Most of those features you list are "eye candy" (I never really liked that term), which really seemed to be the focus of FSX. Not a great deal was done to actually improve the simulation aspects from an end-user perspective. Where are the sloping runways? Braking effectiveness based on runway conditions? Better ATC? Better AI traffic handling? Better turboprop modelling? What about the still crude damage model?I never said FSX is going down the toilet, simply the enjoyment and friendliness of the hobby is disappearing because of the commercialisation and the market cannot sustain so many commercial developers all at the same time.

AirSimmer had different braking conditions based on runway conditions since the start of their Airbus project. Aerosoft has had an autobrake feature that is based on runway conditions as well. Not all of them are "eye candy" they bring the environment closer to the real world. I guess REX, FTX, FEX, UTX, GEX, etc, are all just "eye candy" then. :(. There are slopped runways for some small airports on the avsim library, its not impossible. Better ATC? VoxATC, and others. Better Turboprops and Turbine driven props. Look at PMDG, Flight1's ATR. There are endless possibilities. Better AI handling? MyTraffic, Ultimate Traffic X, AISmooth (freeware on avsim). Crash effects can be done, if the developer designs break points, and enables the correct line in an aircraft cfg, but I don't think crashes are in the interest of simmers. Most addon aircraft will have some kind of damage, or something shown on the EICAS/CAWS if done incorrectly, damage me even be done to for an example an engine.

. So, it's really a chicken-egg situation: FS9 users don't see much incentive to upgrade, because, judging the products available, it SEEMS that FSX it's just more "eye candy" so they don't switch, and developers don't fully invest in FSX, because of that.

chicken omelete catagory.....I have this saratoga, and the tool tips are muddied up untill night time flying.the problem is all in my computer though, which is why all the other addons I have have readable text. :(

and then there are of course these new uses of fsx (and esp)...I want this one for my living room ( FAA Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD.) :( :http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/rbfmx.asphttp://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=256065and this one for my den :( :http://www.flight1tech.com/Simulation/G1000/g1000.html

NICE! I've started a penny piggybank for one of those Redbirds! Whew $59800! Love the quote re their multiple monitors:"------one forward looking screen is not going to cut it."Quite correct. And for just a couple of hundred bucks- as Redbird notes, my circuits & approaches ARE greatly improved!Alex ReidBonanza Turning to Final- CYYJ R27

NICE! I've started a penny piggybank for one of those Redbirds! Whew $59800! Love the quote re their multiple monitors:"------one forward looking screen is not going to cut it."Quite correct. And for just a couple of hundred bucks- as Redbird notes, my circuits & approaches ARE greatly improved!Alex ReidBonanza Turning to Final- CYYJ R27

Yeah-but after using 6 monitors how could anyone go back to 3 :( (Of course in another few years it will be 20).

There is a mistaken impression that ACES spent all their powder on FSX visuals.For the most part, FSX "eyecandy" came part and parcel with the shader upgrade.It shouldn

Yeah-but after using 6 monitors how could anyone go back to 3 :( (Of course in another few years it will be 20).

Geofa- agreed, but 3 is a good start! My full peripheral vision is close to 180

Geofa- agreed, but 3 is a good start! My full peripheral vision is close to 180

I've been a flight simmer since the 80s, from my Commodore128 to what I have now. I am still using FS2004 because I really havent even scratched the surface of what I can get out of it. I bought it about a year after it came out, finally shelved FS98 and 2002. But, I have always been a very casual flyer, takeoff/putz around/try to land. Only since getting 2004 have I taken the flying serious, and thats mostly happened in the past 6 months. Kids getting older and real life settling down has finally provided me with time to fly.

I've been a flight simmer since the 80s, from my Commodore128 to what I have now. I am still using FS2004 because I really havent even scratched the surface of what I can get out of it. I bought it about a year after it came out, finally shelved FS98 and 2002. But, I have always been a very casual flyer, takeoff/putz around/try to land. Only since getting 2004 have I taken the flying serious, and thats mostly happened in the past 6 months. Kids getting older and real life settling down has finally provided me with time to fly.

It seems that this conversation is continued is a different place on AVSIM. For those interested, it is being discussed HERE.As I am the OP here in this thread, I thought it might be appropriate to add the contribution I made to this subject in that forum:It may be counter-productive to try to get a grasp of the state of the hobby itself, since definitive numbers of current MSFS users vs. those in the past seem to be unavailable or unreliable. So having an informed opinion of the entire flight sim gendre based upon agreed upon objective facts is nearly impossible. What may be more fruitful is a look at how individual parts of the hobby are fairing when compared to others. If so, that means that the only real way to get a handle on the question posed is to look at both FS9 and FSX separately, before merging subjective opinion together.I can not personally speak for FS9 anymore, since I abandoned that version (and a computer full of expensive add-ons) in favour of the original FSX years ago. I understand from reading on some forums like this one, that those who are still entrenched in fs2004 are still digging down, notwithstanding brief scurries on the surface for fresh ammunition. Still, FS9 has not been substantially improved, nor have developers been able to significantly alter its rather limited caplibilities for years now, as it is still more of the same, with only marginal variations. However, fs9ers have not run out of oxygen yet, unlike their fs2002 counterparts. What keeps fs9 going seems to be disbelief, disinterest or denial in how far FSX has been revolutionized by recent advances. Who can blame (some of) them, for FSX was a real dog when it first came out, impossible to run and a second rate effort at best. Who can forget the "DX10" marketing hype put out by MS itself? But that was then, this is now. FSX with scenery packages like FTX and aircraft like the L-39 is as farher ahead of where it started from as fs2004 was from fs98.On the other hand, the state of computer machinery advances are much more comprehensible - the roof has blown off! Modern machines, that can be put together for relatively modest means, have brought super-simulation in reach of all who will make the investment. With it has come radical flying realism and enjoyment that was only dreamed of when FSX first came out. No longer does anyone have to be limited to using equipment that is not caplable of running the best and most complex flight simulation software on the planet - FSX.So, what is the state of the hobby? Well, the answer depends. If you are stuck in the past, then the best of that world was is forever behind us, and the future is bleak. But if you are participating in today's technology and running FSX extreme editions as modified by incredible software advances, then the world is yours and everything in it. The difference between the two is only determined by the difference in our choices. The new flight simulation experience common for those who have moved forward is by far the best that has ever come before, and is likely the equivalent of what would have been FS11 or FS12. It should perhaps be called FSXtreme.FSXtremeSo there you have it. The hobby is in it's golden years and can be enjoyed to its fullest right now. That's what I think anyway.Stephen

