Sign in to follow this  
Jack C

the deminishing fs9 products

Recommended Posts

I wish all the dev's would give it some consideration to jumping on the FSX bandwagagon so soon. FS9 still has a lot of life in it. Besides, in my opinion, of all the people converting to the next FS I think the FS9-FSX conversion will take the longest by far. Here is a low down on my systemAMD FX60 oc'ed to 3.0 ($1250 cdn)2X 7800 gtx (1200 cdn)asus a8n32-sli mobo (265)2 gig OCZ (370)I just bought this system back the the spring. As you can tell that came to over 3100 bucks. This is just 4 components. I wont even touch FSX with this system. Sure it runs at 20 fps but FSX looks like crap compared to FS9. I have all the scenery addons for fs9 and it looks awesome. It runs smoothly at 30-35 fps with AS6 and any addon aircraft out there. It is like watching a movie thats how smooth it is. I can not see myslef getting involved with FSX for at least 1.5-2 yrs. It is a complete shame that the ONLY reason why I would consider FSX is that all the payware companies are switching to FSX. I wish they would still give FS9 more consideration and keep the products flowing for FS9. Too bad there wasnt an accurate poll to find out how long people will take before more than 50% of us convert to FSX. The longer FS9 stays alive the longer the addons for it do too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I see where you are going but what I am trying to get at is once upon a time to upgrade to the next FS version you could get away with a video card and update the processor. Now you need to update the mobo, processor, video card, windows vista if you want to take advantage of dx10, etc. If it doens't run that great on my system chances are you are going to at least need 4000 bucks to do all this. I am just saying that in my opinion the conversion to FSX will be longer than other FS upgrades. And IF it IS going to be an extended period of time, wouldn't that make FS9 still worth exploring for the dev's? After all from what I have been told by a dev, FSX was not refined at all anyway. Heck the turbine engine still isn't even modelled correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jack,I would not worry too much if I were you.Check out the FSX forum...not a lot of happy campers to say the least. I think the developers are in for a rude awakening sales wise for their FSX products. Unless they can figure out some way to make their add ons run smoothly in that sim.If they can, I for one will be happy to convert.But until that happens it's FS9 for me.BTW...looking forward to the Airsimmer A320 for FS9!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but it sure would be nice to see the other up and coming addons to be available for FS9 especially the PMDG 737 and their A320. You KNOW PMDG makes nothing but the best. I just wished some of them didn't abandon FS9 so soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yes but it sure would be nice to see the other up and coming>addons to be available for FS9 especially the PMDG 737 and>their A320. You KNOW PMDG makes nothing but the best. I just>wished some of them didn't abandon FS9 so soon.this will largly depend on the market.If the percentage of people who'd stick around with fs9 remains high, no payware developer will be able to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have loved to see some of these in FS9, Especially the PMDG MD11, and LDS 757.Carlos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FlyTampa, FlightScenery and GeoRender products all have my vote to continue to dev for FS9. I feel if MS is developing the FS series with future hardware in mind then the buyers should do the same. I own a copy of FSX and support FS but it will sit on my shelf for a time to come. I'm just tired of tweaking and not flying.I'd rather sim in FS9 and miss out on a few new features (found in FSX) where the flight is smooth and enjoyable then in FSX where you barely have enough computer power to enjoy the flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar thread a few weeks back, and it seems at least some developers are very aware of what is going on. Now, I don't even own FSX, but from what I hear, I don't see how developers can add complex add-ons to it right now. I hear the horror stories all the time, "I'm ok as long as I don't fly over cities", etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Too bad there wasnt an accurate poll to find out how long people will take before more than 50% of us convert to FSX."You'll never get an accurate poll because so many will mindlessly vote FSX as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Before this sim was released and only the demo was out to show us what FSX was about you had these people shouting in favor of FSX ("We still haven't seen the release version, it's unfair to judge right now"). Now after the release you have these same people shouting