Why so few FS9 purchases lately?

[737BBJ 0]

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.

Rafael hit the nail on the head. No offense intended here, but one axiom is that pc enthusiasts doggedly pursue and purchase the newest, baddest, and fastest available. Just read the millions of posts from people who just couldn't resist upgrading to Win7 for no other reason than the fact that it's the newest OS from MS.

[wombat778 0]

No offense intended here, but one axiom is that pc enthusiasts doggedly pursue and purchase the newest, baddest, and fastest available. Just read the millions of posts from people who just couldn't resist upgrading to Win7 for no other reason than the fact that it's the newest OS from MS.

This is actually my theory on why FS9 sales lag compared to FSX sales. I suspect that on average, FSX users tend to be those people who must have and purchase the latest and greatest thing, and will on average, tend to be people that have purchased the newest and fastest hardware. FS9 users, on the other hand, on average, are likely to be people who are not obsessed with the latest and greatest, and who are generally more "satisfied" with their current simming experience. If this is true, then it is no surprise then that FSX users will generally be the ones more eager to buy the latest and greatest addon that comes out. This would directly translate to higher sales of addons to FSX users.As an FSX user, I know that all of the above applies to me. Yes, I want the newest, latest, fastest and best graphics, and no, I am not even close to "satisfied" by what I currently have. I want simulations that have every single button and switch modeled, every single system to be a perfect simulation of the real plane, the package to look beautiful and indistinguishable from a photograph, a flight model that always acts exactly like the real plane, and framerates that never fall below 60. Oh, and I want the whole thing to be 100% bug free. Hell, I want a simulation that takes into account the change in CG caused by the pax using the aft lav. :( Of course, I will never actually get a simulation that does all of this, but I will keep buying all those that get me a step closer...(and yes, I upgraded to Win7, and pretty much for no other reason than that it was newer)

[Johan_Dees 84]

Hmmm..I wonder that one has a good working sim, FS9, with a bulkload of addons, wants to change to less? Sum up the goodies? (FSX):- better low flying (GA) textures- a bit better weather (wind) depiction- sharper VC cockpits- more imersive due cars, boats and airport trucks et al- for developpers more grip on systems and such..But.. always the but..Whats in comparison with FS9 is that:- only applicable when actually flying GA, in FS9 on jets low flying is not that important..- weather, good addons can simulate this or at least gives the impression of good weather (altough FSX seems still better)- some addon cockpits are as good in FS9 these days..- immersion on addon airports is just as good or better.. but not the autogen cars and boats, must be in the scenery- with some tricks addon developpers can go a great way to get it rightAnd all this with better frames, I dont care about 80 or 109 fps, but going below 25 or so is to much noticeable and takes away the immersion. And sorry to say, but no one can have FSX with a PMDG, ASX,REX or whatever, and full AI, detailed airports, and real weather, having fluid expirience.. there is still no such system available.Yes, you can with a GA aircraft.. but simulate jets.. no.And that keeps me from FSX.. and the budget.. :-)So, most of the FS9 people dont want to change for these reasons, and simply dont have the money to start all over again. I wonder if one also must do this ? if you are happy with what you got, and suit your needs, so why change?It all has nothing todo with Aces or FSX, there are a lot of other old games still running fine. Also, it depends on what you are wanting to do of course, what kind of virtual pilot are you and what does interrest you? some people fly just one aircraft type only, and focuss on scenery, some vice verse, and even some want to have it all.For developpers its all about the money, and the developper who after lets say a year, develops only for FS9 when all others abandoned it and stepped up solely to FSX may have a good revenue for being the only one left. But there will come a time that even FS9 will be aged to much, and most will upgrade to FSX.In the Netherlands we have a saying (roughly translated): not every change is a good one! (niet elke verandering is een verbetering)JohanPS: Didnt I say someting about the global warming dull dessert alike FSX textures? no.. they speak for themself.. solutions?PPS: Oh, and in the SH3 vs Sh4 world, the same thing happened.. but there we have the promise of SH5..

[out 769]

I want simulations that have every single button and switch modeled, every single system to be a perfect simulation of the real plane, (...), a flight model that always acts exactly like the real plane, and framerates that never fall below 60

Then you must try FS9! :( Sorry, I just couldn't resist...

[Guest BionicCrab]

This is actually my theory on why FS9 sales lag compared to FSX sales. I suspect that on average, FSX users tend to be those people who must have and purchase the latest and greatest thing, and will on average, tend to be people that have purchased the newest and fastest hardware. FS9 users, on the other hand, on average, are likely to be people who are not obsessed with the latest and greatest, and who are generally more "satisfied" with their current simming experience. If this is true, then it is no surprise then that FSX users will generally be the ones more eager to buy the latest and greatest addon that comes out. This would directly translate to higher sales of addons to FSX users.

I know none of the FS9 people will agree with you, but yeah... you're dead on correct. FSX users just have a higher propensity to spend on this hobby. This should be a good sign though, as more FS9 users upgrade to the latest hardware, But I bet a good portion are avoiding addon's until they get that new machine. Abd if they've spent thousands on FS9 in the past, they'll likely spend more once there hardware issues are taken care of. I still use both sims but my preference is FSX, but when it comes to purchasing addons.. having both versions is the key selling point for me.