I just did a (worldwide) search on Google Trends using the search term "flight sim." The results can be found at:Google TrendsNews report reference points of time as noted by Google are as follows:A. Flight Sim Ground Vehicles - New ReleaseFlightSim.com (press release) - Apr 28 2008 b. Flight Sim Add-on Mosquito Releasedseenit.co.uk - Jul 30 2008 C. Has Microsoft killed Flight Sim?Boomtown - Jan 23 2009D. IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Screenshots Illustrate Console Flight SimShacknews - May 28 2009E. Astrasim Announce Two Flight Sim Shows for 2009PR-CANADA.net (press release) - Jun 26 2009 F. Microsoft Flight Sim devs found new studiobit-tech.net - Oct 14 2009 The good news is that although there seems to have been a steady erosion over a long time, the present numbers at the beginning of 2010 are not much different than they were in mid 2006 and mid 2007. The base seems to be still rather solid, even in the absence of major positive headlines. A bit interesting, don't you think?Stephen

----------------------------------So, what is the state of the hobby? Well, the answer depends. If you are stuck in the past, then the best of that world was is forever behind us, and the future is bleak. But if you are participating in today's technology and running FSX extreme editions as modified by incredible software advances, then the world is yours and everything in it. The difference between the two is only determined by the difference in our choices. The new flight simulation experience common for those who have moved forward is by far the best that has ever come before, and is likely the equivalent of what would have been FS11 or FS12. It should perhaps be called FSXtreme.FSXtremeSo there you have it. The hobby is in it's golden years and can be enjoyed to its fullest right now. That's what I think anyway.Stephen

Stephen- greetings from the Evergreen Province!I'm not sure I would agree about "being stuck in the past" when you can get this result with a seven year old FS9 simulator running on a 6 year old 'puter.Flying without a tripled Field of View really is past its prime! Cheers Alex Reid

Stephen- greetings from the Evergreen Province!I'm not sure I would agree about "being stuck in the past" when you can get this result with a seven year old FS9 simulator running on a 6 year old 'puter.Flying without a tripled Field of View really is past its prime! Cheers Alex Reid

Alex-I have to mention once again-if my Baron cockpit looked like that I think I would immediately be disoriented and spiral immediately down! :(

I just did a (worldwide) search on Google Trends using the search term "flight sim." The results can be found at:Google TrendsNews report reference points of time as noted by Google are as follows:A. Flight Sim Ground Vehicles - New ReleaseFlightSim.com (press release) - Apr 28 2008 b. Flight Sim Add-on Mosquito Releasedseenit.co.uk - Jul 30 2008 C. Has Microsoft killed Flight Sim?Boomtown - Jan 23 2009D. IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Screenshots Illustrate Console Flight SimShacknews - May 28 2009E. Astrasim Announce Two Flight Sim Shows for 2009PR-CANADA.net (press release) - Jun 26 2009 F. Microsoft Flight Sim devs found new studiobit-tech.net - Oct 14 2009 The good news is that although there seems to have been a steady erosion over a long time, the present numbers at the beginning of 2010 are not much different than they were in mid 2006 and mid 2007. The base seems to be still rather solid, even in the absence of major positive headlines. A bit interesting, don't you think?Stephen

Yes, very interesting. The optimistic interpretation is as you say. The pessimistic interpretation is that over the observed six year period there has been an erosion of interest from 1.5 units to .5 units, with the introduction of FSX merely slugging an 18-month hold into that decline.The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes. But if we squeeze out the 18-month FSX blip then we have a decline from 1.5 to .5 over a period of 6-1.5=4.5 years. Given these numbers it's not hard to see why Microsoft pulled the plug on FS -- FSX simply did not rescue the business, it merely postponed the resumption of the decline.For those who worry about the future of the hobby, I'll point out that the original Microsoft Train Simulator still has a strong and vibrant user community even though in terms of technology it's frozen in an FS2002-equivalent technology base time warp. There are new kids on the block, like RailWorks, but MSTS continues to be where the action is, even as regards payware addons. This view is consistent with Stephen's bottoming-out conjecture -- the hobby may shrink to a core size and then stop contracting, and this may have already happened.In fact Stephen is suggesting that an uptrend may have begun, though I doubt it. You have only to look at the computer game shelves of big box retailers like Best Buy. Two years ago they might have had 5-10 boxes on the shelf. Today it's more like 2-3. Until I see stock depths increasing I will have to disagree.

The past can't be rewritten nor can the MS mistakes be amended. I got a new rig recently and now I have seen finally what I couldn't when FSX was first released. Yesterday after landing in KBOS, I did the replay and I could, for the very first time, look at the side window of the MS B737-800 and truly enjoy the view. Lots of details of the city of Boston. Long way from 1987 for MSFS. It has always been a shame IMHO that MS chose to tread FS as PC arcade game rather than a PC Simulator. FS2002 Professional was the closer they ever went for it. Oh well, cheers, :( MAB