Just out of curiosity... what are you going to do if PMDG decides NOT to do an FS9 version of the NGX? It is a very real possibility and I'm just curious what the diehard FS9'ers will do if they decide against it...

I'll keep on flying the old NG. I'd rather keep my 60fps and enjoy my flights at all settings maxed out, than to pray for 20fps and use mid-level settings on a bloody 4Ghz, GTX285 SLI setup. No thanks.

I'll keep on flying the old NG. I'd rather keep my 60fps and enjoy my flights at all settings maxed out, than to pray for 20fps and use mid-level settings on a bloody 4Ghz, GTX285 SLI setup. No thanks.

Same... I won't buy.

Nowt to do with PMDG's JS41 or 737 .....but just a thought about FSX. I recently bought a very nice Ibiza scenery for FS9.Of course Mr Kok is the first to say the FSX version is a whopping 1GB! and the FS9 vers a measly 100Mb.

Well,measly as it may be,I still prefer the 100mb vs the 1gb ... it simply means I can store 8 more airportson my hdd vs 1 FSX airport and that doesn't seem a bad deal to me.on a 1000 gigs that means about 5000 vs about 500 detailed airports.I know what I'll pick.As for the detail,yah,it's rushing by at 200 or 250km/h ... so who are you kidding,Mr Kok.I want the airport to look aweseme,the rest can just look "good".as it is I'm way too busy when landing anyway,and I don't do a lot of screenshots.Mind you,I do have the space,I've got Twin 1tb Samsung drives set up but my FS9 drive is a measly 80 gb ... and that works very well.then there is the other 20 gb age old WD drive,which I use for the really critical stuff.anyway,If Mr Kok keeps his sceneries for FS9 that small,I'll buy.cheersJP.

I'll keep on flying the old NG. I'd rather keep my 60fps and enjoy my flights at all settings maxed out, than to pray for 20fps and use mid-level settings on a bloody 4Ghz, GTX285 SLI setup. No thanks.

LMFAO. This thread has become hilarious beyond belief.You sir, are epic fail if you couldn't get 20 FPS in FSX with specs like that. This is the kind of stuff that makes you look completely senseless. The amount of FS9 fanboyism here is absolutely off the charts. You guys do realize that the majority of people reading this thread are falling on the floor and laughing at what you're saying, don't you?I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!It is completely irrelevant what you guys do if PMDG doesn't make the NG2.0 for FS9. The FSX crowd will overwhelmingly support its release. It will be one of PMDG's most successful releases, if not THE most successful- with or without the FS9 a really excited user' sales.The amount of misinformation in this forum is beyond belief. Enjoy your flat earth sim. The rest of the community has moved on.Flame away, that's all you guys do anyways...

I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!

Now Windows 7 is a failure because once again FSX can't run (decently) on it... :(Where have I heard this one before??? :(

LMFAO. This thread has become hilarious beyond belief.You sir, are epic fail if you couldn't get 20 FPS in FSX with specs like that. This is the kind of stuff that makes you look completely senseless. The amount of FS9 fanboyism here is absolutely off the charts. You guys do realize that the majority of people reading this thread are falling on the floor and laughing at what you're saying, don't you?I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!It is completely irrelevant what you guys do if PMDG doesn't make the NG2.0 for FS9. The FSX crowd will overwhelmingly support its release. It will be one of PMDG's most successful releases, if not THE most successful- with or without the FS9 a really excited user' sales.The amount of misinformation in this forum is beyond belief. Enjoy your flat earth sim. The rest of the community has moved on.Flame away, that's all you guys do anyways...

C'mon now... let's keep it civil, ok? No need to make personal attacks, even if you don't agree with what he says... :(

Just out of curiosity... what are you going to do if PMDG decides NOT to do an FS9 version of the NGX? It is a very real possibility and I'm just curious what the diehard FS9'ers will do if they decide against it...

Not worry too much about it to be honest and see it purely as a business decision by PMDG and nothing else. Especially if Airsimmer get their act together and produce a top quality A320 for FS9 - and if they don't, I've still got the PT TU154m, which is FS9 only.

You sir, are epic fail if you couldn't get 20 FPS in FSX with specs like that. This is the kind of stuff that makes you look completely senseless. The amount of FS9 fanboyism here is absolutely off the charts. You guys do realize that the majority of people reading this thread are falling on the floor and laughing at what you're saying, don't you?

Indeed, it would seem that I am an epic fail then. Thanks so much for pointing that out. You know what else is an epic fail? Someone with a "Commercial Member" tag coming into the thread with a personal attack. I find that kind of an attitutde strange at the very least, but whatever, if that's the way your company runs their business, more power to you.For the record, I run Windows 7 64 bit, and occasionally go back to FSX with what I consider mid-level settings, at 1680x1050, and fly around in complex airliners, at complex airports with AI and yes - I barely stay above 20fps. Care to enlighten me what settings I should use to get 60fps at FSDT's JFK with loads of AI? No, of course you won't, you'll tell me to research the tweaks on my own. And maybe one day I will. For now, I get amazing performance from FS9 with most of the add-ons still very much on the cutting edge.

LMFAO. This thread has become hilarious beyond belief.You sir, are epic fail if you couldn't get 20 FPS in FSX with specs like that. This is the kind of stuff that makes you look completely senseless. The amount of FS9 fanboyism here is absolutely off the charts. You guys do realize that the majority of people reading this thread are falling on the floor and laughing at what you're saying, don't you?I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!It is completely irrelevant what you guys do if PMDG doesn't make the NG2.0 for FS9. The FSX crowd will overwhelmingly support its release. It will be one of PMDG's most successful releases, if not THE most successful- with or without the FS9 a really excited user' sales.The amount of misinformation in this forum is beyond belief. Enjoy your flat earth sim. The rest of the community has moved on.Flame away, that's all you guys do anyways...

Please William behave yourself.This kind of personal attacks are not really welcome here.Thx!

LMFAO. This thread has become hilarious beyond belief.You sir, are epic fail ..I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!

Wow, I had no problems migrating to Win 7x64. I really like it. You sir, are epic fail for not getting Win 7 working well. You miss Vista? Get with the times, the rest of the world has moved on. :( Cheers, SLuggy

Just to put a little perspective into all of this FS9 vs. FSX argument, let me ask you all to think back to an aircraft we, as aviation enthusiasts, ALL know... Concorde!Concorde was a beloved airliner that was well known for it's sleek beauty, supersonic speed and top-level prestige! Unfortunately, since it wasn't produced in great numbers, it became expensive to maintain and operate. The people who made parts for it found that it wasn't finacially viable to keep producing parts for it, simply because the volume wasn't there to make it financially justifiable.Eventually, the airlines who operated it - Air France and British Airways - realized that they would have to retire it from their fleets becuase it just wasn't financially viable to keep operating it. Even though it still performed well and passengers were paying to fly it, it was simply too costly to keep in service.Passengers, though, loved Concorde! It was the epitome of trans-atlantic air travel. It was fast and prestigious and the passengers who flew it regularly had no qualms whatsoever about paying the excessively high airfare! They LOVED their Concorde! It certainly wasn't as luxurious as the first class cabin on a 747, but rather it was very sparse on the interior... very streamlined and efficient... but certainly not filled with the interior "eye candy" that became the hallmark of the "Queen of the Skies" - nice wide seats, personal in-flight entertainment at every seat, lie-flat beds... no.. on the contrary.. Concorde was small and cramped. But ultimately, it came down to the fact that the airlines and the manufacturers couldn't fiscally justify the high cost of maintaining it. It didn't matter that there was still demand for it from the passengers... the numbers just weren't there to make it financially viable.The airlines had to look at the lower costs of operating the much slower, much less prestigious 747, 777, and 767. There simply was no comparison. The maintenance costs on the widebodies is much lower, the parts are more readily available, and the technology in use is far more advanced.So, ultimately, the airlines had no choice but to retire Concorde. It was the end of an era.The moral here is that no matter how much demand there is for a particular product, there has to come a time when the companies who support that product must realize that their costs vs. returns become very uneven and they must move on and support newer technologies.. even though those technologies aren't necessarily held in high regard by those who long for the trusted, older technology.FS9, while being less technologically advanced than FSX, is held in very high regard by those who value its speed. Unfortunately, the "suppliers" for it, in the form of add-on developers, must realize that their businesses need to justify their cost vs. returns.. and as they see the cost of developing for TWO platforms doesn't provide double the returns, they must, eventually, move on and concentrate on the newer technology - FSX. Sooner or later, it just doesn't become financially viable for a company to develop for a product - meaning FS9 - when that development doesn't return the profits necessary to cover their costs.Now unless all of you are doing the books for these add-on developers, there is simply no way you can know whether or not they are profiting from the development of FS9 add-ons. Only the developer knows for sure whether or not they are able to financially justify the cost of developing for both FS9 and FSX. These developers are in business to make a profit because it makes no sense to invest time and money in creating a product when that product isn't going to make some sort of a profit. It's simple Business 101.No matter how much we, as the end users, love and are devoted to our dear old FS9, sooner or later, we have to let go of our "supersonic" platform and move on to a newer, albeit somewhat slower, widebody... a widebody in the form of FSX.I love FS9 just like many of you do... and I still have a dedicated computer running it... and thousands of dollars worth of add-ons for it. But I also now have a machine dedicated to FSX and I've suddenly found myself spending more and more time with that sim.. because there are so many new and wonderfully innovative products that exist only for FSX - products like FTX Australia, and the Flight 1 Cessna Mustang... and yes...PMDG JS41! And my FSX system is a mere C2Q-based system with an older nVidia 8800GTX and a few 7200rpm HDDs... yet it runs every single FSX add-on with suprising fluidity. It runs all of the above add-ons without a single stutter or hiccup.. and even more complex add-ons, like the 747-400X and the MD-11, run just as smooth.My whole point here is that it's ok to be devoted to FS9... for now.. but sooner or later, you're going to have to move on... whether to FSX or some other sim platform. Developers WILL inevitably abandon FS9.. just as they did FS2002, FS2000, and FS98... and like they will someday abandon FSX for whatever newer, more advanced platform comes along.Just food for thought, dear friends.- Alex

Wise words Alex .The only thing I would change would be to add

My whole point here is that it's ok to be devoted to FS9... for now.. but sooner or later, you're going to have to move on... whether to FSX or some other sim platform

If you really want to fly the likes of the Flight 1 Cessna Mustang...PMDG JS41. I am sensible enough to know that a time will come when a certain aircraft will come along for FSX only, and that will be the one that makes me switch .In fact I am dreading it :( as I said before I have a lot of money invested in FS9 .FSX is in the future for me at the moment , but just seeing what is waiting for me just gets better and better .Mark

Developers WILL inevitably abandon FS9.. just as they did FS2002, FS2000, and FS98... and like they will someday abandon FSX for whatever newer, more advanced platform comes along.Just food for thought, dear friends.- Alex

I don't know about wise words because FSX might not be the sim we all go to for obvious reasons... If we go on your analogy Alex, the 777/744/767 work as advertised even from the start. When these planes were released they flew and flew smoothly all the while giving more options and innovations... As you said the creature comforts outweigh the shorter flight time of the Concord. I can get on a slower widebody 777 and have everything at my fingertips with no help or coaxing things along. Things getting replaced in this world by things that aren't better in most every way don't cut it in this world. What ends up happening is something better comes along that truly is an advancement and that is what takes over. Windows Vista did not replace Windows XP especially in business market. It would have eventually if Microsoft closed shop... Windows 7 could but the OS to fully replace XP but that still hasn't happened. FS2k2 was replaced by FS2k4 because in every aspect it was better than the previous version. FSX is not better than FS9 in most aspects so it won't replace FS9 until the day hardware get's so fast that FSX can't help but run efficiently. Now that's hardware not FSX within itself just what would have been the case with Vista. If it weren't for Aces closure FSX would have been a dud in the Flight Simulator franchise much like Windows ME and Vista was for Windows. Seeing that FSX is all we have now and because of the shear cost of development nothing I feel will truly replace FSX until Microsoft brings Aces back online. X-Plane may catch up but that's a long shot because of an arrogant developer and Aerosoft's effort is truly a shot in the dark operating at a fraction of Flight Simulator's development cost. Today is not the day for FS9's retirement. Not until one could go to Best Buy, purchase a $700 PC, bring it home, and load up FSX with all options maxed including the ability to smoothing run add-ons will FS9 take it's final bow. We have a while before that happens...

Indeed, it would seem that I am an epic fail then. Thanks so much for pointing that out. You know what else is an epic fail? Someone with a "Commercial Member" tag coming into the thread with a personal attack. I find that kind of an attitutde strange at the very least, but whatever, if that's the way your company runs their business, more power to you.

As I've said a million times before. I don't work for any company. This "commercial member" thing only applies to developers afaik. I'm a beta tester now. I don't "run" a single thing. If I got even a penny for all the time I've spent testing and researching I'd probably have a stroke.I'm going back into my hole to hibernate in the PMDG support forum. :(

I don't know about wise words because FSX might not be the sim we all go to for obvious reasons... If we go on your analogy Alex, the 777/744/767 work as advertised even from the start. When these planes were released they flew and flew smoothly all the while giving more options and innovations... As you said the creature comforts outweigh the shorter flight time of the Concord. I can get on a slower widebody 777 and have everything at my fingertips with no help or coaxing things along. Things getting replaced in this world by things that aren't better in most every way don't cut it in this world. What ends up happening is something better comes along that truly is an advancement and that is what takes over. Windows Vista did not replace Windows XP especially in business market. It would have eventually if Microsoft closed shop... Windows 7 could but the OS to fully replace XP but that still hasn't happened. FS2k2 was replaced by FS2k4 because in every aspect it was better than the previous version. FSX is not better than FS9 in most aspects so it won't replace FS9 until the day hardware get's so fast that FSX can't help but run efficiently. Now that's hardware not FSX within itself just what would have been the case with Vista. If it weren't for Aces closure FSX would have been a dud in the Flight Simulator franchise much like Windows ME and Vista was for Windows. Seeing that FSX is all we have now and because of the shear cost of development nothing I feel will truly replace FSX until Microsoft brings Aces back online. X-Plane may catch up but that's a long shot because of an arrogant developer and Aerosoft's effort is truly a shot in the dark operating at a fraction of Flight Simulator's development cost. Not until one could go to Best Buy, purchase a $700 PC, bring it home, and load up FSX with all options maxed including the ability to smoothing run add-ons will FS9 take it's final bow.

You can stay with FS9 as long as you like! Enjoy it to your heart's content... and I'll keep enjoying the great performance and stunning visuals I get with FSX. :(