and what would those be? eye candy or actual function? can the engine simulation not be done in FS9? is the flight model not usable in FS9? or is it issues of the 3D 'eye candy' in the panel and airframe?--

Wow. People honestly should learn how FSX works before they start saying that its just a bunch of eye-candy on top of FS9. FSX SDK aircraft (native) have 2 models: one for the virtual cockpit and one for the external view which removes polygon limits from FS9 and helps improve performance. This kind of model is not backwards compatible with FS9. FS9 model aircraft are just one combined model.FSX has simconnect which is basically like FSUIPC in a sense and it allows the developer to use Visual .NET, C, C++, etc programming to extend FSX even further but using it to implement features/addons, and also serves as interface for data exports/imports for external developer programs. I am probably not even stating 1/10 of what simconnect can do. The possibilities are almost endless with it. I bet the REX developer team used simconnect to work on cloud shadowing for FSX.FSX has multicore support and has fibers (similar to threads) to help performance on single and multicore CPUs, unlike FS9 which has no multicore support implemented in its code. You may get a work around with task manager's "Set Affinity" option.There is also so much more. FSX uses XML for most functions, camera views are redesigned, etc. In other words porting from FSX to FS9 is difficult and time consuming, while porting from FS9 to FSX is easier but results in poorly done projects with many bugs, possibly less performance, limitations carried from FS9, etc. FS9 is dying. Live with it. I'm sorry but if people want to be able to play the latest thing, you have to stay on top of the game. You cannot expect to run any modern game with a 2.0GHz dual core CPU with a 256MB graphics card, even if it was high end at its release. If you enjoy technology and flight sim... save your money towards hardware and instead of going to Starbucks every day, or buying fresh Einstein bagels every morning, use towards something else and eat at home.

LOL...I think it is fair to say that FSX has split the FS community. :(

What in the world possessed you to go from Vista SP2 down to an RTM Windows 7. You know just about everything you need is either shipped with Framework 4 or C++ 2008 packs :)

LOL...I think it is fair to say that FSX has split the FS community. :(

Lol Ed, you just about nailed it there. Incredible how people will fight about those two titles.

Lol Ed, you just about nailed it there. Incredible how people will fight about those two titles.

I'll just fly,then.Hate fighting a fight which doesn't need to be fought,anyway.cheersJP.

Wow. People honestly should learn how FSX works before they start saying that its just a bunch of eye-candy on top of FS9. FSX SDK aircraft (native) have 2 models: one for the virtual cockpit and one for the external view which removes polygon limits from FS9 and helps improve performance. This kind of model is not backwards compatible with FS9. FS9 model aircraft are just one combined model.FSX has simconnect which is basically like FSUIPC in a sense and it allows the developer to use Visual .NET, C, C++, etc programming to extend FSX even further but using it to implement features/addons, and also serves as interface for data exports/imports for external developer programs. I am probably not even stating 1/10 of what simconnect can do. The possibilities are almost endless with it. I bet the REX developer team used simconnect to work on cloud shadowing for FSX.FSX has multicore support and has fibers (similar to threads) to help performance on single and multicore CPUs, unlike FS9 which has no multicore support implemented in its code. You may get a work around with task manager's "Set Affinity" option.There is also so much more. FSX uses XML for most functions, camera views are redesigned, etc. In other words porting from FSX to FS9 is difficult and time consuming, while porting from FS9 to FSX is easier but results in poorly done projects with many bugs, possibly less performance, limitations carried from FS9, etc. FS9 is dying. Live with it. I'm sorry but if people want to be able to play the latest thing, you have to stay on top of the game. You cannot expect to run any modern game with a 2.0GHz dual core CPU with a 256MB graphics card, even if it was high end at its release. If you enjoy technology and flight sim... save your money towards hardware and instead of going to Starbucks every day, or buying fresh Einstein bagels every morning, use towards something else and eat at home.