support with the optimism that FSX will be better once the DX10/Vista patch comes out. My bet is that's another pipe dream as there's way too many problems to fix in FSX (they would have to redesign the whole sim to take advantage of Dual/Quad processors among other things).Once the DX10/Vista patch is released there's no ware for these people to go. They will have to admit FSX had shaped up being a worse release than FS2000 before it. Now if Aces promises a patch after the Vista patch then we'll have to run around this dead horse a few months more.A poll will never tell the true story until most people stop living in fantasy land and wake up. Some developers like Cloud9 and Aerosoft are going by way of forcing their customers to embrace FSX if they wish to buy their newer products. It was funny to see Aerosoft's latest scenery that had no choice but to stay compatible with 'FS9' not 'FSX'. FlyTampa expressed they had no interest in continuing development for FS9 even though they can't get around the ground scenery issue. My bet will be after the FSX Vista patch most people with any since at all will wake up and smell the coffee. The Flight Sim community will be officially split and it would be to any developer's best interest to develop for the FS version that gives their customers the best bang for their buck. Sadly the new version is not it. We haven't seen anything like this before in the FS community and that's why it's so hard for developers to wrap their minds around it (sticking with an older version of FS when a newer version is on the market).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty bleak view of FSX... I have to think that just like FS2000 before it, you just need to throw tons of PC hardware at it to make it run better. I wouldn't even guess, but someday, the hardware to run FSX has to be out there and be reasonably priced. Now, I am in the FS9 only group, I didn't even bother with FSX for now. However, things will move forward. The only real question is how quickly. That timeframe is the big unknown that developers need to gamble on, however eventually, moving forward will eventually be the sure bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it always is, always will be, but for sure this transition is not as smooth as past ones. I have seen ACES indicate that they are looking into the performance issues and will address them if possible. Obviously they see that FSX's legs may be a bit TOO long for many users at this time.edit - you know, approaching the Canadian coast the other night enroute LFPG-KJFK, comfortably seated in my vc, checking my legs page with a gorgeous ASV sunset out front I said to myself 'what more do I NEED?'I will move to FSX in time, but fs9 delivers more than enough for an ifr heavy addict like me. regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HelloThe problem that the folks over in the FSX forum cannot grasp is that the fastest hardware available today is Dual core which FSX cannot utilize, it wont do FSX any good no matter what hardware you throw at it, today or next year.Next up from AMD and Intel is quad core then after that even more cores on a single die.None of which will make any difference to FSX. FS11 if we ever see it, will have to be written for multiple cores as you will not even be able to buy a single core proccesor by thenIts hard enough to find one now.FSX was a legacy App the day it was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I would imagine that most developers began working on projects before the release of FSX and now have already committed time, resources and budgets to projects on the assumption that everyone will be jumping to FSX when it released.I agree that if your going to compare FS9 OOB and FSX OOB, that FSX is superior in every way. But who runs FS9 OOB anymore? I have hundreds(not including hardware) if not more invested in this FS9 platform. I look forward to the day that I can upgrade to FSX and enjoy all the new features but I don't want to have to tweak a sim to fly it OOB. I hope all the talented developers will be able to give us new releases that will be successful in a fiscal and viable options for both platforms for the near future. One day my budget and hardware will catch up with the "experience" I expect from my FS series. Regards to all my fellow simmers, the talented developers, and the individuals that give up free time to give back to the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already have more FS9 stuff than I have time to fly: LDS767, PMDG737, Flight1 ATR, Aerosoft King Air B200 and the Digital Cheyenne expected in my Christmas stocking.And with a 3.6gHz Pentium with 3GB of DDR2 RAM, Nvidia 7950GT with 512MB, Ground Environment, ActiveSky6 and Ultimate Terrain, I don't need FSX until I can afford a twin core, DX10 machine that runs Vista and FSX has been patched.The LDS757 is a worry though.......... I've absolutely