery.

Do you have a powerful video card?

Just wondering what everyone's experience has been.
 

1newmacuser

macrumors newbie
Jan 25, 2011
4
0
Flight Simullator

I am a new Mac user.... I have "x-plane9" but have not loaded it. I bought a new IMAC and plane to load it. The question that I have is, what is the best way to go for the hardware? The better yoak, rudder controls ect all talk about windows and to be honest, I do not want to spend the money only to find out it will not work on my machine...
Can anyone steer me in the right direction?

Thanks for any information that you share!
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,121
432
Cascadia
I am a new Mac user.... I have "x-plane9" but have not loaded it. I bought a new IMAC and plane to load it. The question that I have is, what is the best way to go for the hardware? The better yoak, rudder controls ect all talk about windows and to be honest, I do not want to spend the money only to find out it will not work on my machine...
Can anyone steer me in the right direction?

Thanks for any information that you share!
Any USB flight system should work fine in X-Plane.
 

avro707

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2010
787
4
Recommend using FS through Bootcamp and not the virtual Windows solutions.

If you need to - try setting up bootcamp on another HDD, that's a reasonably good solution and what I do.

In FSX I usually get around 25-30fps over Hong Kong Kai-Tak (addon scenery) with all detail as high as it'll go and using PMDG's B747-400 (complex addon plane). I had to do a lot of FSX.CFG tweaking to get it stable, but it's good now.

FS2004 should be much easier for you to get running - and will probably run really fast on Mac Pro.

But I'll swap over to X-Plane when PMDG and FlightSimLabs build their addons (747, MD-11 and Concorde) for XPlane. Until then, XPlane is off-limits for me.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,121
432
Cascadia
Recommend using FS through Bootcamp and not the virtual Windows solutions.

If you need to - try setting up bootcamp on another HDD, that's a reasonably good solution and what I do.

In FSX I usually get around 25-30fps over Hong Kong Kai-Tak (addon scenery) with all detail as high as it'll go and using PMDG's B747-400 (complex addon plane). I had to do a lot of FSX.CFG tweaking to get it stable, but it's good now.

FS2004 should be much easier for you to get running - and will probably run really fast on Mac Pro.

But I'll swap over to X-Plane when PMDG and FlightSimLabs build their addons (747, MD-11 and Concorde) for XPlane. Until then, XPlane is off-limits for me.
Well, since Microsoft Flight Simulator has been officially dead for two years now, and the latest release is five years old, you'd think add-on makers would have switched over to the (technically superior) X-Plane already...

I do wonder how "Microsoft Flight" will compare to the old Flight Simulator, though. I've had every version of both MS FS and X-Plane over the years (yes, since subLogic Flight Simulator for Apple II and X-Plane 1.1, for which the then-current price was $499. As an Aerospace Engineering student at the time, it was worth it.) MSFS has been "for fun", X-Plane has been for simulation.
 

avro707

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2010
787
4
Well, since Microsoft Flight Simulator has been officially dead for two years now, and the latest release is five years old, you'd think add-on makers would have switched over to the (technically superior) X-Plane already...
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

To be released this year. And Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D is available too as a professional simulator system. (It is based from FSX and compatible with it, but expanded heavily)

I won't get involved in the X-Plane -v- Flight fights, because they are just not appropriate for the discussion, and they are about is useful as the Mac -v- PC debates, or iOS -v- Android debates.

To the person who made the original post: Drop me a message if you need help getting it running.
 
Last edited:

1newmacuser

macrumors newbie
Jan 25, 2011
4
0
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

To be released this year. And Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D is available too as a professional simulator system. (It is based from FSX and compatible with it, but expanded heavily)

I won't get involved in the X-Plane -v- Flight fights, because they are just not appropriate for the discussion, and they are about is useful as the Mac -v- PC debates, or iOS -v- Android debates.

