It isn't just heavies for me. I can't add GA aircraft with anything other than simple avionics to FSX without a serious framerate hit. Planes that had a minimal hit in FS9 have a serious hit in FSX. 3rd party scenery? Forget it. I have no idea how the JS41 would run in FSX but I'm sure the FPS hit would be unacceptable to me. I want smooth flight, and the only way FSX gives that to me is if I add nothing to it.

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...

At least three years if we didn't have anything else in the pipeline prevents us from pursuing an FS9 A300. We currently have four in the pipeline for both FS9 and FSX.When those are completed, we have two outstanding projects in the back hanger awaiting their turn.As I've mentioned, we are evaluting the numbers on projects released for both versions and the FS9 numbers are not as pleasing as the FSX numbers for the exact same aircraft.

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. [/qoute]We make no apologies for the Cirrus Series, the Twin Comanche, the Columbia 400, or even the little Liberty XL2. :(

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.

First, no complaints, no blame, no whineing over the current state of FS9 sales, just observations. No need for a poll. Just read the threads about what folks want and the predominate theme is I'm NOT going to FSX and if devs want my FS9 dollar they will build the heavies that I want to spend my hobby dollars on..You've just supported my observations in the quote above where you favor heavies over what we think are some pretty nice GA offerings.As to ever doing a proper job on the Premier1, that one is waaay down the list behind some very exciting Corporate offerings which MAY be for FSX only. :(

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 .

Don't want to burst your bubble but we see no value in BS, period. :(

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...

What some seem to miss is that to do an exact replica for both sim versions effectively doubles the workload but does not effectively double the ROI.Do you own FS9 CX Extreme 2.0? With the current work on a hotfix for that aircraft it will have finally reached maturity. It would be rather dumb for us to have not been comparing numbers for a while now.Please understand that it matters not to us what others including FT/Wilco do with regard to FS9 development. They have their track, we have ours. B)

Well Ron, As I have said before in many other forums in the community....We who still use FS9 are EXTREMELY grateful for developers of your caliber supporting us. Period. I primarily fly GA,corporate, and military... although I do own and love the PMDG 737... but what happens as far as airliners and heavies is of little importance to me and my local FS ibnet friends. And since I fly a Cirrus SR-20 in real life, I truly enjoy your Cirrus lineup...despite the fs limitations regarding one or two systems. And so long as Eaglesoft, as well as a select few other developers out there, continue supporting FS9 we will keep on buying. Thank you for great products that continually deliver the smiles!

Well Ron,As I have said before in many other forums in the community....We who still use FS9 are EXTREMELY grateful for developers of your caliber supporting us. Period. I primarily fly GA,corporate, and military... although I do own and love the PMDG 737... but what happens as far as airliners and heavies is of little importance to me and my local FS ibnet friends. And since I fly a Cirrus SR-20 in real life, I truly enjoy your Cirrus lineup...despite the fs limitations regarding one or two systems. And so long as Eaglesoft, as well as a select few other developers out there, continue supporting FS9 we will keep on buying. Thank you for great products that continually deliver the smiles!

Many thanks Felix. As mentioned earlier, we like FS9 and will continue to evaluate whether FS9 work can be justified on an ROI basis. :(

