This reminds me of the delimma that I have every time a new version of FS is released ... and the problem, for me at least, has gotten exponentially worse with every new release.My first introduction to FS was on the Commodore 64, with FS2 ... I didn't even know what an add-on was, despite the fact that there were at least a dozen scenery disks for it.I missed FS3 completely, and I remember saving-up my allowance for months, and finally snatched-up FS4, which was the greatest thing in my life since ... well, the wheel probably.I was then aware that you could purchase add-ons for FS4, and there was a small community of people online who made freeware planes and scenery. I bought a couple of commercial add-ons, downloaded a lot of freeware stuff.Eventually with FS4 I had digital sounds for my aircraft (A BIG thing back then - my Cessna sounded like a real Cessna!); there was this two-part scenery package that covered the ENTIRE USA with scenery, and came with maps for the entire US in the boxes.Flight Simulator 4 really was something else.Then FS5 came out ... the graphical improvements were good, and there began the first signs of reluctance to move-on to the next version. I had built-up FS4 so much that FS5 just didn't grab me.It wasn't until FS98 that I upgraded again, because FS4 just looked so utterly old.Same thing, but even more so ... built-up FS98 with incredible scenery disks, aircraft, etc. It became a terrific sim for me.So I just couldn't muster the interest when FS2000 came out ... and I missed the release of FS2002 completely.I use FS2004 now ... and I just now, for this post alone, went through every single add-on and such that I've invested in it ... hardware included.I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 - $2500 in add-ons for FS2004. I *just* recently bought a new Dell, *really* good deal at $750 (so the grand total is about $3,000+), and everything in FS is on the right-hand side ... I own everything imaginable for the sim, and I just did check on how big my FS directory is ... 131 gigs (the numbers are just staggering ... 2,002,575 files spread among 11,591 folders!)Maybe it is 'burn-out' ... but I know this ... it's going to really take more than FSX to give me the desire to dump it all *again* and start all over. Especially since I just bought Zinertek's Ultimate Enviornment 2007, and the water and atmosphere look uncannily like FSX ...

I don't think you're going to have to worry about that. Looking forward to your project for sure!!

Hi Wesley,I'm sorry for the angst that you feel and I'm happy that I don't share your problem. Perhaps I just don't take my fun seriously enough.I too go back to FS2 on a C-64. And, by the way, the C-64 still works and I loaded FS2 not so long ago to see if the flight model was really as smooth as I remembered (it was). You really missed a winner with FS5.1 and I could fly that if I wanted to today. You see, I buy every new version but don't dump the old ones unless the PC that they live on dies. If they do die, like the Compaq 486 that contained my 5.1 stuff, then I still have the disks in case I want to load it up again (and, yes, I have a P-75 system with DOS 6.22 to run it on).I buy each new version and try it out. If I like some things about it, I use it; if not, I go back to the old one. I bought FSX and I used it almost exclusively for a few months. Then the RFP 742 was released as freeware, I downloaded it, liked it, and now I'm back to using FS9 almost exclusively. I still watch for FSX add-ons and consider each one as it is released; someday, I'm sure that one will come out that takes me back to FSX but until then I'll use FS9. In the past, I have alwasy (eventually) migrated over to the newer version. Will I do the same with FSX? Who knows?I just don't see why spending $3000 on one version should prevent you from investing fifty-bucks to see if you like the new one. But that's just me.R-

<>I thought this was a rather rude reply, to be honest. I feel no angst against FS --- that is just insulting to my intelligence, and is something I'd never do to you.The issue I presented was mostly regarding the cost of all the add-ons, not the small cost of the initial base simulator - I have no idea, for example, to purchase the entire MegaScenery line again for FSX - higher resolution or not.

Wesley, please accept my sincere apology. I did not intend my post to be rude or be an insult to you. I intended, rather, to highlight the difference in our point of view regarding FS versions.This is the quote that I interpreted as an expression of your angst:"This reminds me of the delimma that I have every time a new version of FS is released ... and the problem, for me at least, has gotten exponentially worse with every new release."Perhaps "angst" was too strong a word to use or perhaps I don't know the meaning of "angst." :-hmmm At any rate I'm sorry that I have now caused you angst (if in fact that is the right word)!R-

The word could never really apply to this conversation at all. Soliders who came back from Vietnam had angst ... teenagers have angst.Anyways ... I'd rather not make that a focus of this thread.One thing that did make me smile, a rather funny/quirky memory, was how FS2 had about ONE frame-per-sec speed ... nothing "smooth" about it. In fact, every runway was twice as long, and twice as wide, probably just to give you a chance at landing!That crummy sim was so choppy ... amazing that FS2004/FSX descended from it.

