Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cactus521

Carenado abandoning FS2004 development

Recommended Posts

Read the headline on the front page, truly a disappointment. Though they will still support their existing FS2004 titles. their new projects will be FS-X only. Not enough to get me to switch to FS-X, but I appreciate Carenado's efforts for our community and their works for FS2004 will truly be missed.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Yup they made some of the best GA planes around. Next to DreamFleet they were the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after 4 years the circle is closing in. I guess we all knew these times would come, but at least all my great FS9 addons will continue to work in the future, long after the flow of new addons has dried up.Who knows, in a couple of years I may be flying FS11! :DOn the subject of Carenado, I have the 206 full pack, the Mooney, the 210 and the V35 Bonanza, any more recommendations for my GA round the world trip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here - I guess the writing is on the wall for FS9, but that will not push me to FSX. I am enjoying my simming at present and have no intention of investing in lots of add-ons for FSX. I will wait and see what FS11 has to offer...I have nearly all the Carenado planes, and have never been disappointed. They make excellent GA aircraft. I wish them luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing but expected. I've mostly taken the summer off from virtual flying, and just yesterday I was looking around for any GA aircraft add-ons for fs2004. Of course I found nothing that I didn't already have or know about. Other than a few sceneries and some freeware, there hasn't been much coming out for fs2004. No matter though, I still have tons of add-ons already and can still enjoy fs2004 for hopefully another few years until the next version of FS comes out. I can't see myself jumping to FSX unless hardware drops in price a ton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you - enjoying FS9 on a new(ish) machine with no intention of getting FSX. I have Carenado's 182Q and Mooney, and love 'em both, but I respect their business decision to abandon the 5-year-old platform. I do think, though, that airliner developers are missing a good chunk of the market by making FSX only content going forward (Level-D 757 comes to mind).John G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PMDG's MD11 (if it ever makes it off the press):-roll is going to be for FS9 and well as FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought myself a very high spec Alienware laptop a few months ago and I still can't run FSX with high-end airliner addons... FS9 is still on my system with a huge amount of addons, especially airliners and detailed airports. I really wish Level D had not gone down the FSX-only route. Likewise I wish the new Flight 1 MD80 was FS9 compatible too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I bought myself a very high spec Alienware laptop a few months ago and I still can't run FSX with high-end airliner addons..."I am curious, since you have both sims--is it possible to "match" FS-X options against FS2004's, so that at those options FS-X's detail is comparable to FS2004? If possible, how does performance compare? I've never seen reports that do an apples to apples comparison. For example, the FS-X reports always display the enhanced autogen and enhanced textures, etc....I'd consider installing FS-X if I can get it to match up to FS2004's detail without a performance loss. It wouldn't look as hot, but it would open up the door for additional aircraft now that we're slowly getting shut out by the big name add-on developers.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im never going to upgrade to FSX. I am completely satisfied with FS9. What this announcement does is take one of their best customers (me) and remove me from their list of supporters for the foreseeable future. Thats ok. Thats more my decision than theirs.I will probably jump to FS11 whenever it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have enough Carenado's in my hangar to keep me happy easily until FS11. I am never going to downgrade to FSX.There are a few more aircraft I would like for FS9 (PMDG's MD-11 being one)...mainly I would like some more quality sceneries for FS9.I have way too many flights left to do in FS9. :-wedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed a link from the AVSIM home page to a Tom's Hardware review recently.In doing so, I saw a piece on the Radeon HD4870 which I have just acquired in a new PC.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964.htmlNot very reassuringly, Page 6 details a test run of FSX in comparison with 9 other mid to top end video cards. The HD4870 comes out 5th out of 10, with frame rates in the mid 20's (between 23.6 and 26.2 in fact). At this rate the game was described as "barely playable".The best card was the GEForce 8800 Ultra, but the best rate achieved by that was only 30.4 FPS.Running Call of Duty 4, the HD4870 achieved between 50 & 80 FPS dependent on resolution & settings, on Test Drive Unlimited 43 & 86, World In Conflict 32 & 52, Supreme Commander 39 & 66 and Unreal Tournament 29 & 94 etc etc.The general shape of the results was similar for the other cards (with the HD 4870 results in mid table) & the conclusion was that the HD 4870 was at least a good value card albeit not as quick as the top 2 or 3.My conclusion is that I still shouldn't be buying FSX!