Why so few FS9 purchases lately?

[Mike... 7]

Interesting topic. I've wondered about that myself recently and came to the same conclusion, release an interesting product and I will buy it.I bought the new Porto scenery last week, so it's not like I don't buy anything anymore, but at the moment there's a shortage of quality products. Fortunately, there are a lot of interesting products in final stages of development, likely to be released right in time for the holidays... Aircraft (QW 757), sceneries (EHAM, KBOS, EDDM, EGCC, KDFW, PHNL, etc...), texture enhancements (REX). All of which I will most likely buy.

which makes one question-why are you still with fs9?

Let me ask you, why does one need to upgrade to FSX? Personally, I fly short to medium haul in lite-ish aircraft from one addon scenery to the other, enjoying all (100%) the AI I spend more time on than flying, using default ATC. I have invested an incredible amount of time and money in my setup, adddons, and hardware over the years (currently E8400, 9600GT). Microsoft in its infinite wisdom deemed the default ATC and AI legacy so it did squat to improve those features in FSX. Why would I upgrade to FSX if everything's working peachy at the moment?Don't mean to get in to this again, but some need to stop kidding themselves that performance is the only issue "holding people back", it's not.

[slait 169]

So what I get from this thread... unless you're making unique scenery... or heavy iron (and still rather select ones)... don't bother with FS9... there's no interest.

Funny, because what I'm taking from this thread is that quality in an FS9 product is now a lot more important than it was when the products were few and far between. Something that lends itself nicely to a newer FSX where people buy products simply because of a lack in choice. Fewer products exist then more people buy the ones that do. In FS9 there is still a plethora of choices with respect to new products, but in order to sell they need to be of a high quality, not just a product that lacks options.

[wombat778 0]

In FS9 there is still a plethora of choices with respect to new products, but in order to sell they need to be of a high quality, not just a product that lacks options.

I'm not sure that makes sense. I don't think there is any doubt that the PMDG MD-11 is extremely "high quality", and yet it has sold poorly on FS9 compared to the FSX version (according to PMDG). The argument I hear is that the low FS9 MD-11 sales are because it is a "niche" product that FS9ers aren't interested in. That may be true, but it leads to the conclusion that developers of "niche" products should not bother developing for FS9 and should concentrate on FSX where such products are appreciated and sell well. I think that was the point that WarpD was trying to make (please correct me if I am wrong).

[JP_Visser 3]

I'll only buy : good sceneries.As for planes : a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400 ,a 737NG with more systems simulated as the current PMDG offering, and a good 757.God knows I've waited all my fs9 life for a good 757 to come along.I'm astounded sometimes by the choices developers make,and even more surprised they blame us for the impact on sales of their subject choice.I think the reason the PMDG JS4100 is selling is because it is well done,and very innovative,n

[out 769]

some need to stop kidding themselves that performance is the only issue "holding people back", it's not.

It's sooo true! But don't waste too much of your energy on saying so. It has been said so many times by so many (including myself) and many FSX users still repeat that point in the (pointless) FS9/FSX discussions.I think that there is something in human mentality telling (some of) us than if something is newer it MUST be better. Why? Because... it's newer.

[Orlaam 320]

HelloThe DA cheyenne has a config option to replace the trimble with the reality XP GNS430, much better

Please tell me where to find this info. Everywhere I've looked on the DA forums and other forums (RXP Simforums) make it sound like it doesn't work. Most people tried to replace it with the 530, which I have, but would rather just the 430. Plus, they all said it needed some replacing the switch for the NAV/GPS or it won't drive the CDI. I need a no-brainer instruction guide or cfg file because I've never been able to figure out how to place the RXP GPS in a plane before.

[Guest Feather]

Since I prefer the Trimble I cannot tell you how to replace it, but here

[Glynn 405]

EditFeather beat me to it :(

[Orlaam 320]

Since I prefer the Trimble I cannot tell you how to replace it, but here

[Glynn 405]

Well, I guess it's worth a try. Seems like it'll take some playing around to get it to work or fit in the same spot. I wanted to like the Trimble, but lately after the latest updates I've noticed that it doesn't seem to follow the correct track and I can't figure out how to activate IAPs without jumping through hoops. It shouldn't be so difficult to activate each leg. The RXP Garmins are so nice. You quickly pick your approach/IAP and load or activate, that's it. Plus, you get much more useful info the Trimble lacks like density altitude.

