How about a FS9.5?

[Guest over and out]

>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?

[Chaos81 110]

>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.

[Guest over and out]

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

[Guest Lord Jagged]

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

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[DaryllB25840 1]

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.

[LAdamson 240]

>>>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

[boshar 6]

>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

[LAdamson 240]

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

[W2DR 1,859]

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

[Guest Elvi5]

This Shot looks better than 95% of the FSX shots around including the Hawaii one above.

[boshar 6]

>That pic could benefit a lot from FSX, at that altitude.>There are plenty of screenshots on the net to compare the>difference. Yea but I would loose the amazing autogen and the (for me) acceptable framerate so no thanks.Lets look at it this way. If Aces made a FS 9.5 patch that gave us the higher res and I could get a France VFR product that supported the higher res (assume I have plenty of diskspace also...).I would play with it for a while and come to the conclusion that I have to trade the autogen, parts of the AI traffic and still only get 18 fps at the most (my hardware is not as advanced as your alas). I would be back to the FS9 resolution without a second thought.BTW this kind of describes my FS-X experience.Mind you I am not against higer res I'm just not as willing to give up things for it like you do.