Carenado abandoning FS2004 development

[edetroit 933]

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

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/ede...008EdwardV3.pngMy 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

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"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

[Guest melf12]

I'm perfectly happy with fs9 - why should I change!Ken

[Mike_CFII_MEL 788]

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.

[january 19]

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

[MarkRey 16]

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

[boshar 6]

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).

[Charlie Chew 0]

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

[Dave Feldman 3]

I think I'm still gonna give the new 152 a try. Looks pretty good.

[LAdamson 240]

>I find the performance you state with FSX extremely hard to>believe. I have the following system and FSX runs and looks>like crap.>I'm sure glad I got FSX running again! FS9 was looking like an out of focus mass of dirt, except for certain third party regions. The FS9 depiction of the mountain west, leaves a lot to be desired in comparison to much clearer graphics and sense of depth that comes standard with FSX! :-hah Basically, I was stuck flying endlessly around the Flight Scenery Portland area in FS9; 'cause if I ventured past that boundary, I was forced to look at the very primitive FS9, and almost gave up flight simming.Just remember, once you've seen something-----------that's so much better, it's hard to go back! :-lol L.Adamson

[january 19]

Sounds interesting. Any chance you could do a screenie for comparison with the shot I posted (#20) earlier in this forum? This is a few miles SW of Stewart BC. Looking forward to seeing the differences between IX & X. Alex Reid

[LAdamson 240]

>Sounds interesting. Any chance you could do a screenie for>comparison with the shot I posted (#20) earlier in this forum?>This is a few miles SW of Stewart BC. Looking forward to>seeing the differences between IX & X. No time tonight. But just figure on resolution that looks about four times as sharp as FS9 for mountainous areas. I live in the Rocky Mtn. area and sim fly all these mountains as well as the real stuff. I've been desktop simming since the invention...............and FSX just looks a whole lot better, with a more glossy photo-look than FS9 for topography. It really adds to an illusion of 3D depth when flying these areas.I'm not anti-FS9 and have no plans of deleting it, because I do like 3rd party mountain scenery such as Glacier Bay. And, as is known, FSX just can't do everything better than FS9. It's just that FSX looks far more refined in resolution, color depth, and clarity for all those default mountain areas that 3rd parties haven't covered.If it didn't, I wouldn't bother. But it does!...L.Adamson

[N400QW 205]

Guys there is no reason to worry...what Carenado announced is the the same thing you will see happen with almost all 3PDs going forward...We only have a few projects left before we too phase out new development for FS9. It's really nothing new since we've all seen 3PDs stop developing for FS2002 in favor of FS9.I remember stating that we would continue with FS9 development for approx. 18-24 months after FSX release. It will last a little longer than the 24 months but eventually we'll reach the point where new development for FS9 will cease :-)The good news is that FS9 users will have enough to keep them going until they decide to move forward:-)

[Guest ThrottleUp]

The good news is that FS9 users will have enough to keep them going until they decide to move forward Thats very true. Im not "worried" about developers moving to FSX its a logical progression. And yes...there tons of FS9 stuff out there (including top-of-the range freeware) ..easily enough to keep us FS9ers going....until FS16 comes out and we decide to finally move hee hee.