Sign in to follow this  
Guest over and out

How about a FS9.5?

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I have often thought about this.I think FS9 with the 1m textures and bump mapping from FSX would have kept me happy for another 2 years or so......Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they cannot sell a full price new version every two or three years - there is no business justification for keeping a development staff and paying them to update / develop.Would you have paid $65 for an FS9.5 update?Personally I would have been happy to pay $100 - but how many people here would expect a free upgrade.Why would I pay double or more for an update? Because I want the developers to work on making the version as perfect as possible - rather than 75% of their effort on thinking up new visual elements for the new version.Microsoft has the capability to make such an update rather than a new version - they have in the past with several products.Most of those products disappeared within a year or two of the 'update'.What sells more copies and pays for developers is "new" versions.Personally I think the 1970 Dodge Dart with the 318, Holley 4bbl and Hurst shifter was the ultimate automobile that I could afford.But I cannot buy one, because everybody wants something NEW.Soon before the end of a product line -the NEW version gets terrible reviews, no support and not great sales.Some of you may be right - FS2004 may well be the LAST version of the MSFS franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that with Radar Contact, AS6.5, and GE Pro, we've essentially reached a state of FS9.5The great thing about this hobby is that you can pick and choose which add-ons you want to enhance your flight simming. For example, for me, weather and the ground environment are what are important. Thus, I bought Active Sky and Ground Environment. ATC isn't a big deal for me, perhaps because I deal with it so much in real life, so the default ATC works fine for me, assuming that I'm not doing airliner simming (which I don't do a lot of). I use RC for that. Anyways, I see the chances of Aces coming back and doing an enhancement package for FS9 as nil. Even when FS2000 was released, which saw a lot of the same complaints that FSX is receiving, there was no retroactive FS98 enhancement package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with John, I think we have many fantastic addons that make FS9 FS9.5 and more ... the recorder module is outstanding!...active sky and Walk and Follow both outstanding! .... FSUPIC and Activesky v6 the two most important addons IMHO simply outstanding! Sceneries ...well we all know what is possible in FS9 and it gets better all the time! VC's ..well I'm not crazy about them but look at the new 3D fully functional VC's, ultra smooth XML gauges (better than default FSX)(and then there is RXP) As for the ATC ....I'm still getting people asking me "how does one get transitions?" just shows it has taken ages for people (myself included) to find that ATC (while it could still be better...ok a lot better) is better than we thought.(thanks for enlightening me Reggie!)I don't think my sim is FS9 anymore ...more like FSX.5 :-hah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is just wishful thinking on my part I realize. But I would pay for an update if it ment that I could keep all those other add ons, like 737NG running and get the benifit of an enhanced flight sim base pakage without having to wait two more years for the hardware to catch up.I guess the "update" would not be needed if they just made the next version (FSX)a little more reasonable. I guess I would rather take smaller steps and get more use out of all my software and hardware instead of scrapping it all and starting all over again every two years.It took them them, what, 6 or 7 years to make Vista after XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If they were smarter, Microsoft would have developed a FS9.5 update package to FS9. Perhaps they could have added to FS9 some of the features of FSX without killing our computers?"And, as a business whose sole purpose in life is to make a profit (preferably as large as possible - as this is the desire of all businesses), they would have made money out of this -- how??Get real!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself I am constantly and pleasantly surprised by the frequency with which add-ons are discussed, which I knew little about and which turn out to be 'must have' items for FS. So many of them completely change the simming experience, and that is, for me, one of the things that makes this hobby so fascinating. You really can concentrate on the areas you want (such as ATC or aircraft or terrain) and mix and match to your heart's desire.What a hobby!Regards - Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm with John, I think we have many fantastic addons that>make FS9 FS9.5 and more ... the recorder module is>outstanding!...active sky and Walk and Follow both>outstanding! .... FSUPIC and Activesky v6 the two most>important addons IMHO simply outstanding!> Sceneries ...well we all know what is possible in FS9 and it>gets better all the time!> VC's ..well I'm not crazy about them but look at the new 3D>fully functional VC's, ultra smooth XML gauges (better than>default FSX)(and then there is RXP)> As for the ATC ....I'm still getting people asking me "how>does one get transitions?" just shows it has taken ages for>people (myself included) to find that ATC (while it could>still be better...ok a lot better) is better than we>thought.(thanks for enlightening me Reggie!)>>I don't think my sim is FS9 anymore ...more like FSX.5 :-hah>>

