Ron,That's only half of it, however. If developers want that to happen, then they should produce products that people actually want.A perfect example would be this thread, which has mentioned the MD-11 and Jetstream. Not many operators utilize the MD-11. And the Jetstream...I haven't seen one in real life in years.

Of course that is true and I was not ignoring that fact.Please don't misunderstand, I run and enjoy both sims equally and have enjoyed developing for both.Only saying that for us, and apparently PMDG, F1, and others, that the returns on FS9 products is beginning to wane in comparison to the time and effort it takes.I suspect that over the next six to twelve months that this statement will be abundantly clear and FS9 users could end up wishing they had supported FS9 development in a stronger way.Just a little tea leaf reading and certainly not intended as gospel. :(

Ron, With all due respect.....once your DA-42 comes out for FS9 I will buy it. And after that release I don't care whether you support FS9 or not....you must do what is financially right for you. But, bear in mind....there are now and as far as we know only ever will be 2 flight sims: FS9 and FSX.... PERIOD. Aces is gone. Retro-developing may just be a way to add some $$$ to the bottom line....or not. Whatever. You are the expert.....so if FSX only, then thats the way it is. My flightsim days are winding down anyway....

I suspect that over the next six to twelve months that this statement will be abundantly clear and FS9 users could end up wishing they had supported FS9 development in a stronger way.

Excuse me? How many FS9 airliners were released in the past 12 months? One, just now. How do you expect us to support its development, when there are no products for us to buy? The FT ERJ and the Qualitysim 757 might prove to be the market test-cases, but then again - there already is the FT ERJ v.1, which a lot of people have and are perfectly happy with and there are two 757s on the market, the PSS and the CS, albeit both are crap, so there's some potential here for sales. Get a 737NG/Classic, a decent Airbus A32X, A330, A340 a CRJ-200/700/900 and last, but certainly not least and probably the most importantly a 777 in all variations done and then we can talk sales. Otherwise, seriously now...

If developers stop making what they feel like making and listen to customers sales would go better.

Customer comments mean a lot I'm sure. But developers have to be carefull not to be overly influenced by what might be a rather vocal minority who make a fair amount of noise about wanting a particular add-on developed, but who's views may not really represent the actual buying public.I think one has to consider several factors including their customers opinions, and their sales reports.Regards.Ernie.

....PMDG's JS41 -- What airline flies this aircraft these days??? Again FSX add-ons are limited these days so these guys will buy anything especially if it's half good....

Dillon, Half good ? You are obviously blinded by your hatred of FSX. You should do your homework first and have a look at the threads concerning probably one of the finest addons ever. This, as well as other statements such as 15+ minutes loading time for FSX (unless you have a serious hardware problem) prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I perfectly understand that you prefer FS9 but you are not helping anyone with your FSX bashing.

Ron, With all due respect.....once your DA-42 comes out for FS9 I will buy it. And after that release I don't care whether you support FS9 or not....you must do what is financially right for you. But, bear in mind....there are now and as far as we know only ever will be 2 flight sims: FS9 and FSX.... PERIOD. Aces is gone. Retro-developing may just be a way to add some $$$ to the bottom line....or not. Whatever. You are the expert.....so if FSX only, then thats the way it is. My flightsim days are winding down anyway....

Felixthreeone.I'll answer your question since the thread is already OT from the PMDG J41.We have three projects that we've commited to build for both sim versions and the DA42 Twinstar is one of those.We've decided that after those three are completed we will build for FSX only going forward.How and when we can actually impliment these changes is still to be determined but we will accomplish it in 2010. :(

Dillon, Half good ? You are obviously blinded by your hatred of FSX. You should do your homework first and have a look at the threads concerning probably one of the finest addons ever. This, as well as other statements such as 15+ minutes loading time for FSX (unless you have a serious hardware problem) prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I perfectly understand that you prefer FS9 but you are not helping anyone with your FSX bashing.

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=266371And this is just one example I could dig up recently...

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=266371And this is just one example I could dig up recently...

I found the same results when I did a fresh install of fsx on a newly formatted drive and a fresh system-though I am more at 22 seconds for the bootup of fsx.Then of course I reinstalled all my 100 add ons or so and increased the load time to about 30 seconds.....

My, my, I had no idea what I would unleash when I first posted my question 2 weeks ago--- :(

What point are you making when PMDG stated the NGX is going the be for both FSX and FS9 (something must have sold)? They wanted to try new things with the JS41 that were exclusive to FSX. I own the MD11 so that's a mute point. FSX still runs like crap and I honestly don't have an answer as to why so many choose to take a step back in performance just to have the perceived latest and greatest. I guess it's a classic case of Monkey see Monkey do. I like things like scenery shadows and full autogen, I want those things turned on. Things like slips and the feel of landing on water is virtually unchanged from FS9 and even if they were stuttering kills the immersion factor. I like many things in FSX but with nothing done to the ATC engine and the horrible performance/load times I find myself getting more efficiency out of FS9. There's allot who feel the same as I do that's why there will be someone out there making products for FS9. As you can see from the freeware downloads everyday FS9 still beats out FSX on a daily bases...

I couldnt say it better, and its the truth!.Just tell me what is ACTUALLY better? tell! (imho ACES shot themselves in the foot with this deeply)Even MS can make errors.."FSX still runs like crap and I honestly don't have an answer as to why so many choose to take a step back in performance just to have the perceived latest and greatest"Saw it lately on the simweekend in the Netherlands.. and guess what they all showed? default scenery, flying GA .. low and slow.. yeah, then it performs rather good.. throw in a bit more, and slideshow!.One can throw in tuning as he likes, FSX is not efficient use of the cpu. May look a tad better, but is that all you want? eye candy ?I love to have eyecandy, but not on the cost of IMMERSION!