Hello It's straight forward as far as positioning the gauges is concerned just alter the gauge name in panel.cfg but leave the coordinates as they areDA.PA31Avionics!T2000, 957,729,327,110^change this^----------------^leave these alone^So that it readsRealityXP_FL430XP!GNS430, 957,729,327,110Do this for all entries 2D and VC

[romanus 28]

Im kinda in the 'Satisfied' category. Although I have had Flight Sim since version 98, and also fly other flight sims, only within the past year have I started buying addons.

[EngineRoom 205]

Interesting discussion, I have enjoyed reading the messages here.For what it's worth here's my view:I was a die-hard FS9 user up until earlier this year. I had a large collection of hundreds of detailed airports and an equally large collection of airliners and liveries that I used to recreate airliner flights all over the world. I didn't do much in the way of any other type of flying (GA, bush, etc). After five years of flying the heavies in my FS9 world I found I was getting very bored with taking off, hitting LNAV and VNAV and then flying along a magenta line for the next few hours. I would spend a considerable amount of time planning each flight, only to find I would be sitting in front of the screen watching the PROG page of the FMS count down the miles to the TOD point... It had also reached the point where it would take me over a week to reinstall my FS9 whenever I needed to.My initial impressions of FSX back when it came out were not great and I considered it to be inferior to FS9. However, earlier this year I thought I would give FSX a proper chance - after all, newer hardware and a growing catalogue of addon products had in my opinion made FSX an increasingly attractive option, especially as I couldn't bear to spend a week reinstalling FS9. I spent some time reading up on FSX and how to set it up properly, and I invested in REX and the FTX series of sceneries, as well as some GA-type aircraft. I have been having a great time enjoying FSX and find it to be a fantastic sim.I see a few FS9 users here still maintain that FS9 is "better" or "superior" to FSX. I would simply ask them if they have the opportunity to try FSX on a decent system running the FTX sceneries and they will see that FSX is capable of creating an environment that is far superior to FS9. FSX is now maturing to the point where it is vastly superior to FS9 in all but one case - flying heavies out of detailed airport sceneries - and will blow your socks off if you give it a proper chance.As for the declining production of FS9 products, well the only people who know the true numbers are the developers/publishers and although they won't give specifics they seem to be indicating that FS9 sales are in decline. If that's the case then surely any business-savvy developer is going to focus on the part of the market that is appearing to generate the most revenue - FSX. Whilst it would be nice to have both FS9 and FSX versions of all the latest addons it simply doesn't make good business sense because if it did there would be a lot more developers releasing versions for both sims!The reality is unless you only want to fly airliners out of detailed airport sceneries packed with AI then FSX is the far superior sim. I know you FS9 guys find it hard to let FS9 go, I did! It's the price of progress I'm afraid. The FS9 users here are very lucky indeed - they have many hundreds, if not thousands of addons to enjoy. We FSX users don't have anywhere near the choice of addons that you FS9 guys have, so please don't let sour grapes spoil things as we try to turn FSX into an equally oustanding and worthy simulation as FS9 has become.Nick(Who still from time to time has a hankering to reinstall FS9)

[MarkRey 16]

The reality is unless you only want to fly airliners out of detailed airport sceneries packed with AI then FSX is the far superior sim.

Very true - lucky for me I still like heavy ops so tricked out fs9 is all I need. Tried GA many times but still come back to high and fast on the old magenta line. I combat the boredom by simply flying a lot less these days.

[edetroit 935]

"FSX is the far superior sim."Superior is not the word I use. "Different" is the word I use.The making of FSX broke many codes that consider important in my sim.....let alone the lack of proper 2D panel support.So it's a no brainer for me. FSX simply cannot do what FS9 can do.I am mainly a Heavy Iron VP but I do like to fly GA occasionally for which of course FS9 gives the option to use the VCEnjoy your FSX.I am besotted by my tricked out FS9. :(Oh ... I have made quite a few FS9 purchases recently. :(

[ravilamir 0]

Hi!I can only say to Ed's post:Amen! :( Still a very proud and satisfied FS9 customer! Will buy any A320, B737, B777, B757 that is well made: not as substitutes, but as additions to what I already have!But, hey I am an Addict to FS9 (Oh dear! Just bought the AS A320 Basic having already the ET version)!Does any one knows when is the next meeting of FS9AA? :( Soft Landings! :(