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Phil (MS blogger) calls this "Positive news for FSX" and says that "it is time for this" - I guess they are relieved that some developers are finally giving up on FS9, supposing that this will push the serious FS community to FSX. Little do they know that this is happening so late it is just confirming many people's decision to wait for FS11.http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am another that will wait for FS11 and decide then to go over or simply move on to something else, and speaking to all my friends they are doing the same as the never ending cost cycle has gotten very old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Phil (MS blogger) calls this "Positive news for FSX" and says that "it is time for this"There's nothing wrong with FS2004, so why jump out of a perfectly good airplane. FS2004 hasn't "had it's day". It's still alive and well and services plenty of hobbyists who are just happy with where things are at. I agree most will wait until FS-11 is released, and if that isn't leaps and bounds better than both FS2004 and FS-X, many of us will still stay where we're at. I've been simming a quarter century now, just shy of half my life. I think I can determine when and if a product has "had it's day" :)Thanks for the link to the blog, gives me great insight into the mindset of some of those involved in producing product for the hobby's future.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"FS2004 has had its day"Absolute Codswollop! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the same band wagon as well with FSX. I had FS9 running really good on a P4 2.53ghz machine and had no interest in getting FSX. I decided to have a new machine built, a very modest on at that. Consisting of an E8400, EVGA 8800GTS, and a Maximus Formula MoBo. The whole deal cost me about $1800 or so dollars to put together. Cheap? Not really, but not a bank buster either compared to what some have spent. Plus I was needing/wanting a new rig anyway. My intention was to put FS9 on that and still skip FSX.Instead I was convinced by the folks as FS-GS to give FSX a try. They did my system confiq and FSX setup. This was in April of this year. I haven't even flown FS9 since.Granted I had to buy the new GEX, FEX, UTX USA, FS Genesis mesh, some landclass packages,and download and install all the WOAI packages. However, the results in my case were well worth the effort. So much so that FS9, even with its addons just doesn't look and feel as good.As far as performance, even on my modest machine I can run 100% AI, full scenery and animation complexity, full weather could draw, and still fly into major hubs like Heathrow, LAX, and not even sniff and single digit FPS or blurry texture in my LDS 767. The only thing I don't use is bloom and lens flare, but I never used those anyway.I guess what I am trying to say is that FSX when set up properly is just fine and I my case really even better than FS9 to me. The only draw back is that I am still missing some scenery addons that have yet to be re-developed for FSX. But the good news is that more and more stuff is coming out for FSX. When I first went to FSX I was really missing my FlyTampa St. Marteen package, but when the final version for FSX was released, I was in awe at how much better the FSX version running full tilt was compared to the FS9 version at the same settings. Same with the Kai Tak scenery they just put out.I see the post all the time about how people are having troubles with FSX, even people with rigs better than mine. But the performance is there, it just took me using a service to get my system to use it properly. When I was on FS9 I usually had to use the 2-D cockpits but now I am able to fly exclusively in the VC's and have gotten to actually like them more. I have a feeling that most that have posted in this thread, if they had a chance to use my FSX they would feel a lot different about it.Now I will just have to wait for FS11 to come out and say to myself, am I going to do it all over again? And the answer will probably be yes, lol.My post here was in no means trying to start any debate or anything of that nature, but I actually feel bad that some people have not yet had a chance to have a good FSX experience. With the exception of a particular plane or scenery addon that yet isn't available for FSX, I am sure a good, trouble free flight in FSX would meet or most likely exceed their expectations and they would be really excited to get FSX. For me it was by no means a downgrade, but a major upgrade in simming satisfaction.Regards,Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I guess what I am trying to say is that FSX when set up properly is just fine and I my case really even better than FS9 to me."Yes, but you prefaced your post by saying you invested $1800 in a new rig. Bank buster? Depends on the budget I suppose, but for me spending that much money on any new system takes simming beyond "hobby" and turns it into a vocation. Then of course, you throw hiring FS-GS in there to help you. That's a whole other level of discussion.I have enough experience with the launch of FS2004 and all sims prior to know that any sim, even FS-X, can be scaled to deliver the performance