>regards>>Ed>>aka Capt. P[/font color][font>color=brown]i[/font color]c[/font>color]a[/font color][font>color=purple]s[/font color]s[/font>color]o[/font color]>>>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpg>>My FS9>Videos] >>>AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD >256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZS>CH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font colorI agree.FSX.5 a dammed fine sim.Andya .5 supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm with John, I think we have many fantastic addons that>make FS9 FS9.5 and more ... the recorder module is>outstanding!...active sky and Walk and Follow both>outstanding! .... FSUPIC and Activesky v6 the two most>important addons IMHO simply outstanding!> Sceneries ...well we all know what is possible in FS9 and it>gets better all the time!> VC's ..well I'm not crazy about them but look at the new 3D>fully functional VC's, ultra smooth XML gauges (better than>default FSX)(and then there is RXP)> As for the ATC ....I'm still getting people asking me "how>does one get transitions?" just shows it has taken ages for>people (myself included) to find that ATC (while it could>still be better...ok a lot better) is better than we>thought.(thanks for enlightening me Reggie!)>>I don't think my sim is FS9 anymore ...more like FSX.5 :-hah>>

>regards>>Ed>>aka Capt. P[/font color][font>color=brown]i[/font color]c[/font>color]a[/font color][font>color=purple]s[/font color]s[/font>color]o[/font color]>>>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpg>>My FS9>Videos] >>>AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD >256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZS>CH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font colorI agree.FSX.5 a dammed fine sim.Andya .5 supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reggie,You could say that FSX is only an 'update' to FS9 anyway couldn't you?I mean, the 'guts' of the engine hasn't really changed that much right?Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current FS9 with all the trimmings is more than FSX, as stated above, so why you'd want to go back to an FS9.5 is beyond me... :-hah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And, as a business whose sole purpose in life is to make a>profit (preferably as large as possible - as this is the>desire of all businesses), they would have made money out of>this -- how??>>Get real!>>Barrywell, uh, I didnt buy FSX and it appears there a lot of other people who are not going to buy it? So they didnt make money from me or the others. I can say, that's how they loose money?But If they made a more reasonable version of FSX or an update to FS9 , I would have purchased it. That's how they would have made money.As it is now, they are not selling thier new version to a lot of potential customers.In fact, I imagine there are a lot of "new" simmers out their that buy FSX as their first Flight Sim experience and then they get so disappointed that they give it up. Thats how they loose money also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In fact, I imagine there are a lot of "new" simmers out their>that buy FSX as their first Flight Sim experience and then>they get so disappointed that they give it up. Thats how they>loose money also?>That's nice logic, until you consider the past. Remember FS2000, or was it FS2002, I can't quite remember myself. Either way, one of those was just absolutely horrible. What came from it. Yep, you've got it, FS9. Guess what, where are we now? I'd go as far as saying FSX isn't near as bad as that old one was.If this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. I'm sick at the moment, and my brain isn't working like it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all we can hope for in such a discussion here, or in the Amazon reviews, or letters to magazines, and forums etc, is that hopfully we can shape the thinking of the developers (including Microsoft) at some level to consider that maybe, just maybe "less is more" sometimes? I mean, McDonalds can make us a 500 pound Big Mac, but who would be able to eat all that, right?I just hope that these type of discussions make their way to the developers to consider; all in the name of making our hobby more enjoyable, more affordable and more practical, etc..:-hah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone; I've bought each and every incarnation of FS since I found a copy of FS 5.0 in the box of software that came with my first PC back in 1995, and have spent many happy hours airbourne since. I reckon I've spent an almost equal amount of time on the web, downloading stuff, reading articles, fora etc; my accidental entry into the world of FS changed the way I spend my leisure time and spare money in a more fundamental way than pretty well everything apart from an equally fortuitous discovery of the fairer sex! Each incarnation of FS has expanded my enjoyment of the hobby, and incrementally reduced my bank balance as new hardware, flight yokes, books are purchased to complement the software.Until this time. I DID dash out and buy FSX Deluxe, rushed home, installed and configured said software. Within 48 hours I had uninstalled FSX, and the discs are now gathering dust on a shelf....Now I don't know why it's happened, but FSX just didn't do it for me. I actually felt disappointment with the product and that has never happened with any FS items I've bought in the past dozen