Your points are mostly concerning visuals or you can also call it eye candy! :( Wolfgang

All you FSX guys just check out how many FS9 files are added to the Avsim library daily (lots and lots) and how many FSX files (just a few). Generally there is not so much freeware around for FSX!I wonder why this is? :( Wolfgang

You cannot expect to run any modern game with a 2.0GHz dual core CPU with a 256MB graphics card, even if it was high end at its release.

Which is possibly one of the reasons Microsoft abandoned development of FS11. Most of its target market wouldn't have a high-spec gaming PC - most would have a mid-range PC and would expect a game to run on that. I suggest that Microsoft decided that it wasn't viable to continue development for the small, enthusiasts, market. It's reported that 1.2 million copies of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 were sold in the UK on its first day of release, grossing

1 - FSX does not do 'most functions' in XML.2 - SimConnect is not an ideal replacement for FSUIPC, it was intended as such... but didn't quite make it.3 - Developing for FS9 and FSX is more or less the same path with exception of the 3D modelling, which is 'eye candy'.

All you FSX guys just check out how many FS9 files are added to the Avsim library daily (lots and lots) and how many FSX files (just a few). Generally there is not so much freeware around for FSX!I wonder why this is? :( Wolfgang

This thread doesn't concern freeware... we're debating payware add-ons here... But if you want to bring in statistics, go to Simmarket or FlightSim Store and see how many releases there are for FSX vs FS9. On Simmarket, 10 of the last 12 releases are FSX only... 1 is for both FSX and FS9 version and only 1 is for FS9.Looks like an overwhelming trend amongst payware developers to lean towards FSX :( Naturally, freeware developers are going to gravitate towards FS9 because it isn't as complex or time-consuming to develop for FS9 as it is for FSX... but if you're counting things like WOAI releases and AI aircraft repaints in general (which are, by far the most uploaded items) you'll notice that they are not FS9 exclusive, rather they are for both FS9 and FSX.The fact is that amongst add-on aircraft developers, very few are developing exclusively for FS9. Those who do still create add-ons for FS9 are also developing for FSX... scenery developers tend to develop for both platforms, but more and more NEW aircraft releases are FSX exclusive.PMDG is one of those developers who favors the FSX platform. releasing the JS41 for FSX only is evidence of that. Also, their upcoming Dash 8 product will be for FSX only. Beyond that, though... if they DO release the 737NGX for FS9, there is really very little doubt that it will be their final FS9 release. But you must remember that no one has said that it is wrong to favor FS9 over FSX... all that is being said is that there is an overwhelming trend amongst payware developers to migrate towards FSX.

Naturally, freeware developers are going to gravitate towards FS9 because it isn't as complex or time-consuming to develop for FS9 as it is for FSX...

That's an inaccurate statement. The complexity is nearly identical for FS9 vs FSX. The real difference is that the SDK was handed out for free across the internet for FS9, and for FSX you have to purchase the full version of the sim to be able to install the SDK from it's CD.

Wow all these thread pages is about this? "trend amongst payware developers to migrate towards FSX." :( This thread seems to me to be a psychologist's dream "Why do FSX a really excited user's insist on coming to a FS9 forum to tell us their sim is best?"We FSniner's know full well why we choose FS9 and as far as I know do not go to the FSX forum to dictate to them how they should use their sim.Both sim's have their strong/weak point's..... I can only hope that payware developer's will develop for both sim's because of the love of aviation.

Wow all these thread pages is about this? "trend amongst payware developers to migrate towards FSX." :( This thread seems to me to be a psychologist's dream "Why do FSX a really excited user's insist on coming to a FS9 forum to tell us their sim is best?"We FSniner's know full well why we choose FS9 and as far as I know do not go to the FSX forum to dictate to them how they should use their sim.Both sim's have their strong/weak point's..... I can only hope that payware developer's will develop for both sim's because of the love of aviation.