Les,I'm not quite sure what we did to upset you so much, but some of the stuff you've said here is downright nasty...Let me address a couple things:1. There is no decision yet on the NG 2.0 being FSX exclusive. Right now, the plan is still dual platform but as Robert said, that may change when we actually release. I don't think I need to tell anyone that this release is in the very distant future - to think that there will have been no change in getting FSX to run well between now and release is fantasy. We'll likely be on the successor to the Core i7 by the time this release happens. The i7 can already run FSX at more than flyable framerates and there's no reason to suspect anything other than the fact that its successor will run it extremely well, much like Core 2s can run FS9.2. Regarding your assertions about the MD-11 and J41, explain to me then why the FSX MD-11 outsold the FS9 one by a 3 to 1 margin and explain to me why we saw torrents that had something like 20,000 combined seeds and peers on them downloading the FS9 MD-11 just a day or two after release? Nothing even close to that number of pirates existed as far as the FSX version is concerned. The J41 is now our best selling product since the original 747 in 2005 - there's no problem at all with sales on it. 3. The FS9 MD-11's VC is significantly lower quality both in the polygon count and the texture resolution than the FSX version is. The assertion that there's no difference between them is not true at all. We used several techniques in the J41's VC that are just flat out not possible in FS9 to begin with. Regardless of what you think of FSX personally, it absolutely does allow us to do things that can't be done in FS9.4. I also very much disagree with the notion that developers should only create aircraft that are in current use by US airlines. The MD-11 is still to this day a highly advanced aircraft, it's a mainstay of cargo fleets worldwide and of several European passenger carriers and above all it represents something very different from any other airliner out there in terms of how the cockpit systems actually function. The J41, in addition to being an interesting aircraft to learn systems wise, is also something Robert wanted to do for a very long time due to his thousands of real world hours in the plane, which played heavily into our decision to create a simulation of it despite it being largely out of service.You're "flying" a simulator here - why limit yourself to only learning aircraft that are in current US passenger service? I fly our 747 and MD-11 on super short routes all the time - yes, it's unrealistic from the perspective of a real airline schedule, but so what? If you went solely on real world use in the US, developers would be making 737NGs, CRJs and A320s over and over.5. The inescapable truth here flowing from the above is that the majority of people with money to spend have purchased systems that run FSX well and a high percentage of the people who've stayed on FS9 are pirating addons. Don't misunderstand me, I am NOT accusing anyone here who is asking for FS9 versions of piracy, I'm just stating that this is the truth when you view the entire FS9 user base, not just a vocal minority who post here on Avsim. We are well aware of the fact that there's dedicated FS9 users here who will purchase. The problem is that it's such a huge discrepancy that we're finding it very hard to justify the extra development time and money when we know we're going to sit there and watch it get pirated tens of thousands of times.I hope this lays to rest some of the more outlandish theories going on here. This is a business we're running and we can't just go and do things that don't make sense based on the best data we have about what the full spectrum of our user base wants.

Personally I don't understand why more FS9 users didn't buy the MD-11 (I bought mine the first day it was released) as it is possibly the finest heavy jet addon ever released for FS9. Who cares if it wasn't a success in real life? I'm not a pilot in real life either, but it doesn't stop me from flying across the Pacific when I feel like it. I read the reviews when something new is released, and if it's good I'll generally buy it, GA or heavy. A few developers get my money no questions asked (Dreamfleet and PMDG spring to mind). I mightn't use the addon for a while (at the moment I'm playing with heavy iron, but a month or so ago I did an around the world trip using only GA planes, and that took me the best part of two months), but I know that if I don't support the developers I like, they won't support me in the future. At least what I've got will still work in a couple of years, so when the flow of FS9 addons does dry up (and it's not too far away IMHO) I'll have a load of addons that I've barely scratched the surface with to keep me occupied for years to come.One of these days I'm going to work out all the nifty things that the Avidyne in the SR-22 can do for me! Same with the RXP-530. I haven't even played with the failures system on the PMDG 747 or MD-11, and I've had the 747 since 2006. I'm in FS heaven today, and if no-one makes quality addons for FS9 anymore, I'll be saving money, I guess. But FSGenesis will get my money for the new North Atlantic mesh, even if I'm not really going to spend a whole lot of time over Greenland or Iceland, but Justin needs support, and if I don't support his product, there won't be any new product.The ball's in the FS9 user's court, and it's up to us whether FS9 continues to prosper or quietly fades away like it's predecessors. I hope the developers don't drop FS9, but if they do, hey, thanks for what you've made already. I'm gonna keep using it.Cheers, SLuggy

Surely the whole point here, is that developers invest their time and money in projects that they believe will bring them an adequate return so it's their decision. If they get it right they make money: if they don't they lose money.Those who don't like the developer's choices are perfectly free to raise the resources to develop what they want themselves.

we saw torrents that had something like 20,000 combined seeds and peers on them downloading the FS9 MD-11 just a day or two after release? Nothing even close to that number of pirates existed as far as the FSX version is concerned

Ryan,Now that's very interesting. Really. I also make some of my money on intellectual property people copy illegally. So I am more than a bit interested in this question. Do you have any idea why it is so? So many stolen copies for FS9 and so few for FSX. Isn't it connected with the fact that there are still more FS9 users than FSX ones? I'm really willing to hear any rational theory, especially by a professional developer like you.Another reason I care is that I'm an FS9er myself. So words like yours, though true, make me feel embarrassed at least.

Now that's very interesting. Really. I also make some of my money on intellectual property people copy illegally. So I am more than a bit interested in this question. Do you have any idea why it is so? So many stolen copies for FS9 and so few for FSX. Isn't it connected with the fact that there are still more FS9 users than FSX ones? I'm really willing to hear any rational theory, especially by a professional developer like you.

