If the ex Aces team can throw together a really awesome successor to FSX, would you pay $150 for it?. I guess that I would. Reminds me of Flight Unlimited. That was pretty cool if you liked KSFO. To bad I can't fly around there with FSX so I hang out at KMSO and PAJN.jja

I would as long as the computer to run it doesn't cost too much. They didn't talk about an FS though.JimCYWG

If the ex Aces team can throw together a really awesome successor to FSX, would you pay $150 for it?. I guess that I would. Reminds me of Flight Unlimited. That was pretty cool if you liked KSFO. To bad I can't fly around there with FSX so I hang out at KMSO and PAJN.jja

Hi,First, I doubt that they will make any flight simulator. As a matter of fact, they don

I like many bought an intel i7 PC for 1900 bucks, just for FSX, so if ACES make FS11 for 400 dollars , i would buy it. Might have to save up though.The thing with flight sim is this, its not for many kids who have little money, its more for a few adults you have spare change, so make it more expensive and target a narrow market.FSX is not the kind of game youll get the whole world to play, but a few, and we are ready to pay.

:(

Sure, I'd pay $150 for a sim. I think I do already. FSX+GEX+UTX+UT2+REX2+ASA...Of course, that $150 sim would have to be one heck of a sim. Not knocking FSX or FS9 here but MS basically creates a template where add on developers perfect the experience. For a $150, I would like to see a more finished product.If we need to modify the clouds, weather, landclass, mesh, ground textures, sky textures, aircraft, panels, sounds, airport scenery, roads, rivers, bridges, trees, water textures, ai traffic, flight dynamics, ... We are paying for a template from MS and developers are doing the work of making the sim more perfect or dare I say, truly as real as it gets. Right now we get as real as it gets for $70. I'll take as real as it gets for $150.

Heck, I'd pay $250 for the FSX that everyone was hoping for, if it wouldn't require a $4000 PC!! No stutters, no popping autogen, no shimmering, no popping clouds, no popping in and out of terrain tiles , etc, etc etc!

Heck, I'd pay $250 for the FSX that everyone was hoping for, if it wouldn't require a $4000 PC!! No stutters, no popping autogen, no shimmering, no popping clouds, no popping in and out of terrain tiles , etc, etc etc!

Yes, I would even pay $500 but to the above add the following - no problems with wind shifts, abnormal temperatures and really most annoying sudden visibility shifts, one second I see the runway on the nose like on a crystal clear day the next I am in total white-out.

For me, it will have to be exceptional quality. I've been flight simming since 1990 and I'm completely hooked. $150 is chum changed compared to all the other hardware we need just to operate FSX today with its mediocre frame rates. So yes, Quality is a must, and more importantly an actual support team to clear up any issues with a Flightsim. I think the flight Sim community (thats us) deserve a chance to interact with the creators of such games...Thats my two cents.

It would have to be one heckova sim, as in all the default aircraft would have to be PMDG quality, and the default scenery would have to look at least as good as FSX does with all the top end addons. Furthermore, they would have to actually get the performance right this time. Otherwise, I couldn't see that much at all.

Point is, I think we're all willing to pay whatever the actual product costs. An excellent add-on that only adds one single plane...many of us don't mind paying the $40 for it. So yes, ofcourse if a perfect sim is released, we'll all (most) buy it for 100s of dollars. As someone already said, most already spend that, and on a sim thats far from perfect.

As I see it

I only payed anywhere near that for a sim ONCE, and that was Steel Beasts Pro PE, because there are NO other decent tank sims out there. I considered VBS 2 for a while, until I realized it's really just ArmA with more content. For a flight sim, it would have to be the best sim ever to validate that cost to me.

I only payed anywhere near that for a sim ONCE, and that was Steel Beasts Pro PE, because there are NO other decent tank sims out there. I considered VBS 2 for a while, until I realized it's really just ArmA with more content. For a flight sim, it would have to be the best sim ever to validate that cost to me.

I think most on Avsim would pay $150 easily for a quality sim.But that's the hard-core crowd.Your typical punter down at Walmart won't be shelling out $150, and that's probably 95 percent of all FS buyers right there.

I think most on Avsim would pay $150 easily for a quality sim.But that's the hard-core crowd.Your typical punter down at Walmart won't be shelling out $150, and that's probably 95 percent of all FS buyers right there.

Agreed, that's why it would be foolish to do so. If you look at the volume of copies of FSX sold, and compare it to something like SB Pro PE in volume sold (to non military organizations), you will see a MAJOR split, and in the end it would be better to go for the Lowest Common Denominator rather than make it too expensive for Joe Blow, and just go for profit in volume rather than profit in excessive charging. They could actually put in the same features and make MORE money off it if they knew what they were doing.On the other hand, I may be willing to pay a little more for no activation limits and no internet connection required...