got to have that aeroplane, always assuming they are in fact building one.It's that old situation isn't it? An add-on aircraft I can buy for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well again, in my opinion, and after seing scenery like flightscenery's Portland (which is completely amazing scenery and MAYBE drops my fps about 3 fps down to 31) shows there can be plenty of life left in FS9. If dev's kept on pumping out addons like this why would we need to go to fsx? i woul like to se reasons what fsx offers that fs9 doesn't. Fly by wire? PMDG seems to simulate that very well already. Scenery? Nope. If you think so, I guees you need to see my FS9 running. Smoothness? lol. i bet FS9 has at LEAST a year and a half left of life. Thats plenty of time for dev's consifering MSFS pumps out a new version approx every 2yrs (usually).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hello>The problem that the folks over in the FSX forum cannot grasp>is that the fastest hardware available today is Dual core>which FSX cannot utilize, it wont do FSX any good no matter>what hardware you throw at it, today or next year.>Next up from AMD and Intel is quad core then after that even>more cores on a single die.>>None of which will make any difference to FSX. >>FS11 if we ever see it, will have to be written for multiple>cores as you will not even be able to buy a single core>proccesor by then>Its hard enough to find one now.>>FSX was a legacy App the day it was released.>Exactly! How can you "look to the future" by embracing the past?What are these guys smoking? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you are runing FS9 with no add-ons, no complex aircraft, then FSX seems pretty good even if the frame rates are bad. If you have a tweaked FS9 with lots of add-ons, FSX is dismal at best ( at least the one I tried on a friends brand new super computer). So for the average gamer with a brand new PC, they might think FSX is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it. We JUST got FS9 running absolutley awesome. Lets us enjoy it for at least a year instead of temptng everyone to convert to FSX because that is where all the addons are but then we have to invest 3-4K for a new machine. Are the dev's TRYING to get us all divorced! lol. its sooo true though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think if you are runing FS9 with no add-ons, no complex>aircraft, then FSX seems pretty good even if the frame rates>are bad. If you have a tweaked FS9 with lots of add-ons, FSX>is dismal at best ( at least the one I tried on a friends>brand new super computer). So for the average gamer with a>brand new PC, they might think FSX is OK.> Not here. I've got FSX looking far better than I could have ever expected with some very smooth frame rates that usually run 20-25 fps, yet it's ultra smooth, and best of all, stutterless.I've have, and still use FS9 with addons galore; and owned every previous version of MSFS, and most of the rest. It's not as if I'm experimenting as a first time flight simmer, as I'm about 20 years or so past that.Since FSX does run so smooth, and with much higher resolution mountain textures and city scapes (I use FSGenesis mesh), I find myself less pleased with FS9 as each day goes by. And I do constantly go back and forth for comparisons. I'm very aware that FSX will be frame sensitive as addons are added to it. Therefor, I'll keep FS9 on the hard drive for situations and addons where FS9 can have a fps advantage. At this point, there is no doubt in my mind, that FS9 is the best for heavy duty commercial airliner simulating, or crowded airport enviroments. I'm more of a Mountain West flying simmer, but not into bush flight that much. Business jets around the Rockies is quite appealing.As to addons, I want to see new models for FSX, such as those from RealAir, Dreamfleet, Coranado, as well as others. Numerous addons such as these could be frame rate friendly in FS9, and I expect the same with FSX.In the meantime, as my desire for FS9 flying dulls with every flight session, I doubt I'll be buying anymore addons for FS9. I have tons of them to re-load on the newer CPU, if I ever get around to it. But since FSX is more appealing, it probably won't happen.L.Adamson -- not a mindless FSX owner, as suggested in another reply in this thread. Just an SEL, plane owner, and one who enjoys great scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread.I just got back from Best Buy and spotted two shelves full of FSX (both versions), for $49 & $69 respectively. I have a gut feeling that these will be hitting the bargain bin within 6 months. I unfortunately don't have the hardware to run FSX in any respectable manner so I'll be passing on it for at least another year. By then, the machines that can run it in an "ok" manner will have come down in price and "maybe" I'll take the plunge both hardware and software-wise.As for FS9, I'm STILL