Where did I say that FSX is best?And this isn't your forum.. it is OUR forum... I use FS9 just as much as I use FSX... And I'm not dictating anything to you... we all know your disdain for FSX and that's fine... we're discussing why a certain product is not going to be created for FS9... no one is calling you a whiner or anything else.

Naturally, freeware developers are going to gravitate towards FS9 because it isn't as complex or time-consuming to develop for FS9 as it is for FSX...

And this is exactly why FS9 isn't going anywhere... Freeware has always been the driving force behind Flight Simulator because of a love for the hobby not the dollar. It wasn't until FS9 that this slightly began to change thanks to the new technology of VC's among other things but FS9 was still easy to develop for with freeware tools like GMAX (I remember people used to scoff at the concept of purchasing add-ons)... Payware houses can only last for so long and if there's nothing coming up to replace them from the freeware side of the hobby a void is created. Payware alone can't drive FS and keep it alive. We need fresh talent and a platform that's easy for a budding artist to grow. Again here's another area FSX hasn't replaced FS9 and most likely never will. If freeware developers never fully embrace FSX it will never replace FS9.

Where did I say that FSX is best?

You've been making quit a case for it...

Though I promised to myself I wouldn't go for another FS9/FSX discussion, reading some of the above statements I felt a human desire to express myself. :( I don't know all of you guys' financial status. I am neither poor nor rich. Just an average Joe (I only mean money, lol). I chose flight simulation to be my hobby (not the only one, by the way). Simualtaneously I lead a normal life, full of expenses. I'm neither Bill Gates nor Father Rydzyk. I can spend only as much money as I have. And simulation is not first on my list of needs. Still I find my wife to be very understanding. Though we have a common bank account, she does not mind my spending money on flightsim addons. For me switching to FS9 was NOT the same as going from FS98 to FS2000 and then to FS2002 (I also tried Fly!, Flight Unlimited, X Plane, etc). FS2004 became (IMHO) an extremely good platform for this hobby. I know there were and are a lot of people feeling the same. So I decided to seriously base my simaviation on it. I did spend a lot of money to make the FS9 world 'as real as it gets'. On the one hand I have built a basic home flightdeck using various hardware controllers. This can be used on many platforms I guess (I'm not testing it though). But on the other hand I bought numerous addon sceneries, airplanes, utilities and supporting applications for FS9. As a result I created a world which looks and sounds very realistic, has RW weather, photorealistic clouds, exact water, mesh and road systems, detailed aerodromes, hard core airplanes, current navdata, etc. I feel great in it, especially when flying online (VATSIM) with real procedures and real people around.And now: taking into consideration how much I spent on it (it did NOT come easy to ME), but also (maybe even first of all) how SATISFIED I am with it, why should I restart all that again to change the FS digit '9' into letter 'X'? Especially that I know most of the features I had expected from FSX were simply never implemented in it. FSX was a disappointment to MY expectations.If I were brand new in flightsimming, with no addons (and the knowledge and experience I have), I would surely start with FSX (why turning back in time to FS9?), buy a modern PC to run it well and start getting good payware addons for it. So I also understand developers who want money and they get more from FSX addons these days. C'est la vie!If someone is not satisfied with FS9 for his or her reasons and finds FSX to be so good to justify opening another bag of money for it, I personally see no problem. I never call FSX users 'FSX a really excited user', moaners or something else (we, FS9ers, are often called like that). Why should I? For me FS9 is the BEST flightsim platform. If someone is trying to tell me I'm wrong, it makes me wonder what all that is about. I do read threads about FSX-only addons (PMDG, OrbiX or Aerosoft) since flightsimming is my hobby. If I could afford it, I might even be runnig both platforms now to be able to use all addons I want. What is really better in FSX for ME (except for the ground textures and Earths' curvature I mentioned somewhere earlier) is the addons I can't have in FS9. I will however live with it.Good flights to everyone! Either in FS9 or FSX of course (FS2002 too if you like).