someone seeks. And before FS-GS came on the scene many of my friends tried to convince me to do the same thing as they do given my success with getting FS2004 fluid and stable from its launch. I've been professionally designing systems, networks and software for a couple of decades now and that's come in real handy to extending my enjoyment of FS-9. I haven't dismissed FS-X because I feel it requires a new system or years of tweaking. But FS-X has not shown me anything to say "wow" and to invest the time in migrating my suite of add-ons over to it. And my addiction to add-on aircraft is not enough to convince me to deploy FS-X just to get the latest and greatest FMC. Carenado's last series of projects--their 182Q, their Mooney, their Piper series--were sheer artwork.But going back to the premise that FS2004 has "had its day". I haven't followed Phil's career. I don't know if he's still working with Microsoft or still benefits financially by MSFS development. But if he does, don't you think it's pure salesmanship for him to say that? What else can he say? If he still works with Microsoft or consults for them, then he speaks for Microsoft, not for the hobby when making that type of statement. Can't fault him for that, any software employer would show one the door if they did not try to convince clients that the newest software was the best thing since sliced cheese.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I've been using Flight Simulator since it was created for the Tandy 1000 so I've been around since 1982.I find the performance you state with FSX extremely hard to believe. I have the following system and FSX runs and looks like crap.Striker Extreme MotherboardIntel Pentium Core2Duo 6800 Extreme Processor2 Nvidia GeForce XFX8800 GTX Extreme (768MB) Video Boards3 SATA 120GIG 10,000RPM Hard drives run in a RAID 0 Configuration4 GIG of Corsair Dominator RAM running at 1142MHz.I have also had the FS-GS service performed on my system.Bottom Line: FSX runs like crap, FSX suffers from constant blurry terrain, has extremely poor frame rates and unacceptable performance while using the Level-D 767 airliner with the addons you mentioned.I do not believe "ANY" of the stories of these unbelievable results others continue to post because I have seen for myself the terrible performance FSX delivers.This system was created for flight simulation only at a price of around $6,000.00. FSX and addons, along with Windows XP Pro are the only programs on the system.If I was to try as you state:"As far as performance, even on my modest machine I can run 100% AI, full scenery and animation complexity, full weather could draw, and still fly into major hubs like Heathrow, LAX, and not even sniff and single digit FPS or blurry texture in my LDS 767. The only thing I don't use is bloom and lens flare, but I never used those anyway."I would be looking at a slide show.It absolutely amazes me how many people have "convinced themselves" that FSX is so incredible on their system.I'm done with my $6,000.00 rant, let the bricks fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you can do this with FS9 & a five year old computer, I see no reason whatsoever to spend money for an upgrade to X.AMD XP2200 1.8GHz 2 GeForce FX5200 GPUsAlex ReidFlying up Portland Canal, along the Canada/USA border, in the DreamFleet Bonanza. Hyder Alaska is on the flat just left of centre- Stewart BC straight ahead. Hyder folks have to drive to Stewart, crossing the border to get to the outside world. Maybe it's changed since 9/11, but last time I was there there was no border post- just the honour system!OK class- that's all for today's Geography 101.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/191537.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Taylor indicates FSX is two years old with two to go. Are Carenado and others late then, or were they held back in no small part by the might of the providers of their bottom line? I want the franchise to go on and it must, but ACES and FSX users have been saying 'it's time to move on' for all of those first two years, yet here we are. Nothing that any dev can do will inspire me to go FSX - period. I too will be catching the next one - then I'll 'move on' Mr Taylor, not before.I do not wish to whine, moan or belittle the hard work of ACES, I look forward to FS11 with great anticipation that lessons will have been learned given the hiccups of the FSX release.regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was to be expected. The FS9 market is already full off add-ons that use all the possible features. A new aircraft add-on will hardly have an impact in the FS9 user group.With FS-X they can use some of the new features and the market isn't as saturated. I hope they keep on going so I can buy there work for the future FS program (FS-X is installed but I stopped putting money into it because in my opinion the core program is not good enough to warrant investing in add-ons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. For me, FS9 offers a flight simming experience that FSX simply can't.Phil Taylor's comment that it's "time to move on" from FS9 strikes me as rather patronizing.I wish Phil and his team great success in the development of FS11. Perhaps they'll offer a more compelling reason for me to "move on" than I've seen either in FSX or on Phil Taylor's blog.Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites