Yes I think the likes of PMDG and LDS are going to struggle to remain viable if they completely vacate the FS9 market. It would be interesting to know how sales of the PMDG 747400X are going now that the discount to previous customers has ceased. I just wonder what manner of simmer is going shell out 60 euros (over 100 Australian dollars) for a plane that will struggle to get out of single digit fps once you have a bit of weather, a complex airport and a reasonable level of AI even on the latest and greatest hardware. With FSX being thrown out in bargain bins I may get it when I upgrade my system to a E8500 but it will be a GA curiosity only and I certainly will not be an FSX only 757 customer. For serious heavy iron simming I will be enjoying great performance with my PMDG 747 and LDS 767 etc on FS9! Bruceb

In my opinion,The solution is simple. The result however, will remain the same.As long as Microsoft continues to develop FS with their poorly designed software engine, i.e. directx, we will always struggle with performance.The solution is OpenGL, but it will never happen.In essense, its like comparing Mac to Microcr@p.

Totally agree with you. I spent a huge amount building and tweaking a new machine for FSX but went back to FS9 and no matter what I throw at it FS9 does not drop below 30FPS That is FS Nirvana. Hopefully Microsoft Will just start from scratch with FS11 It means proberbly no backward compatibility but we need to move on.Rob

Disappointing that the 757 will not be for FS9. Their 767 is such a great sim, but I do favour a 757 over the 767. Ahh, what could have been! LOL. I bought FSX and have used it twice since purchasing it - due to performance reasons. I do have friends that very much like FSX, but it's quite simply too resource intensive for my gaming machine. So now I look at my purchase, not so much as a waste of money, but rather as my contribution of $$$ that will hopefully help insure that MS continues to develop the FS series.Another computer upgrade is not far off as it's that time again. Once I do the upgrade, I'll give FSX another go.Adam

Simflight.com did a poll, and FS9 users outnumber FSX users at almost 2-to-1!!!! Quote:"Feb 1 2008: Sorry folks, but with more than 4500 readers responding, the FS9 users win, with almost DOUBLE their number versus FSX users (57 % versus 31%)" (Simflight.com front page, and http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=10107)"January 20 2008: Our poll on which Flight Simulator you use most today has almost reached 3500 replies ! And FS9 is still extending its lead over FSX, with 2/3 of all FS users still on the 'old' system today, more than a year after FSX's release. We'll repeat the poll in 6 months or so to see how things develop in this area. For now it seems there still is a market for FS9 add-ons!" (Source: http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=10072)These reliable statistics are mirrored in the File Libraries. Over two-thirds of all freeware files are for FS2004 .....This is unquestionable proof that FS2004 users are in the majority. FS developers need to take note, and not bite off the hand that feeds them :)

KDFW or whatever your name is......I am shocked that you have included Daryl's comments on here as it has been beaten to death on their support forums?Level-D STARTED the '757' for FS9 and then misguidedly transferred development to FSX with all the resultant delays.But Morally, I disagree with you using Daryl's signature statement on here without his permission.

>IMHO - Microsoft's Flight Simulation program has needed a>complete from the ground up overhaul for some time now, FSX>should of been that new simulator. They should of started from>scratch and dropped all backward compatibility.>THE flight simulator has already been overhauled. It's called X-Plane ;-)

Why? The statement is posted on a PUBLIC forum. KDFW correctly quoted the original poster and gave credit to the orginal poster. The quotee did not state that the post was to be treated as confidential nor was the quote sent in confidence in a personal email. There is not even the remotest moral argument here and your repremand makes absolutely no sense at all.On topic. LDS is free to do what ever they wish to do but, as it were, if the past threads over the last few months regarding poor FSX sales did not sway LDS to make a FS9 version then nothing will. LDS is betting that eventually FSX adoption will eventually pick up and for their sakes I really hope that this is the case. Unfortunately, the feeback even on the fastest cpu and video card equipped rigs are not at all stellar so I cannot see where the adoption rate to FSX will pick up in the near future. Those same super computers are now running FS9 at incredible rates of smoothness so what is the motivation to change in the short term (or near long term for that matter?).Regards,Mike T.

>There is not even the remotest moral argument here and your>repremand makes absolutely no sense at all.>Mike T.I read no 'reprimand' in my post Mike? Can we not we have an opinion now on here?I think that Daryl Shuttleworth copes very well with the amount of flack he's suffering from on there because it's HIM that has to provide an answer?It might even NOT been HIS descision to change from FS9 to FSX but, as a loyal moderator he try's hard.Coming home from work and having to answer some of the stupidity on there must take some patience?

I'm a Daryll too with 2 "L's". Perhaps KDFW should have used quotation marks. He did separate, with dashed lines, his personal comments from the copied, cut and pasted statement that he used to back up his viewpoint in the post.Current FS9 users, deep within our hearts, wanted a Flight Simulation upgrade that we thought was promised in FSX. We do not want FS9 to stagnate and affect our enjoyment of using flight sim but it seemed someone was working against a deadline for the RTM for FSX and the release of Vista with Dx10.When I look at the screenshot forum and the screen shots that accompany files in the library that do not identify what simulation the screen shot was taken from I have to look for clues that identify the simulation that was used for the screen shot.I love FSX water textures . The ground textures look good too but that's due to the texture files being twice the size that they are in FS9. Buying the computer equipment to run FSX is like going into a fast food place for lunch. Someone has figured out how much money they need from each customer to make a profit. No matter what place you choose to go to or what you order from the menu, a person has to spend $5 to feel satisfied.

I agree,disappointing that the 757 will not be for FS9 but I hope they reconsider that decision.Rgds,Hamilton

There are 2 OTHER companies that have produced a 757 for FS9. If users do not want to migrate to FSX, they have those 2 products to choose from.As for reposting my post from the Level-D forum... a link would have sufficed.Have you all seen this post: http://www.leveldsim.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=16581Or this one: http://www.leveldsim.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=16516Daryl ShuttleworthLevel-D SimulationsSupport & Documentation

>>There is not even the remotest moral argument here and your>>repremand makes absolutely no sense at all.>>Mike T.>>I read no 'reprimand' in my post Mike? Can we not we have an>opinion now on here?>>I think that Daryl Shuttleworth copes very well with the>amount of flack he's suffering from on there because it's HIM>that has to provide an answer?>It might even NOT been HIS descision to change from FS9 to FSX>but, as a loyal moderator he try's hard.>>Coming home from work and having to answer some of the>stupidity on there must take some patience?>Customers are never "stupid" and questions are never "stupidity". People have to stop acting like payware developers are doing us a favour by letting us buy their products.No matter how stupid the questions, Darryl is getting paid......

"But Morally, I disagree with you using Daryl's signature statement on here without his permission"The only reason I said anything was because you start off your statement with "morally" which seems to indicate that it is somehow arguably immoral to quote someone without his/her permission reflective of a statement made in an open forum...that's all.I am not obfuscating your right to state your opinion or have your opinion respected, only, words like "morally" tend to lend themselves to subjective absolutes of right and wrong and in this case I was only stating that the OP was well within his right to reprint a public statement made in respond to common knowledge.Regards,Mike T.

Daryl:I hope you take this in the context in which it was meant:There could be 2 757's or there could be 100 757's but there is only ONE LDS 757. That is the reason that there is passion behind your decision not to release a FS9 version. As an owner of the PSS 757, comparing that to even a sight unseen LDS 757 release would be like comparing the Sistine Chapel to Neandertal Cave Paintings. Oh and the second 757? Captain Sim? Well, suffice it to say, I don't believe in ghosts.Regards,Mike T.