Will RC5 be FS2004 compatible?ThanksDmitriy

Will RC5 be FS2004 compatible?ThanksDmitriy

it is as of todayi don't see why it would change.

Thanks jd.

In the light of recent events, I would like to check again your position regarding RC5 compatibility with FS2004.ThanksDmitriy

In the light of recent events, I would like to check again your position regarding RC5 compatibility with FS2004.ThanksDmitriy

Shhh! :( Just keep quiet about this and don't give JD any idea many of us would regret...Phil

In the light of recent events, I would like to check again your position regarding RC5 compatibility with FS2004.ThanksDmitriy

You've got my curiosity. What recent events? Volcanic ash? The BP/Gulf disaster? The vuvuzelas at the World Cup? :(

You've got my curiosity. What recent events? Volcanic ash? The BP/Gulf disaster? The vuvuzelas at the World Cup? :(

PMDG is leaving FS2004. FSDT is leaving as well after KDFW release (it's been indirectly stated on their forums)...

PMDG is leaving FS2004. FSDT is leaving as well after KDFW release (it's been indirectly stated on their forums)...

Thanks for the info. PMDG isn't that much of a surprise but I am disappointed with FSDT since it isn't an enormous job to adapt scenery for both FS versions. But if it's an indirect quote perhaps we should wait for the formal announcement.

I am disappointed with FSDT since it isn't an enormous job to adapt scenery for both FS versions.

Actually, Ray, it certainly is an enormous job if you want to take advantage of the improvements in FSX over FS9 and not produce a sub-standard FSX product, which could actually be worse than the FS9 rendition (because of things like curvature and different layering).Those who produce FS9 standard scenery and then just adapt it for FSX do FSX a great disservice and would certainly lose sales in comparison with those who do FSX specific scenery. Gary Summons took months out to rewrite his own tools so he could do justice to FSX without losing the ability to generate FS9 sceneries at the same time, but most all other designers don't have that level of expertise and then the work to do a good FSX version is almost as much as to do the FS9 one again -- excepting of course the research, photographs, etc, which would apply to both.RegardsPete

Actually, Ray, it certainly is an enormous job if you want to take advantage of the improvements in FSX over FS9 and not produce a sub-standard FSX product, which could actually be worse than the FS9 rendition (because of things like curvature and different layering).Those who produce FS9 standard scenery and then just adapt it for FSX do FSX a great disservice and would certainly lose sales in comparison with those who do FSX specific scenery. Gary Summons took months out to rewrite his own tools so he could do justice to FSX without losing the ability to generate FS9 sceneries at the same time, but most all other designers don't have that level of expertise and then the work to do a good FSX version is almost as much as to do the FS9 one again -- excepting of course the research, photographs, etc, which would apply to both.RegardsPete

Hi Pete,Many airport packages including some of Gary's are available as a "buy one version, get the other free". Now if they were both designed from scratch that suggests a doubling of the effort so why offer one version free? I suspect the FSX version has been modified for FS9 in a reasonably short timescale otherwise the effort involved for zero return wouldn't be economically justifiable.As a FS9 user I'm mostly happy with FS9's version of airports. Some are better than others. FSDT's Zurich includes parking indicators at gates but Maclarran (sp) doesn't. That's the biggest difference I've seen and that can be resolved by buying AES credits.Apart from the moving jetways and improved road tunnel at Manchester I'm not aware of any significant differences between the FS9 and FSX versions supplied by Gary.

Any word from JD about the topic?

Any word from JD about the topic?

as of right now, v5 works with fs2004. i don't see any reason why it wouldn't, going forward.jd

Thank you very much for that. I can comfortably live without PMDG (assuming that I have plenty of other beautiful birds in my hangar), but making RC5 as FSX-only product would kill FS2004 for me forever.

Many airport packages including some of Gary's are available as a "buy one version, get the other free". Now if they were both designed from scratch that suggests a doubling of the effort so why offer one version free?

To garner more sales, of course. And it is difficult for folks to understand how much work is involved (as is evident from your beliefs), so it is difficult to charge twice for what folks see as the same product. I face the same expectation regularly regarding FSUIPC3 vs FSUIPC4 even though the main bulk of the latter was a complete re-write.

I suspect the FSX version has been modified for FS9 in a reasonably short timescale otherwise the effort involved for zero return wouldn't be economically justifiable.

In Gary's case, as I explained, he's written his own tools to make what he does more "viable". In the case of others then either they are only doing an FSX version (and this is increasingly the case), or you'll find that the converted FS9 version is really not up to scratch in comparison with made-to-measure FSX scenery. After some bad experiences of these "conversions" I am only buying proper FSX sceneries.

As a FS9 user I'm mostly happy with FS9's version of airports.

I know you are. I understand that. I'm not. And you know this too.

Apart from the moving jetways and improved road tunnel at Manchester I'm not aware of any significant differences between the FS9 and FSX versions supplied by Gary.

I realise he's done an excellent job for FS9 too. But not as good as FSX, and he will tell you so -- and exactly why. Just ask him. FSX simply provides more scope for what can be achieved. I know you are happy with FS9 and probably will be forever more, but i cannot go back and I don't want FS9 scenery in FSX. It just cannot match what genuine FSX scenery can be.Each to his own, but please do not underestimate the amount of work involved in doing things properly for either version, that's all I ask. You said you couldn't understand it when "there's not much work", and all I'm trying to tell you that there is a lot of work -- unless you are satisfied with a half-hearted product which will look bad when compared with the real thing. No doubt you would be satisfied, but those of us who've learned to appreciate the increased realism in FSX would not be, except maybe for free -- and then only as a stopgap.RegardsPete

Hi Pete,I accept everything you've said and it was never my intention to underestimate the work involved in producing two different versions of airport scenery. I may have read it on the FSDT's forums that they said there wasn't a huge amount of work to adapt scenery for FS9 but that would be difficult to find now.I won't be staying with FS9 forever. Once hardware is out that can run FSX as well as my current system runs FS9 then I will switch. Given FSX is likely to be Microsoft's last release I want to delay switching for as long as possible so it feels like a new product.