[january 19]

This is actually my theory on why FS9 sales lag compared to FSX sales. I suspect that on average, FSX users tend to be those people who must have and purchase the latest and greatest thing, and will on average, tend to be people that have purchased the newest and fastest hardware. FS9 users, on the other hand, on average, are likely to be people who are not obsessed with the latest and greatest, and who are generally more "satisfied" with their current simming experience. ------------------------------

Agreed.When you can do this in FS9 on a 6 year old 'puter, there isn't a lot of incentive to spend a pile of money on an "upgrade".Alex ReidExtreme KingAir downwind for CYYJ R09

[edetroit 935]

Just a HU on my latest FS9 purchase. (which came shortly after Ibiza X) Boston Logan KBOS has been released by Fly Tampa! ....wonderful scenery.And the best bit is ...the FS9 vers is only 45Mb as opposed to 165Mb for FSX ........yesssss! :(

[kerosene31 349]

I just reinstalled FS9 the other night after spending a few months in FSX. FSX is nice with simple aircraft, but I could not add anything to it without massive framerate hits. I simply could not run any add-on aircraft other than those with simple "retro" gauges. Anything with even the simplest custom GPS would just destroy FPS. Stuff that ran great in FS9 runs terribly in FSX.

[Glynn 405]

I just reinstalled FS9 the other night after spending a few months in FSX. FSX is nice with simple aircraft, but I could not add anything to it without massive framerate hits. I simply could not run any add-on aircraft other than those with simple "retro" gauges. Anything with even the simplest custom GPS would just destroy FPS. Stuff that ran great in FS9 runs terribly in FSX.

Hello>Stuff that ran great in FS9 runs terribly in FSX. There lies the key to running FSX SP2/accel and getting good performanceuse Native FSX addons only

[kerosene31 349]

Hello>Stuff that ran great in FS9 runs terribly in FSX. There lies the key to running FSX SP2/accel and getting good performanceuse Native FSX addons only

I am running some native addons as well. Anything at all with the slightest bit of complexity eats up FPS. I can run the new Carenado models without a hitch, but that is because they have the older (simpler) avionics which take up little resources. The RealAir Duke was disappointingly poor on FPS. RealAir's other planes run amazingly smooth in FS9. I don't blame RealAir or anyone else for this, it is all FSX. Everything I tried from other vendors was exactly the same. FPS dropped from 30 to the low 20s just sitting idle at the airport. It was flyable, but that is a big performance hit, considering I was turning off all AI and ground traffic. This was in FSX with all AI traffic off as well. FPS in the teens and low 20s may be fine for some, but not me especially when we're not talking super complex aircraft. I could even deal with not running 3rd party scenery as FSX default looked better than many great payware in FS9, but I can't live without more aircraft than the defaults and a few Carenado birds (nothing against them, I like their planes)

[Glynn 405]

I am running some native addons as well. Anything at all with the slightest bit of complexity eats up FPS. I can run the new Carenado models without a hitch, but that is because they have the older (simpler) avionics which take up little resources. The RealAir Duke was disappointingly poor on FPS. RealAir's other planes run amazingly smooth in FS9. I don't blame RealAir or anyone else for this, it is all FSX. Everything I tried from other vendors was exactly the same. FPS dropped from 30 to the low 20s just sitting idle at the airport. It was flyable, but that is a big performance hit, considering I was turning off all AI and ground traffic. This was in FSX with all AI traffic off as well. FPS in the teens and low 20s may be fine for some, but not me especially when we're not talking super complex aircraft. I could even deal with not running 3rd party scenery as FSX default looked better than many great payware in FS9, but I can't live without more aircraft than the defaults and a few Carenado birds (nothing against them, I like their planes)

Hello CraigMany folk have FSX running well on machines like yours.I get around 25-30 fps in the FSX LevelD 767, with a E6600@3.2ghz and a GTX260 216 on a 27" monitor at 1900x1200That is with 20% MyTrafficX, ASA, Radar contact all running.Seems strange how some machines run FSX fine and some machines struggle.

[Mike... 7]

What happens with 100% AI?:(

[kerosene31 349]

Hello CraigMany folk have FSX running well on machines like yours.I get around 25-30 fps in the FSX LevelD 767, with a E6600@3.2ghz and a GTX260 216 on a 27" monitor at 1900x1200That is with 20% MyTrafficX, ASA, Radar contact all running.Seems strange how some machines run FSX fine and some machines struggle.

I don't necessarily get low FPS overall, but many stutters and lots of drops. For example with the RealAir Duke in overcast weather, I can easily get FPS in the upper 20s (I'm locked at 30), but I will get many drops into the high teens. I tend to be "finicky" when it comes to performance. Stuttering and even occasional FPS drops just destroy my overall experience. It was certainly "fly-able", but I just had to make too many compromises. I installed the great FlyTampa St Maartin scenery in FSX and the FPS drop to the mid-20s just sitting at the taxiway. In FS2004 on my much older PC, the scenery was smooth as silk. I didn't go nuts with tweaking, but followed the one popular guide out there. With a Carenado plane, the game was silky smooth the entire time. But any plane with any complexity caused issues. For me, the "cost" of addons in terms of FPS lost seemed extreme. I'll wait until my next PC to try it again. Now, I am enjoying FS2004 with 35fps locked and tons of traffic, scenery, complex ac, etc.

[Glynn 405]

What happens with 100% AI?:(

HelloWhy the obsession with 100% AI.If I put the traffic slider at 100% with MyTrafficX I would never get out of the airport before I ran out of fuel20% Airline 20% GA usually has me third in line for takeoff, unless at somewhere like Madrid , paris , london heathrow ectwhere it could be more, Thats long enough to be sitting around waiting for takeoff for me.

[Mike... 7]

Who said anything about an obsession? I just like nice addon sceneries and realistic levels of AI. I sim one way, you another.You wonder why some get good performance and others not, well, that 20% may have something to do with it. So even though you may not like to have it at 100%, just try and you may be able to answer your own question.:(