Does the tail wag the FS Dog?

[EngineRoom 205]

Here we are, six months after the release of FSX and this forum seems to be a lot more active than the one below (with the exception of the activity generated by the recent release of Tileproxy). Have a look around the new files being uploaded here at Avsim and the other big FS sites and you'll see far more FS9 stuff than FSX. Even on the payware front things are a little slow. There's quite a lot of FSX stuff on Simmarket, but on closer inspection pretty much all of it is just rehashed FS9 products. Yes I know Level D and PMDG have announced products for FSX, but their projects seem to progress at such a glacial pace one has to wonder if we really will see the majority of them before FS11.I was bitterly disappointed when Level D announced the 757 would be FSX only, and I am very much looking forward to the PMDG MD11, but I'm also getting a feeling that it will be an FSX only product too.This got me thinking...Do developers feel compelled to release FSX only products because they think *WE* the consumer will be using it exclusively? Or do the developers drive us to "upgrade" to FSX by releasing FSX only products?This is all the more interesting seeing the apparently very slow uptake of FSX in the community.I for one will gladly support developers who continue to release quality products for FS9!

[CanadaOne 36]

"I for one will gladly support developers who continue to release quality products for FS9!"What he said.

[HawaiianCondor 0]

Yep you raise a good point. I've had every version of FS since 1994 and this is the first time where a new version didn't quickly replace the old one on my hard drive. FS-X just doesn't cut it for me, at this point - as the improvements to me are marginal compared to the performance loss. The fun (and challenge, and sometimes cost) of starting over and the transition of all my add-ons to a new sim just didn't happen with FS-X like it did with previous versions.I am not at the point where I will buy any aircraft or scenery that is "FS-X only", and that is again, a first for me. Maybe if the patch and an eventual hardware upgrade make the difference, I would. Many FS9 users have adapted a similar approach, in the past we'd probably be labelled "dinasours." I hope the developers are paying attention...

[altstiff 71]

>FS-X just doesn't cut it for me, at this point - as the>improvements to me are marginal compared to the performance>loss. AGREED.

[kjb 0]

I would guess it's a business decision, expecting people to move on to the newer version. Sometimes things don't go as expected. I've tried FSX a few times, but spend 99% of my time with FS9. I also do freeware photo sceneries as a hobby and don't have any plans to do FSX development. I'm not trying to make money at it and don't see any reason to spend time on something I'm not going to fly. My 'market' is me and anyone else who happens to want the sceneries. If I was trying to make a living at it, the decision would be tougher.

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

I was bitterly disappointed when Level D announced the 757 would be FSX only, and I am very much looking forward to the PMDG MD11, but I'm also getting a feeling that it will be an FSX only product too.Disapointed? I was more along the line of all-out and ######. I honestly think that was a poor decision by management. I too am kinda worried about the MD.

[TheDanger 182]

FSX is not the product people may have thought, as said it is being uninstalled/hardly used compared to FS9.Same with Vista, most people are sticking with XP for now.Maybe it shows that both products were initially overhyped and released far too soon and incomplete!LDS have shot themselves in the foot with their 757 for FSX only and I think the release of that will be overshadowed by the next big FS9 addon, AirlineXP Airbus.Im not interested at all in FSX at the moment and only look out for FS9 addons and news.

[byork 2,259]

I think after SP1 more and more people will be making the move to FSX in all likelihood; however, FS9 with all the add-ons is still pretty good, so only time will tell.However, as a developer I must say this current state of "FS limbo", so to speak, that everyone appears to be in makes things a tad more complex as now I have to release products for both FS9 and FSX.It just adds another layer of complexity to an already complex process, but that's life :-)Bryan

[EngineRoom 205]

>Same with Vista, most people are sticking with XP for now.>Tell me about it! My brother was having some problems with a one year old laptop, and returned it to PC World for repair. Four weeks later they still hadn't fixed it so he was entitled to a new laptop of equal value. He got a brand new laptop with Vista, and found that a lot of stuff he had on XP doesn't work with Vista!

[EngineRoom 205]

Thanks for the replies everyone.I know there's a lot of hyperbole regarding FSX... it's a "lame duck" and the developers "dropped the ball this time round." I'm not slamming FSX, it does do some things pretty well, I really like the new VCs and the "feel" of flying in a small aircraft through turbulent air is much improved. I hope SP1 will allow me to get decent framerate so I can try some GA flying.However, it seems that FSX doesn't offer enough of an improvement over FS9 to make it a "must have" for most of us. My biggest personal disappointment with FSX (other than the framerate) was the lack of any improvement or enhancement to the ATC!Last night I purchased the new Cologne scenery from German Airports to add to my collection of European airports. It's nice to see developers still supporting FS9 with quality products. Hopefully developers will take note of the popularity of FS9 products still being released. Just look at the splash Fly Tampa's St Marteen scenery for FS9 made last month - SIX MONTHS AFTER the release of FSX! Likewise, I sincerely hope AirlinerXP will be a huge hit with the community and prove conclusively that FS9 products are still in demand. Then maybe, just maybe, Level D will reverse their decision for an FSX only 757, and PMDG will get off the fence and commit to an FS9 MD11.

