the deminishing fs9 products

[LAdamson 240]

>But here's MY individual problem. I'm a heavy pilot. I>require detailed and accurate AI, high density detailed>airports and dense city areas. I replicate COA flights based>out of KEWR (New York) with highly complex add-on airliners. >I personally don't care if I can drop flour on a migrating>herd of Ostriches in Northen Africa and the only time I see a>mountain is with a minimum of 1,000 feet vertical and>horizontal seperation. For me...FSX provides no use at all>because most cities are persona non grata unless 3 FPS looks>fluid to you. And THAT is a problem shared with many, many>simmers.>And NO I will not land at an airport "close to my location" as>a work-a-round someone suggested.>Fear not Mike! :7 Someday, as you get older, you'll have had it with the heavy piloting, probably won't give a rat's *** about filing IFR; will join the EAA, build a high performance kitplane with a GPS, and go VFR sight seeing through all those mountain passes!Then FSX will feel about right! :-hah L.AdamsonNote: the above scenario is based on many of retired pilots that I know and associate with, who still enjoy aviation. :)

[1mikel151 71]

Why really got improved? I have no idea.>Well that explains alot. If you have to state that, then you need to stay with FS9. Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[LAdamson 240]

> Why really got improved? I have no idea.>>>>Well that explains alot. If you have to state that, then you>need to stay with FS9. >And I second that! L.Adamson

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi to all simmers here :-)I'm a long time AVSIM reader and observer, but this is indeed my first post here, ever. I'm honoured to be with you.I've been following this interesting topic, and decided to let my opinion here, in order to offer you a developer point of view on this matter.I'm one of the two guys ahead of TropicalSim, and we observed extremely significant changes on market behavior due to FSX release. About September, we noted that scenery orders were starting a downward hill tendency, as the soon to release FSX was the talk-of-the-moment to all of us on this ambient, and the tendency on all heads was something like "stop buying FS9 adds by now, as FSX is coming and we don't know if they will be compatible or not".This tendency went bigger as September passed by, turning solid as a knife as October came.We were luck in Brazil as FSX started to be sold on every major game/computer store as soon as October 10th, so we were able to test it earlier.Well, the problems involving add-ons development to this new platform are well knonw here for all of us by now, and makes no sense to remember them. Due in part for some kind of good-fortune, in part to some diferent approaches we've chosen, we were the first ones to produce and release a FSX commercial scenery (Maceio/SBMO), soon followed by another one (Nassau Int'l/MYNN).As the need for instant migration was what we have felt from the market, we ran to proceed on this on that time.I need to say here, that we call a FSX scenery, the 'bug-free' one that takes full usage of all stuff that simulator has to offer, like moving gates, paths for animated service vehicles moving around ramps, dedicated ground work, wet runways, and so on.That's what we have done, and for our surprise (and based on users comments) on such an exigent FS the sceneries had a much better frame impact over the defaults, than their FS9 versions had. We don't know why until now, but that is a fact.By the way, every single FS9 registered user of these two sceneries received free of charge FSX versions of them.During late October/early November, facts were becoming clear to all of us about the issues users were facing with FSX, and this reflected on a strong tendency backwards FS9, at leats for some time on, from a large number of simmers.We have already decided to go full FSX on our sceneries, due to some new technics and tools we started to use, and for the nice results we got with them, but we could not turn our backs to a huge number of users we have that would (and will) continue to make full use of FS9 for a long time, and we had to work this out the best way we could.It was then (late November) that we decided to follow a policy that looks good enough to all involved: when, on December 1st, we released our third FSX scenery (Canc

[Noel 4,563]

> 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. Wait a minute! I find it much easier to believe WIntel worked together years ago in the development of dual or multicore as the direction the OS and hardware would go. Wouldn't this have happened in the last 2-3 years or so, the planning for these things in the OS and in the hardware itself that is? That should just about coincide with where the FSX team was, but of course this is just speculation as I am not involved with any part of it.

[Mike T 211]

Hey L:Well, until I get my Continental days out of my system, its my only way of reliving it and keeps me from quitting my job going back to COA Express as a ERJ F/O making 1/10th my current salary which will lead to financial ruin, divorce and suffering! Probably, won't be any time soon :-lolI am planning to buy a Kitfox next summer and then who knows...I probably won't give a rat's *** about heavy iron and just be content with misty mountains, a tranquil lake and a flock of pelicans smashing into a windshield :-lol

[Manny 1,293]

Hi Carlos,I agree with your strategy. But you also need to make sure you don't fall for the Least common denominator.Yesterday, I bought an addon for FS9. Salzburg, Austria. Reviewed here at AVSIM.http://www.avsim.com/pages/1106/Salzburg/Salzburg.htm.Its a pretty decent scenery for the price $14 Euros. They are working on a free FSX upgrade. It came with the salzburg airport. But guess what.. the runway texture is the default fs9 texture with an option to update with the "FSX look alike" texture for FS9. Think about it.. Someone actually spent time making a runway texture that looks as close as the FSX default texture. Do you see the insanity of such a thing.The primary reason for my interest with an addon airport is the custom runway texture for that single airport. We know..so far there is no choice in FSX but to use the McDonalds of default runway texture. In FS9, we would have had a fantastic custom runway texture. Instead...the route they have chosen is the least common denominator of using default FSX runway textures for FS9. That just about kills me. Brilliant idea... take the worst things in FSX and port it to FS9.The only reason they made that decision that I could think of was probably, they didn't want to provide a great looking runway texture for FS9 that they could not match when they provide an upgrade for FSX. So they gave crap runway textures for FS9.:)Manny

[Jack C 8]

Well, Carlos. One word.....Amen. And ny the way, your english is great. Jack

[moss1 11]

If you are referring to the PMDG MD-11, I could have sworn that the PMDG website said it was for FS9. I have been waiting a very looooooooooooong time for the MD-11, and if PMDG changes the plan, I will be very let down to say the least. I own everyone of their products. Why in the world would they change the plan not to include FS9?? Sorry to rant, but this is bad news if it is the case. Gotta check this out, it's been a while since I have been over at the PMDG forum. Thanks for the heads up anyway.

