Talk:Combat flight simulation game

Video games High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scott Rayner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Inaccuracy

Namco's Ace Combat series is mentioned here. They are arcade action games, not flight simulators in any serious capacity. They do not belong on this page. Compare Ace Combat 5 to Falcon 4.0. Not in the same league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.239.250 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, and I plan to add a number of links to other articles, and possible a graphic or two to this article. Of course suggestions (or edits!) are welcome.FlyingSinger

I have uploaded and tried to dispplay two JPG's here but they are not displaying as graphics. Maybe this is related to the power failure though they show up in the image search page. FlyingSinger 19:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because someone's Bot is being a dick about what images you can use. 66.229.160.94 10:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be lacking on citing sources, and could use quite a bit of tone correction. I added appropriate tags. -Edlin2 05:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "history" section is incoherent and as such, also very inaccurate. Using the three CFS series games (which all center on WW2, except the dogfight mode in FS4 and earlier) Microsoft has published as the centrepiece of combat flight simulator history is simply ridiculous, whereas other software houses may have published many more combat flight simulators which have in many case been forerunners to what Microsoft has been doing. Unless, of course, one wants to detail the history of Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator (tm) which already has its separate page. The history part also completely overlooks MicroProse's early years (from 80's to mid-90's), and it could be argued that during this time it was MicroProse, not Microsoft that held the dominant position in combat flight simulator market. LucasArts' early sims escape mention, Rowan Software, Spectrum Holobyte, EA/Jane's and Sierra/Dynamix are mentioned only passing in the later paragraphs... wish I had the time and patience to edit the article myself. 213.246.227.18 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to contribute following your indications, convening that the hystorical section is rather imprecise and lacking a lot of milestones, but I see that my work has been deleted by a punctilious inquisitor who takes pleasure acting as destroyer of works made by others. Have no time to redo or to enter litigations because I have other to do in life that lose time with such pedantic guys. Have a good life.--Corrado72 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete survey

while somewhat informative, this article should include a comprehensive table of apps along with current version, currently active development, time since last release etc. as other articles on software genre do.. as it currently is, a typical user looking for currently available titles is not informed at all. (Anuoldman (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

"Historical" simulators

In the list of examples of "historical" combat flight simulators I definitely removed the sentence Simulators of current modern wars are usually classified not by the period of war, but rather as a separate category of "modern jet simulators". The sentence is right, of course, but there's no reason to don't expand the list with the corresponding examples of modern jet fighter simulators... So, instead of leaving the sentence where it was, I deleted it and expanded the list, creating a new category on it. The so called "modern" jet fighters started during the Vietnam war, 40 years ago. Fourty long years should be enough (and indeed, it is) to create a new historical category in the lists. I created it not following a series of conflicts (like the former simulators in the lists, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) but by noticing to the reader that these simulators correspond to the jet fighters of fourth and fifth generations. This is, in my humble opinion, the proper way to present the list of historical sims. Kintaro (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tone for content

I've modified the text to use neutral in multiple places. Old text did not have basis or reference to comparisons made so it was not justified to leave it as such.

Also the old list is changed to use tables now for better clarity. Many titles could be classified in various different categories so it should be possible to add those for each as necessary.

Ipr1 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I've resolved quite a lot of linking errors with various different pages relating to topic. There may be more, it was a huge mess but I think it is on the right path at least now. Ipr1 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combat flight simulation game. 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/20131202223700/http://www.index.migman.com/ to http://www.index.migman.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Edits

Hello fellow editors. I am enrolled in a Technical Editing class at Texas A&M, and I will be editing this article as a part of our Wikipedia project. Please be patient with me as I am still learning. The following is a preliminary list of the tasks I plan to work on:

Clean up the content of the article for better flow and organization
Overhaul the "Types" section to better fit with the rest of the article
Correct the tone of the article to fit Wikipedia's standards
Remove redundant information
Add citations where I can

I will continue to list major issues as they arise. Do not hesitate to reach out! --Scott Rayner (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]