While tempers are definitely flaring here, a lot of people here are missing a simple point that has already been made at least a couple of times: for as long as there is a sufficient demand, there will be FS9 products being made. It's really that simple. It's how businesses work. They exploit niches to make money. If a cost/benefit analysis shows that the potential profits will sufficiently outweigh the added development costs, there's really no reason for a business not to use that to their advantage. It has nothing to do with the superiority of one platform over another, but with a cold, harsh economic calculation.Whether the poll is scientifically representative or not is really a moot point (although the numbers speak louder than words), the bottom line is what I said above... Projected Revenue - Cost = Profit, if Profit > x where x is a number known only to the developer, then a decision is made to commit to a project. Liking or disliking FS9 is a secondary concern. Now devs are obviously free to do whatever they want, they can abandon developing for FS9 if they so choose, but given PMDG's decisions to develop the MD-11 and the NGX for FS9, it seems they are following a similar rationale to what I outlined in broad terms above.

While tempers are definitely flaring here, a lot of people here are missing a simple point that has already been made at least a couple of times: for as long as there is a sufficient demand, there will be FS9 products being made. It's really that simple. It's how businesses work. They exploit niches to make money. If a cost/benefit analysis shows that the potential profits will sufficiently outweigh the added development costs, there's really no reason for a business not to use that to their advantage. It has nothing to do with the superiority of one platform over another, but with a cold, harsh economic calculation.Whether the poll is scientifically representative or not is really a moot point (although the numbers speak louder than words), the bottom line is what I said above... Projected Revenue - Cost = Profit, if Profit > x where x is a number known only to the developer, then a decision is made to commit to a project. Liking or disliking FS9 is a secondary concern. Now devs are obviously free to do whatever they want, they can abandon developing for FS9 if they so choose, but given PMDG's decisions to develop the MD-11 and the NGX for FS9, it seems they are following a similar rationale to what I outlined in broad terms above.

Well said. Simple, old-fashioned common sense really.

Have 2 machines, FS9 and FSX. I had a CPU die and down time was causing flt. sim withdrawl. So after fixing it, the new hardware capable of running FSX was here. I decided to build another (1st one was purchased) and dedicate it to FSX for redundancy. Purchasing A/C for both is my way of "staying up". I can't affod to fly the real thing anymore but MSFS helps ease the pain. Still would like more time to fly. I do enjoy the heavies and LOVE the new MD-11 Thanks PMDG.

Hello,First post,I bought FS9 exclusively for the new VRS F/A-18E Add-on and once the FSX version comes out I probably won't fly FS9 at all

I am using exclusively FSX, time to move on really. No point in living in the past.Kim

If the only limitation to the FS9 MD-11 is animations/lighing, then so be it. Maddog2006 seems to have modeled everything so its possible to model just about everything the MD-11, even circuit breakers. Although for its price, IDK why there is no WXR. Anyways, ACES made a bad mistake in making FSX optimized for future PC's. Why release a product if the majority of consumers are not ready for it? That's just plain stupid. The vast majority of FS users are gamers, people who do it for comm aviation realism are very small compared to the gamers. That's why ACES cranked up the eye candy, didn't bother to improve the WX, ATC, and flight dynamics, because gamers don't care about that stuff as long as it looks good, and had ads geared for gamers and designed it to be handled by a gaming PC. I wouldn't be surprised if there is going to be a lot of simmers who completely bypass FSX for FS11 which is what I'm doing. I understand that tools for developers have been expansively improved, but for the simmer's end, I don't think its any better than FS9 other than eye candy. I regretted buying FSX, it was really a waste of my limited entertainment budget. I almost literally tossed it in the trash until I gave it away to a friend who only fly's GA planes around cities.Alex

It seems to me a great pity about the FS9/FSX debate - surely they can both co-exist.I remember when FS9 came out and the frame rates were then very poor but are now brilliant as cpus have improved over a few years. Yes both platforms have their good and bad points but no need to get all het up over it lol.I use both and can see both sides of the arguments - All I hope for FS11 is that it will run without OOM errors, airports are at the correct altitudes (not in holes or on spikes), the weather actually works and ATC makes sense rather than a mess.... not too much to ask lol but probably too much from the developers who will release it half baked.In flight in open sky I get 60fps in FS9 and 50fps in FSX - busy airports another kettle of fish lol say 20 and 10 but better than the 2fps I had when FS9 first appeared. I truly think FS9 was such an improvement on 2002 though it was hard to see the step to FSX over FS9; more under the bonnet than noticable improvements.Happy New year to all anyway and more to the point only let the wheels touch the ground lol.John E

FS9 always i will switch when fs11 comes out

I wouldn't be surprised if there is going to be a lot of simmers who completely bypass FSX for FS11 which is what I'm doing.