Of course that is true and I was not ignoring that fact.Please don't misunderstand, I run and enjoy both sims equally and have enjoyed developing for both.Only saying that for us, and apparently PMDG, F1, and others, that the returns on FS9 products is beginning to wane in comparison to the time and effort it takes.I suspect that over the next six to twelve months that this statement will be abundantly clear and FS9 users could end up wishing they had supported FS9 development in a stronger way.Just a little tea leaf reading and certainly not intended as gospel. :(

Hi Ron,I think you and I had the same problem in a different thread...I can't remember which one though, where it's all about reading it wrong. I really need to stop doing that!Anyway, I can certainly see that the future holds more and more promise for FSX as time goes on, and eventually, it will be what the majority of all users use. I just read it as you pinning the blame that the lack of sales for FS9 solely on the buyer which I disagreed with.So, as usual, you say something, I take it to heart, and we end up in this situation!See you in the next thread having to do with this, or anything else controversial. :(

Hi Ron,I think you and I had the same problem in a different thread...I can't remember which one though, where it's all about reading it wrong. I really need to stop doing that!Anyway, I can certainly see that the future holds more and more promise for FSX as time goes on, and eventually, it will be what the majority of all users use. I just read it as you pinning the blame that the lack of sales for FS9 solely on the buyer which I disagreed with.So, as usual, you say something, I take it to heart, and we end up in this situation!See you in the next thread having to do with this, or anything else controversial. :(

No problem, it is all too easy for any of us to to miss the meaning in text based forums.No blame intended, just observations.It is interesting that some FS9 users state they want a hand full of mostly heavies and that's about it. :(

It is interesting that some FS9 users state they want a hand full of mostly heavies and that's about it. :(

Such silly comments will just enflame FS9 users.We want everything. It just the pony developers will not provide it.I loved the Nemeth brothers work ....where did they go?Thankfully Carenado are still supporting FS9.Eaglesoft should get busy with a TBM 700/850 or Dassault Falcon for FS9 IMHO.If you make a good job it it will sell.

Thanks for calling for something other than another heavy.You may think my observations are "silly" but a reread of this and threads related and you'll see those very statements from FS9 users.By the way, it's an observation, nothing more and nothing less.Happy Thanksgiving. :(

Thanks for calling for something other than another heavy.You may think my observations are "silly" but a reread of this and threads related and you'll see those very statements from FS9 users.By the way, it's an observation, nothing more and nothing less.Happy Thanksgiving. :(

Ron anything you guys make we'll buy in the corporate jet side of things. Don't get the wrong idea here (re-read my post above). We mention heavies because there's still some that need to be done that developers are passing by in favor of the same birds over and over again. Nothing is stopping you guys from doing an awesome A300 either... But the main point here is FS9 users are mostly heavy fliers not slow and low. That's why FSX didn't win us over. Just the same theres nothing stopping you guys from bringing to market a BBJ, Falcon 2000EX, and/or a Hawker 900XP (don't wait until your doing FSX only and say a point was proven, these birds will sell for FS9 at the same rate). There's no one here on either the FSX side or the FS9 side that wouldn't buy those birds...I think the big disconnect here is you haven't released any new models in quite some time. If you were releasing models at the frequency you once were you would see a different picture in FS9 sales. You opted in the last few releases to make birds like the Cirrus and Piper Twin instead of what made you guys popular from the start (the very point everyone is making here)... You produced birds that were nice but not what FS9 users really wanted and didn't bother to ask customers what they wanted let alone heeding to the many requests that people were giving you in your forums and others. You actually shut many down with their request and flat out told them in so many words, "Eaglesoft makes what we feel like making" (I'm paraphrasing here). I like the Cirrus and Piper twin but let's face it only those on the FSX side where GA is more of a visual feast will get the best bang for their buck. Redo that Premier and see how well it sells on both sides. Many have asked you about this and you refused for whatever reason. This has nothing to do with market potential for FS9 products but rather a choice by a developer not to exploit the products that will sell even when the very buying public is telling the said developer specifically what they want and will buy... I'm giving very valid/true examples here that everyone knows who's dealt with you can attest to... Like I said it's not rocket science yet many of you developers refuse to do what you know the people actually want. When what you've made is not successful (because you wouldn't listen) you want to throw the baby out with the bath water... You won't take a poll, you do the birds you want to do not what the buying public ask you to do, and then turn around and complain the market for one sim is going south. That's just BS with all due respect... Start making jets again and see for yourself. Again FSX users are buying anything because there's so little in comparison for that sim versus FS9. Now is that good business to give people anything on a platform because you know they'll take anything or do what what everyone is asking and make double the profit. Maybe you guys don't have access to a Hawker 900, at least say that but don't start selling low and slow with a public begging for jets and say the market is going south when your choice is what has went south. What I'm afraid of is you 'WILL' start doing the birds we all want on both sides after dropping FS9 development. You have a few winners in the stable that are going to be for FS9, give those a chance to show you something and then make your final decision. If you still go by way of 'FSX only' that only shows once again you guys do what you want which has nothing to do with the market but more so your own personal choice (which eventually with hurt FSX sales as time goes by). I know we'll buy more birds like the Beechjet and Citation X with no problem on the FS9 side, Feelthere is proving that...