years.I weighed up the time and money invested in FS2004 (and things that were 'carried over' from previous versions) and decided that I'm more than happy with what I have. FS2004 currently occupies 29.4gb of hard disc space, aircraft, scenery, sounds etc, a balanced mix of freeware and payware, it runs smoothly in most areas (apart from where I have dense add-on scenery and an excess of AI) and framerates are more than adequate to maintain realism.And so for now and the foreseeable future I'm sticking with what I consider to be FS2004-and-three-quarters. If at some point some add-on materialises that I want bears a 'Will run only on FSX' sticker then maybe I'd reconsider. But it would have to be really special and even then I don't think that I'd get rid of FS9. For me FS2004 is 'the one' and I don't care that it's not the latest version. From a gentle half-hour of GA over the Scottish highlands to a 'by-the-numbers' flight from Schonefeld to Luton in my favourite Interflug Airbus its FS9 everytime! I just wish I could put my finger on what it was that made FSX stay on drive 'D' for such a short time. A lack of 'soul'? The annoying interface? I really can't say. I just hope that plenty of other folk who are gifted with the skill to build and texture continue to support FS9, although if no new items were to be made I would be content with what I have. I will keep an eye on the world of FSX (and that of FSXI for that matter, it's only a matter of time...)but stay in the friendly and familiar skies of FS9!!RegardsLord Jagged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The current FS9 with all the trimmings is more than FSX, as>stated above, so why you'd want to go back to an FS9.5 is>beyond me... :-hah Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Compare MegaScenery addons for instance. 4.8 meters per pixel in FS9 and about 1 meter per pixel in FSX. The difference is very apparent.I do use this pic a lot, and should make a few new ones. But the clarity versus MegaScenery for FS9 is quite obvious.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166762.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAdamsonJust to be clear. That screen shot is from FSX correct?I agree about clarity but aren't the texture sizes in FSX compared to FS9 partly responsible for the low overhead in FSX? I love the roads and traffic that looks like cars and trucks. FS9 has become an investment with the addon after market. Those investments aren't easily portable into FSX. Customers who want to use FSX have to buy the same airplanes all over again. Their performance is even questionable due to the low overhead in FSX. Why that is, is anyone's guess.The Recorder that is mentioned in this thread is great. I even did that "Play as Traffic" and "Record Flight" to have a flight of two Pontoon aircraft (Beaver and C-206) into the bush for Pike fishing.I would like FS9.5 but Flight Simulator X is a marketing tool for Microsoft. You can only get DX10 with Vista when they could, if they wanted to, give it to XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>LAdamson>>Just to be clear. That screen shot is from FSX correct?>>I agree about clarity but aren't the texture sizes in FSX>compared to FS9 partly responsible for the low overhead in>FSX? I love the roads and traffic that looks like cars and>trucks. >Yes and yes.It's a compromise, and the same reason I still make compromises with both simulations. I usually run FSX with auto-gen off. Between auto-gen and water effects, it's good for 10 additional fps on my system. I strive for 25 fps with FSX. The pic is FSX with no auto-gen. It looks extremely realistic from that altitude, and auto-gen just distracts from that realistic look by placing out of place houses on top of photo-realism.For airports, I'll take FS9 FlightScenery Portland. For Hawaii, I'll take MegaScenery's FSX Hawaii. It's as simple as that! Why we have to have just one or the other is beyond me. :-hmmm L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Compare MegaScenery addons>for instance. 4.8 meters per pixel in FS9 and about 1 meter>per pixel in FSX. The difference is very apparent.>>I do use this pic a lot, and should make a few new ones. But>the clarity versus MegaScenery for FS9 is quite obvious.>I do use this pic a lot, and should make a few new ones. But>the clarity versus MegaScenery for FS9 is quite obvious.Yep Hawaii is getting old. It looks nice but I prefer the lower res FS9 France VFR stuff with accuratley placed autogen. Especially their Alps add-ons. Looks great and the impression of speed is so much beter due to fluid 40 FPS and the autogen whizzing by....http://www.francevfr-us.com/contenu/flightalpes/fanap-48.jpgThe higer FS-X res is nice but at typical cruising heights you don't get much benefits.To me FS9 + France VFR scenery and Real Air addon planes is FS9.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That pic could benefit a lot from FSX, at that altitude. There are plenty of screenshots on the net to compare the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reggie opined: "If they cannot sell a full price new version every two or three years - there is no business justification for keeping a development staff and paying them to update / develop." There is also no business justification for keeping a development staff and paying them to develop something as bad as the initial release of FSX :-) .Doug

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