There are a lot of us, probably more than you think. I know a lot of FS9 simmers who do not write in this forum or any other.Although some developers, like Aerosoft for example, are doing their best (simply to help their marketing plans) to convince us FS9ers that we are wrong, I know best what I like and what I need. No matter what points are used in the discussion, all I can do is to respect them, which I do. And I'm saying it from the perspective of a longtime simmer who gave FSX more than one try. If I were brand new to flight simulation, I wouldn't search for older MFS versions, why should I? I would buy FSX, being then astonished how nice flight simulation can be. But my tweaked and addon-dressed FS9 works like a charm and gives me the compromise between all I need and all MFS is able to give me. There is nothing more I would really need in FSX compared to FS9. Higher resolution ground textures and Earth curvature are nice ideas, I wish FS9 had them implemented. But they are not essential for me and don't make my simulation. I'm glad that many developers, including PMDG, understand that and give us (and we ARE a huge group) a chance to enjoy their new toys.I would love to see peaceful coexistence between FS9ers and FSXers. As such I mean the one which brings no attempts to convince the others they have made a wrong choice. It's not true that those who went the FSX way are arcade game players. And it's not true that we FS9ers stayed in the past - FSX is not future for me, I'm sorry to say. It's just an alternative parallel simulation reality. Luckily, we still have a choice.Best regards,Rafal

Rafal,You make some very good insightfull points.This is the first I've heard of a FS-11,Do you know when it's going to be released?Thank You/Patrick/

FS9 is a fantastic sim, if it aint broke why fix it..........Ben

I am still using FS9 and will do so for the foreseeable future. It is not just a matter of cost or the investment in software - it is the performance I get from FS9 that matters to me.I have a three year old laptop. It is an ACER Ferari 3400. It has 1Gb of RAM and a puny 128 MB of Video RAM (on board) and a single 2GHz CPU. Not enough you might say but I have just learned how to hook it up to my new LG HDTV - it is a 106cm screen model. Admittedly I have only used it with the LDS 767 but I am sure that the PMDG 744 will fly just as well. Using only a VGA to VGA connection between the laptop and the TV, FS9 performed flawlessly with Ultimate traffic set at 82%, Flight Environment clouds set at full overcast and VOZ 1.8 for extremely detailed Australian scenery. It ran smoothly in all modes on a huge display. Until someone can prove to me that FSX can manage that on what is by now an old laptop I will stay where I am.Gerry

Now that PMDG received feedback from its clients as to what platform they mostly use, would it be possible to know whether those percentages were translated in the same proportion in MD11 sales, in other words, 61% sold in FS9 version and 39% in FSX, this would be interesting indeed? (I acknowledge that not all respondents will have bought the MD11, the survey is free...)Thank you!Jean-Claude

Wow, that is a crushing victory for FS9, I am totally shocked as I really wasn't around the hobby since FSX came out. I just built a box with i7 in it and will indeed install FS9. I'm sure MS is seeing these numbers and will consider investing in development technology.Jacek

Now that PMDG received feedback from its clients as to what platform they mostly use, would it be possible to know whether those percentages were translated in the same proportion in MD11 sales, in other words, 61% sold in FS9 version and 39% in FSX, this would be interesting indeed? (I acknowledge that not all respondents will have bought the MD11, the survey is free...)Thank you!Jean-Claude

I'd be very surprised if confidential sales info like that would be shared, but what would be interesting to know is how does this inform PMDG's decision-making going forward? I also wonder why this survey was even commissioned to begin with, especially if most customers never show their faces in forums? I'm a die hard fs9 user, but I'm also a pragmatist. fs9, for all it's fluid performance, has hard coded limits and is holding back the state of the art - period.Does this poll ultimately mean more split platform projects beyond NGX? Or will PMDG simply drop fs9 for the sake of pure progress (a la LDS)? Either way I certainly understand.Mark Reynolds