Well, there

And I will again reiterate - I have, by today's standards, a whopping monster of a machine and cannot for the life of me get FSX running at anything close to the performance I get out of FS9, even with various tweaks. That is the ONLY reason I am staying with FS9 for the time being. Granted, in the absence of AI and complex sceneries - FSX runs ok. Alas, I refuse to fly in a vacuum.For the record, I've bought the MD-11 mostly to show my support for PMDG developing for FS9. As impressive of a simulation as it is, I hardly fly the thing - I'm just not much of a cargo hauler. In my opinion the number of illegal torrents is indicative of two things - a large FS9 user base and the ridiculous prices of add-ons. Does that make theft ok? Absolutely not. Nothing ever does. Stealing food when you have nothing to eat and can't afford to buy any - that's excusable, or at least understandable on a humane level. Stealing software that's not a basic need - never.

I think a very good post about FS9 vs FSX features from a developer's point of view has already been made here: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1629997Also, many things that can be done in both sims, are easier to do in FSX - but again, if you go the easy way, your code won't be compatible with FS2004.

Pirating can happen both with FSX and FS9 add-ons. There's nothing out there that excludes FSX from add-on theft. I can understand 'today' the mentality that surrounds FSX where a person that has the resources to spend $3,000 on a new machine every other year to get that much more performance out of FSX has no problem purchasing FSX add-ons. But how long will that last??? In a few years all of us will be using FSX then what are developers to do (stop making FSX add-ons and go with X-Plane?). I think developers need to get a handle on this theft problem now as it will only become a greater problem down the road when there is no alternative simulation that those with extra disposable cash can gravitating to. Letting this be another motivation to stop FS9 development is not very smart when this time could be better spent in researching how to better protect against this problem all around.

Ryan,Now that's very interesting. Really. I also make some of my money on intellectual property people copy illegally. So I am more than a bit interested in this question. Do you have any idea why it is so? So many stolen copies for FS9 and so few for FSX. Isn't it connected with the fact that there are still more FS9 users than FSX ones? I'm really willing to hear any rational theory, especially by a professional developer like you.Another reason I care is that I'm an FS9er myself. So words like yours, though true, make me feel embarrassed at least.

Simply put, we think there's a certain type of user out there who has a very outdated system that can't run FSX well. They don't have the money to upgrade to an i7 rig (one theory is that a lot of these people are minors and can't convince their parents to buy them a nice machine to play "games" on) and they acquire addons through piracy on torrent sites and the like. Quite frankly it's people who think they're entitled to have whatever's out there that will run on their machine and not pay for it. You should have seen how upset some of the people on these file sharing sites got when we placed some anti-piracy "timebombs" in the service updates for the MD-11. The amount of whining by people who'd never paid us a dime for four years of our work was astounding, many of them claiming they were going to "file a lawsuit" against us and other such absurdities.Again, I don't want anyone to take this as us thinking that people here on Avsim who support FS9 are pirates, that's not at all the issue. It's people in the silent majority who don't post on forums and aren't members of the community here that we're talking about. I know it may seem hard to believe because Avsim is a big place in terms of the FS community, but only a tiny tiny fraction of simmers actually post here. We never hear from fully 90% of the people who actually purchase our products even.

Simply put, we think there's a certain type of user out there who has a very outdated system that can't run FSX well. They don't have the money to upgrade to an i7 rig (one theory is that a lot of these people are minors and can't convince their parents to buy them a nice machine to play "games" on) and they acquire addons through piracy on torrent sites and the like.

That's a good read with interesting characters. I still like the simpler and better explanation. FS9 has a larger installed base, as others have previously stated.Even the point about those who don't have to money to upgrade seems like over-reading. Minor who can't convince their parents to by them a nice machine to play games on? That's one possible explanation, out of many equally likely scenarios. If you base this on emails, that simply indicates what group is dumb enough to send email requesting support for a pirated copy -- minors -- is that surprising?

Again, I don't want anyone to take this as us thinking that people here on Avsim who support FS9 are pirates, that's not at all the issue. It's people in the silent majority who don't post on forums and aren't members of the community here that we're talking about. I know it may seem hard to believe because Avsim is a big place in terms of the FS community, but only a tiny tiny fraction of simmers actually post here. We never hear from fully 90% of the people who actually purchase our products even.

So you believe the "silent majority" of FS9 users are pirates? Because you counted more torrent downloads than FS9 customers? Wow, I can see how it would be hard to develop for FS9 if you think that way.

