the deminishing fs9 products

[Jack C 8]

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.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi Jack,Does FS9 look like crap right out of the box?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/

[Jack C 8]

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.

[ghostrider 112 0]

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!!!!

[Jack C 8]

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.

[Guest ha5mvo]

>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.

[Guest thedoggg]

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

[Guest GA Flyer]

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.

[kerosene31 349]

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.

[Dillon 2,197]

"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).

[kerosene31 349]

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.

[MarkRey 16]

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

[Glynn 405]

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.

[Guest fokker70]

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.

[ailchim 206]

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