[MD83 1]

FSX was released seven months ago, not six ;). This has got to be the slowest uptake of a FS version in the past ten years. A staggering nine percent of new files in the library are for FSX :|Not even FS2000 was this unpopular after seven months. It was groundbreaking, and it offered new features at a tremendous performance penalty, just like FSX. Most people breathed a sigh of relief when FS2002 was released. I feel that the community will also breathe a sigh of relief when FS11 is released.The seven months of limbo have been quite bizarre. Here I am, waiting to upgrade to FSX or stick to my current version ... how much longer must we wait for a performance fix?Regarding the MD-11 and 757: making FSX-only products with no FS9 alternative is a sure-fire way to restrict your income ;)

[CanadaOne 36]

I loaded up FSX, again, since I have room now with my new HD, but after the "thrill" wears off a few days later, I'm right back into FS9 simply because I can fly where I want, how I want.I have no problem with FSX. As soon as I can run FSX with programs like GE Pro, Ultimate Terrain, Flight Environment, and mesh, and get 20+ FPS, I'll switch for good.

[MarkRey 16]

>I have no problem with FSX. As soon as I can run FSX with>programs like GE Pro, Ultimate Terrain, Flight Environment,>and mesh, and get 20+ FPS, I'll switch for good.And that right there is why it would be unwise for developers of (really) high end airliners to focus on fs9. These products, especially now, tend to have the longest development cycles - 2 years minimum. Even fs2000 eventually came into it's own, so will FSX it seems. Many of us, rich and not so rich are 'battle weary' of hardware upgrades and tweaking, especially in the context of a beautiful, stable fs9. At a minimum we want our detailed airports, traffic, afcads and performance levels back right? From all indications all of that stuff will return fully as time progresses. It's slower because FSX is so different and demanding, but it will happen - or so logic dictates. If it does not I would be very surprised, and who knows, perhaps the weary will be re-energized.Can one really expect a PMDG or LDS to release an airliner say a year or so from now for a 5 year old sim, passing on all that (a then tamer) FSX has to offer feature wise? Makes no business sense even to me, and I'm passing on FSX too.edit - I'm glad AXP has been at it for the last 3 years, still in time for fs9, but they too will move on to FSX.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

[Guest Bob Z]

MarkYour comment about 'battle weary' and 're-energized' are my feelings exactly.I got a new PC (Intel Core2 x6800, Radeon x1950 Crossfire) not strictly for FS, but because I needed a new one anyway. This combo will run Oblivion with high sliders. I know they are not the same animal, but Oblivion is a resource beast.I have my FS9 transfered with a respectable amount of scenery and a more than respectable amount of AI along with afcads and parking slots to accomodate the AI. All sliders maxed and even ground shadows turned on. Immediately after transferring FS9, I looked at the FPS and at times it was over 100. It's now locked at 30 and I don't believe I have ever seen it go under this.FSX is installed straight out of the box except for slider adjustments etc, a few key remaps and a couple widely accepted cfg tweaks. What's interesting about the 'out of the box' install is that it's not because I'm not interested but because I really can't work up the energy to begin the battle again at this time. Software or hardware-wise.Perhaps this will change somewhat with SP1.

[RFields5421 1]

Well there are an awful lot of people who only use FS2004 for testing and some required development. Once the airport design tools reach another couple weeks of development, I'll not need FS2004 any longer.I also think you will see more payware development after the release of SP1 soon.The Fly Tampa TNCM is an example. I haven't bought it yet because I'm not going to spend money on another dead end development path scenery - i.e. FS2004.When their FSX version is up to including the four critical airports for the island - TNCM, TFFG, SABA, & TFFJ - my credit card will be out.Someone mentioned a long lead time for complex aircraft like LevelD and PMDG. Yes, I remember not being able to use my LevelD B737 for over a year after FS2004 was released.New development will have to be focused on FSX. The market may not be there now - but in six months to another year ??How much money will you bet that in one year - June 1, 2008 - FS2004 will be more common than FSX in new uploads and usage? That FS2004 complex aircraft will sell as well as FSX?That is what you are asking developers to do to build an aircraft like the LevelD B757 for FS2004.Now, FSX isn't the product for everyone right now. Just a few threads down I recommended a newbie start with FS2004.Because (1) it's cheap right now - plenty of copies on the shelf for 1/2 the price we paid; (2) it's fast and easy to get up to speed. People understand FS2004 much better than FSX at this point and can help resolve any issues; (3) the number of freeware downloads available.However, I would not recommend anyone buy an FS2004 addon right now - unless they are willing to accept up front that in 6 months it may end up in that huge pile of no long used software we all have.