Les,I'm not quite sure what we did to upset you so much, but some of the stuff you've said here is downright nasty...Let me address a couple things:1. There is no decision yet on the NG 2.0 being FSX exclusive. Right now, the plan is still dual platform but as Robert said, that may change when we actually release. I don't think I need to tell anyone that this release is in the very distant future - to think that there will have been no change in getting FSX to run well between now and release is fantasy. We'll likely be on the successor to the Core i7 by the time this release happens. The i7 can already run FSX at more than flyable framerates and there's no reason to suspect anything other than the fact that its successor will run it extremely well, much like Core 2s can run FS9.2. Regarding your assertions about the MD-11 and J41, explain to me then why the FSX MD-11 outsold the FS9 one by a 3 to 1 margin and explain to me why we saw torrents that had something like 20,000 combined seeds and peers on them downloading the FS9 MD-11 just a day or two after release? Nothing even close to that number of pirates existed as far as the FSX version is concerned. The J41 is now our best selling product since the original 747 in 2005 - there's no problem at all with sales on it. 3. The FS9 MD-11's VC is significantly lower quality both in the polygon count and the texture resolution than the FSX version is. The assertion that there's no difference between them is not true at all. We used several techniques in the J41's VC that are just flat out not possible in FS9 to begin with. Regardless of what you think of FSX personally, it absolutely does allow us to do things that can't be done in FS9.4. I also very much disagree with the notion that developers should only create aircraft that are in current use by US airlines. The MD-11 is still to this day a highly advanced aircraft, it's a mainstay of cargo fleets worldwide and of several European passenger carriers and above all it represents something very different from any other airliner out there in terms of how the cockpit systems actually function. The J41, in addition to being an interesting aircraft to learn systems wise, is also something Robert wanted to do for a very long time due to his thousands of real world hours in the plane, which played heavily into our decision to create a simulation of it despite it being largely out of service.You're "flying" a simulator here - why limit yourself to only learning aircraft that are in current US passenger service? I fly our 747 and MD-11 on super short routes all the time - yes, it's unrealistic from the perspective of a real airline schedule, but so what? If you went solely on real world use in the US, developers would be making 737NGs, CRJs and A320s over and over.5. The inescapable truth here flowing from the above is that the majority of people with money to spend have purchased systems that run FSX well and a high percentage of the people who've stayed on FS9 are pirating addons. Don't misunderstand me, I am NOT accusing anyone here who is asking for FS9 versions of piracy, I'm just stating that this is the truth when you view the entire FS9 user base, not just a vocal minority who post here on Avsim. We are well aware of the fact that there's dedicated FS9 users here who will purchase. The problem is that it's such a huge discrepancy that we're finding it very hard to justify the extra development time and money when we know we're going to sit there and watch it get pirated tens of thousands of times.I hope this lays to rest some of the more outlandish theories going on here. This is a business we're running and we can't just go and do things that don't make sense based on the best data we have about what the full spectrum of our user base wants.

Ryan I will answer your points one by one:1- You seem to tie your decision to release an FS9 version for the NGX by the availability of hardware that run FSX smoothly and the hope that many users will upgrade their systems. I think you should tie your decision to the number of FS9 users who are willing to purchase the NGX when it comes out. Captain Sim used the same argument (I'm not saying you're following their foot steps). They want eveyone to move to FSX and if their sales aren't good enough they'll blame the users for not upgrading instead of themselves for not putting an adequate market strategy.2- The MD-11 for FSX outsold the FS9 one by a 3 to 1 margin. Does that include the combo package? Remember that the MD-11 FSX came out before and some poeple were waiting for a long time to put their hands on this bird even if they will fly it with 10 FPS! Some other users like me preferred the combo package because of the special discount you gave and because it's always good to have both versions at hand just in case an upgarde would occur, their addon boxes won't be empty. As for the piracy, there is no reason why FSX addons shouldn't be as much pirated as FS9 addons except for the fact that FS9 is more popular than FSX as some argued before. I think the technology that protects the software from piracy is simulator independant. Correct me if I'm wrong.3- No one in this forum (neither on this planet) is questionning the truth that says FSX is better in terms of modeling than FS9. At the same time, no rational FS9 user is asking for the same level of detail as FSX. Just something that runs like your 747 and MD-11 and he will be happy. Forget about the VC details, because you have the best VCs in FS9.4- Here I agree 100%.5- Let me ask you a question: suppose there is no FSX, would you stop making addons just because of the pirates? There is always piracy so and long as the sun rises everyday. You should focus on how to combat piracy irrespective of which simulator you're emphasizing.If I were you here is a strategy that I should follow:A- Do a market research (like Aerosoft does)B- If the research says that the majority of cash flow comes from FSX, go for the one version.C- If the research says it's 50-50, go for an FSX version, a combo version and no FS9 version.I think case C should be fair enough for you since a guy who needs the FS9 version will pay more than the FSX version. What do you think?