To the person who made the original post: Drop me a message if you need help getting it running.
Many thanks!! I really do not understand alot of the settings that were spoke of in the eariler post. I hope that this will "just work". Thanks for your support and thanks for the information everyone about the USB plug hardware!
 

dimme

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2007
1,569
3,623
SF, CA
. I had to do a lot of FSX.CFG tweaking to get it stable, but it's good now.
Did you have to do any tweaking for FSX to see all your cores? I have read different accounts and tried a few different setting and I do not see a increase in frame rates. I using Windows 7-64 bit on a 2008 8 core machine.
Thanks
 

dmr727

macrumors G3
Dec 29, 2007
8,623
25
NYC
I do wonder how "Microsoft Flight" will compare to the old Flight Simulator, though.
I'm heartened by the fact that they're using a biplane and a Maule for their videos and screenshots. To me, it shows that they're attempting to capture the essence of what it means to fly. We'll see how it pans out.
 

avro707

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2010
787
4
Did you have to do any tweaking for FSX to see all your cores? I have read different accounts and tried a few different setting and I do not see a increase in frame rates. I using Windows 7-64 bit on a 2008 8 core machine.
Thanks
Yeah, I did have to do one of those tweaks. Basically, you are shifting FSX off the first core, which is often used by the OS to do things, and maybe other addons like Active Sky Enhanced which does use a bit of processing power to simulate real world weather for you (it does it very well too). That can eliminate the stutters you sometimes experience and keep the frame rates more steady (instead of the wild fluctuations people sometimes see).

I also had to tweak some of the texture loading settings a bit to get it nicely smooth.

I'm on Mac at the moment - so not sure how to get to the CFG file right away, but it's the AffinityMask setting. I think it needs to be 14 (AffinityMask=14). I'll get back to you with some of the settings I'm using.

The other places you'll score big wins in performance are things like a very fast HDD. An SSD or something like one of those Western Digital Velociraptors (10,000rpm) will do wonders. Given the cheap price of HDDs these days and the superb ease-of-upgrading the Mac Pro, it's worth it.

I do hope that Microsoft Flight uses are computers more efficiently than FSX does. I expect that as usual, the developers will get the inside look at Flight well in advance and should have their addons ready to go by release date, assuming no big architecture changes for the models happen.

That said, FSX was developed at the time when there wasn't much idea if computers would go to ever higher clock speeds or more cores with lower clock-speeds - it was at the turning point. They also gave us SimConnect and the Max plugins, along with great insider support - those are the best things that ever happened for developers, and probably part of the reason the developers have remained so loyal to the FS series.

dmr727: They always tend to show the basic planes - but if I may be so bold, that's probably because they only really do basic planes - and not real simulations. The full-on simulations are left for the addon developers to do, think FSLabs Concorde, FSLabs Airbus A320, PMDG planes, etc.

MS doesn't have the time to do the full-on simulations, they take an enormous amount of time to develop, let alone test them.

I can't think of any flight-simulator addon/plane so complex and realistic as the FSLabs Concorde. It's amazing how well it turned out. I had a real grin on my face when for the first time I started the descent from 57,200ft over the Atlantic, I throttled back the engines slightly too fast and sure enough "bang"! There was a slight engine surge. :cool: And later, when I tried it again, being more careful - no surge. :)

And when I started the engines at first, it went through the rotating stall after I switched on the HP valve for that engine - "whoop whoop, pull up, whoop whoop, pull up". :) Just wonderful.

Debow starts are possible. I was even more thrilled to find that if one of the air-groups needed to be shut down, that when I retry it in the air, the temperature sensing goes full hot, until enough air goes through the group and then the temperature goes down to what it should be. And when you open the cross-flow valves between the air-groups (meaning they share their air), you do get more air flowing through them. You can control the pressurisation properly. You can even do the reverse-air-shutoff check when taxiing, and it works like the real thing.

Being able to follow the real world checklists and procedures to the letter is amazing for something on the computer and costing less than $100. In the old days, to get something with that level of detail, you'd be looking at professional simulator setups.

It just goes to show how far computer technology has come. Anyhow, enough of my ramblings. ;)