I've probably spent a similar amount, in fact, I track my FS spending and am shocked how much I do spend on it.But, in terms of 'doing it all over again', what I find is that 'we' will spend money on FS regardless of which version we have. I fly FSX pretty exclusively now, but if I wasn't spending money on ASX. X Graphics, UTX, FEX, etc, etc, I would be spending more to further 'tweak' and add onto FS9. Thus, I am exclusively adding onto FSX instead of spending any more money on FS9. The 'chapter' is finished in terms of any further add-ons.Most FS addicts just are not content with the status quo, no matter which version they use....they will always spend more. Including hardware.

What is a sig. IE (...remove one of your sig images? We only allow one. Please adhere to our policies.).Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM GeForce 7800GS 256 MB w/ DDR3 running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a,GeForce FX 5200 128MB 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel.

Hi Bill,Yes, of course this is true. I still have people requesting my FS98 files (which is why many are still listed on my website).The big difference for me is that this is the FIRST time that the new sim did not hold anything that interested me enough to upgrade. I would be willing to do all that work over again if it led to some real improvement in my simming experience. I find I enjoy FS9 more than FSX at this point, even with equal addons, etc. Reason? The fluid frame rate with 100% AI and scenery settings at big airports. I just love that. And nothing in FSX is enough to compensate for that. This was not true in the past - I was happy to have low frame rates for the improvements.Of course, my goals are very different from many others - if I was a GA pilot working on flying skills or someone looking for interesting scenarios to challenge me I would be flying FSX right now.--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

>Hi Bill,>>Yes, of course this is true. I still have people requesting>my FS98 files (which is why many are still listed on my>website).I think Sly expressed it best in his song "Everyday People": 'Different Strokes for different folks' :)That's the main point of my commentary......each simmer has his/her own expectations, likes, dislikes, preferences, ideals, goals, styles, et cetera. No one should feel obligated, nor be compelled to defend any of them to anyone else!Similarly, no one should assume the role of "Holy Avatar of All Things Flightsim" and declare anyone else anathema because of said differences.

I have found that everytime I have myself talked into upgrading to a DX 10 card and Vista for FSX, I end up going back to FS9 and find that I really don't NEED to make that step. Though I do like FSX, it isn't what FS9 is for me now especially with add-ons like the PMDG 747!I have decided that I am going to just wait it out as far as going to DX10 simply because I am tired of spending more and more money on hardware..As for the new add-ons, I still prefer buying for FS9 and if it is available for FSX that is just an extra bonus.Happy Day!

Well, just a note, you don't need DX10 or Vista to run FSX.Witness scenes like this...those water reflections (and cloud reflections) are to die for for us GA 'low and slow' guys.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179266.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179267.jpg

>>Of course, my goals are very different from many others - if I>was a GA pilot working on flying skills or someone looking for>interesting scenarios to challenge me I would be flying FSX>right now.>I prefer GA as far as these simulations go, but my FSX preference is for the much higher resolution look of mountain/city scape combinations. The difference is now too obvious to be solely content using FS9. FS9 use is now limited to special 3rd party scenery such as FlightScenery, FlyTampa, and Glacier Bay; as well as particular FS9 only aircraft. I do attempt to run both sims in the upper 20's to 30 fps. Although FS9 will run higher than that on my CPU; I usually have a lot of addons in addition to weather going on. With each sim having limitations & features to fit my needs; I don't see giving up either sim, any time soon.L.Adamson

Hi Folks :) As a developer of sceneries, AI-FDE's and AFCADs I had to rework everything for FS9 ACOF when it replaced its predecessor. It was work for more than 1 year. I'm now very satisfied with my FS9, and I have no intention to change to FSX, which would require to get some sort of a supercomputer to run it, btw. With 1000's of downloads of my sceneries for FS9, I was always prepared for a huge amount of requests to convert my sceneries for FSX, I received only a single one, very remarkable. My perception also is that FSX has split the FS community, unfortunately. But, I've made my decision, I'll stick with FS9 ACOF - for sooo many different good reasons ... Regards Jan

Same here Jan,on the very rare occasion that I pop into the FSX forum I saw a post on water reflections. (which I believe was the main contributor to the sales of FSX :-hah)Then I saw a link as to what water should/could really look like! :-eek http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/73018.html

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color