[Guest neslesman]

Thanks Carlos, you answered a number of my questions. Very enlightening.

[ghostrider 112 0]

Jeff,I too am awaiting the MD-11 for FS9 as PMDG originally advertised.But...if they are taking this loooooong to deliver the MD-11 for FS9,one has to imagine how loooooooooong it may be on the 737 and A320 for FSX! I would guess they would want to wait for a performance patch, vista and dx10 to fully develope those products to full potential.

[Guest Savage]

Well,I had a AMD Athlon 3600+ which was JUST fine for FS9. I spend a *significant* amount of money upgrading to a AMD AM2 5200+, 2GB DDR800 Ram, and a not to shabby GRFX Card.Needless to say, my PC will no longer be any bottle neck for just about anything I want to run. I then proceeded and purchased FSX Delux. I had it on my PC for a matter of 48 hours! It does not even have half of the airports available in my country. I am utterly dissapointed in FSX.Considering the INSANE amount of money spend already upgrading my PC now, and the staggering amount spend on addons and additional planes, there is NO way that I am walking down the same path again with FSX.I don't care what happens to be frank. Either these addons become SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, or I will plain and simply stick with FS9. When support for FS9 dies, I guess my flight simulation days die as well.But throwing money arround left right and center constantly, just to 'keep up to date' for a piece of software, is REALLY a waist of money and resources... Just my 2c.. --Chris

[Guest fokker70]

Holy Molly, based on Mike's specs in his sig,"Mike T.AVSIM Staff Reviewer---------------------------------------FS9 Specs: AMD Athlon 64 Dualcore 4800+ (OC @ 6000+) - 2GB Corsair XMS Pro PC3200 Low Latency DDR SDRAM - 2x ATI Radeon X1900XTX Crossfire PCIe 32 - 2x SATA 240GB WD Caviar Drives in RAID 0 - 1x SATA WD Caviar 120GB Drive - Phase Change Cooling @ -15F - Asus A8R32 MVP MoBo - Creative X-FI Platinum Sound - Logitec THX certified 6.1 Surround sound speakers - Antec Trueblue 500 Watt PSU - Wavemaster Aluminum Case - Dell 2405FPW LCD @ 1900x1200 - Windows Vista RTM - ATI Vista RTM Video Drivers - Creative Labs Vista Beta Drivers - DirectX 10 - OCX 2 MB Flash Memory for Vista ReadyBoost" , how could I ever expect my 3.4 P4 single core to even load FSX without having issues. I have to agree with him. FSX out of the box, as I said earlier, no contest to FS9. But the whole reason Avsim exists is because we don't fly out of the box. We cram more stuff into the sim then the ACES team ever planned and the fact the sim work as well as it does is just plain amazing. I can't imagine my customers of my companies software products to the same thing and and expecting our code to handling such a load. FSX is a different beast. If you can fly it and are happy with it great, the point of the original post is those of us that do enjoy cramming our sim with all the aftermarket goodies will we suffer from the loss of future development. It's still a great question. Do we suffer?It's a great debate.The biggest thing I have to disagree with is that FSX requirements are the same as previous release. I disagree, I believe that performance jump required is quite a big greater then previous jumps. If you can make it the jump and enjoy it. Great, the hobby is about enjoying the sim of flying.. Lets not forget that is the reason we all come to this site.Jeff

[Guest GA Flyer]

My personal reason for hoping we see continuing add-ons for FS9 is based soley on the fact that with all the amazing new features of FSX, the main area I was most hoping for in improvements was in the ATC offering STAR's, DP's, holds, etc.Since FSX doesnt offer that then I can enjoy it but have no care to migrate all my addons to FSX from FS9. Instead I will continue to use FS9 fully loaded and FSX as an out of the box only sim with no enhancements.One big thing FSX might hold over FS9 (time will tell) is CTD's. Thats the second reason I have towards the move over to FSX prior to its release. Also as much as I hate the idea of buying an addon for FSX it looks like I will need to get FSUIPC (which I full support him and his efforts-thanks for sticking with it for another version Peter) since I enjoy thrust reversers and the ability to better assign my hardware controls.I have found a way to greatly enjoy FSX using my P4 3.2, 1 gig ram, 7800 AGP Bliss Plus system but as great as it seems still have no desire to spend more time tweaking/upgrading/installing/migrating FSX since the one area I was hoping to see greatly improved was ATC.

[Guest Savage]

For me personally... The requirements in regards to upgrades far out weighs the benefits that FSX has over FS9. The improovement is simply not enough to justify (in my case) spending US$2000+ on hardware upgrades, nevermind the endless feed of addons that will need to be purchased, each close to the full price of the simulator itself... I'm seriously considering getting rid of my FSX...