Today, October 10, marks the 3rd anniversary of the release of FSX (in Mexico- followed a few days later by releases in Europe and USA). (source- Wikipedia)So happy birthday FSX !!!For the statistically inclined, the ongoing AVSIM survey today reports use of Flight Simulator for Primary Simulator as-FSX 47.0% of simmers (1180 responses)FS9 50.5% of simmers (1269 responses)Alex Reid

Today, October 10, marks the 3rd anniversary of the release of FSX (in Mexico- followed a few days later by releases in Europe and USA). (source- Wikipedia)So happy birthday FSX !!!For the statistically inclined, the ongoing AVSIM survey today reports use of Flight Simulator for Primary Simulator as-FSX 47.0% of simmers (1180 responses)FS9 50.5% of simmers (1269 responses)Alex Reid

While it was released at this time 3 years ago, it was in January of 06 that it was presented to the world (in pictures etc). That is close to 4 years and there is no news of any FS in sight. Amazing stats that after 6 years FS9 is used by more people. It sure doesn't help with creation of FSnext. I personally could not go back to FS9. I wonder what effect does the US consumers diminishing purchase power has on the stats. I am talking about purchase of new hardware that allows FSX to run acceptably.

While it was released at this time 3 years ago, it was in January of 06 that it was presented to the world (in pictures etc). That is close to 4 years and there is no news of any FS in sight. Amazing stats that after 6 years FS9 is used by more people. It sure doesn't help with creation of FSnext. I personally could not go back to FS9. I wonder what effect does the US consumers diminishing purchase power has on the stats. I am talking about purchase of new hardware that allows FSX to run acceptably.

After MS fired the Aces crew, there were reports that many were subsequently rehired. An MS spokesman stated that they "remain committed to the FS franchise". With Aerosoft now musing about creating a new simulator, you don't suppose that MS might yet have a surprise in store for us? Perhaps something that we non-technically minded folks could get running nicely- without breaking the bank!Alex Reid

Not trying to cause a war here as this may go that route but I find it amazing after all this time FS9 still get's the most attention from Freeware developers. Avsim's upload ability is back and look at what version has the most attention. That is a true testimate to the value of FS9. I for one still use FS9 exclusively myself as I get the best stutter free representation for practice for my real world flights. I want it all, autogen, high level add-ons, great weather effects, the works running as smooth as possible...Now one thing I've noticed recently that even with my new Dual Core machine there's still room for FS9 to grow or should I say 'stretch it's legs'. Case in point the cap on memory in which the OS is capable of (the very OS FS9 was created for). XP 32bit doesn't fully utilize 4gigs of RAM, it only reports 3.25 with 4 installed. FS9 could use more than that if it were available. Then there's the dance of video card memory and it's ability to actually take away from what the OS needs to run correctly especially if you have 4 gigs installed on a 32bit OS. It's all discussed here even though most of this is for FSX I have an OOM error in FS9 in the New York area:http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1591.0http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=195815http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthrea...=OOM&page=2So here we are after all this time FSX being run by most on an OS that can't give it the memory it really needs (XP). After reading all this I would have to concede the point that Vista is the best OS for FSX if not for anything but memory allocation alone but Vista is a dog within itself. After all this time one 'really' needs Windows 7 to get the best out of FSX it would seem (an OS that wasn't even thought of when FSX was in development). Mathijs Kok of Aerosoft stated due to the nature of FSX's performance it will never rival FS9 in performance for many of the reasons I'm stating here. Can FSX be made to run on a 64bit OS which in turn would give all concerned the best bang for their buck? If FS9 has room to operate beyond 3.25gigs of ram I know FSX needs more than 4gigs onboard and maybe 3gigs of video card memory. So all in all FSX has been out awhile and it's yet to be seen if this latest unreleased OS will help FSX reach the performance of FS9 today. Some say FSX already does which I can't see on a 32bit OS limited to 3.25gigs of Ram, FS9 could use more than that. Let's all see what Windows7 brings to the table for FSX and hopefully a new version of FS is in the works somewhere at Microsoft (which I highly doubt). Aerosoft on the other hand might produce a worthy product, I'm hopeful they will...