discovering some new and fun things in it. I've been messing with AFCAD and "updating" some of my favorite airports as well having a blast creating my own AI flights with TTools. (It's my understanding that neither of these two programs works correctly in FSX...)After putting on my Carmack the Magnificient hat, I honestly think that FSX, while having some amazing features, will be the FS2000 of the FS200X series. What I mean by that is that FS2000 was unfortunately disappointing but was followed up by two very good editions (FS2002 & FS2004). I'm willing to bet that FS11 will be an updated FSX with the ability to utilize multi-core technology. That alone will make it run faster on more PC's, at the time of it's release. Throw in hopefully improved ATC features and flightsimmers everywhere will be singing, "Happy Days Are Here Again!"... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thats just it. We JUST got FS9 running absolutley awesome.>Lets us enjoy it for at least a year instead of temptng>everyone to convert to FSX because that is where all the>addons are but then we have to invest 3-4K for a new machine.>Are the dev's TRYING to get us all divorced! lol. its sooo>true thoughI most definitely agree Jack. One of the painful benefits of the information age is that negative feedback can get back to the source, earlier. The developers of this product should have been able to see the writing on the wall for multicore early enough in the development cycle to make a better choice. Just think if FSX had been built around quadcore or better? I know some have mentioned the 4D graphical world of FS does not lend itself to multicore processing so perhaps it's a moot point. But if it's not, then the developers really missed the boat bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict, with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be like 3 years from now.Your prediction must include:CPU design and speedType and amount of system memoryGPU systemMedia format and sizeHard drive format and sizeWhen you have this vision, please post it.Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi All,>>Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict,>with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be>like 3 years from now.>>Your prediction must include:>CPU design and speed>Type and amount of system memory>GPU system>Media format and size>Hard drive format and size>>When you have this vision, please post it.Hey Jim, All joking aside, until MS can create a sim that is a true multi-core application, all the upgrades in the world aren't going to help. MSFS is the most CPU-intensive 'game' that I've ever seen. Until the core speeds break 5 - 6 gHz ( Which we know isn't going to happen, they are just going to put more cores on a single die ) then you aren't going to be able to run FSX like people run FS9 right now. In their defense, they had no idea ( which I'm sure is why you made the post you did ) what the systems would be like now. To make the sim true multi-core, it will take a LARGE re-write of existing code. Then you go into another few MONTHS of basic testing to ensure all is working as it should. Basically it was an early design decision that cornered them. Halfway through the development the dual cores started coming out and getting popular. By then they figured it was too costly ( and time-critical ) to re-code the core of the application to use multiple cores. Anyhow, FSX will never run like FS9 ( with lots of addons ) does now. If they re-write the core and make it a true multi-core application then FSX does have hope. If they don't, it will fade out. Now I can only hope that not all the developers are FSX-only or this niche community will die out. The developers won't be getting money and the community won't be getting any addons. Time will tell, but that's my prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi All,>>Please use your crystal balls right now, today, and predict,>with 90% accuracy, what the average Joe's computer will be>like 3 years from now.>>Your prediction must include:>CPU design and speed>Type and amount of system memory>GPU system>Media format and size>Hard drive format and size>>When you have this vision, please post it.>>Thanks,>Jim>>http://www.hifisim.com/>Active Sky V6 Development Team >Active Sky V6 Proud Supporter>HiFi Beta Team>Radar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/>AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/>FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/Hi JimBottom line is that we KNOW it will be multi-core based with probably only small gains in each core Mhz.I think that is all we need to know right now.FWIW, as a very active purcahser of FS9 addons, I have no intention of buying ANY addons for FSX unless it demonstrates zero framerate hit on my PC. I don't have any FPS headroom to play with!Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this