The highway builder and auto manufacturer analogy: For years we have had some acceptably good roads (FS9) and some vehicles (FS9 addons) that were anywhere from stunning to simply horrible. Problems arose when the vehicle manufacturers took it upon themselves to decide that if they built it we should buy it, regardless of real demand. "Marketing says; they can have any color they want as long as it is black." So what did we the simmers do? We patched the roads, and we sorted through the vehicles to find what worked for 'us' at a cost and performance level that was acceptable. Now the road builder (MS) steps in and says, "hey everyone we have a new road design (FSX) that you are going to love so much you will be willing to 'flush' all your time and money already spent and start all over." Some of us wanted the new roads and were ready to change. However the road builder did not realize / care if that made our vehicles unusable. So we were forced to decide; new roads / vehicles or stay with what we had invested in. At this point the vehicle manufacturers get stuck between a rock and a hard place: Do they retool and produce for both types of road? Most can't because it is not cost effective enough to justify. The ones who continue to build for the old road system are really up against it because new designs that will sell are getting more expense to produce. So it looks like the new road system is the way to go because of a more open and viable market and a easier sell to the new road users. We the simmers are caught in the middle. Marketing wants use to believe the new roads are the way of the future ( for some it is ) and start the spending cycle all over again. Manufacturing wants us to buy what they build, and if they are building for the new roads then they want us to buy the new roads. If they are building for the old roads then they resist the change for their own economic reasons, which are understandable. If the builder was economically robust enough when it all hit the fan they can continue to produce for both road sytems at least for the near future. In the end it is all marketing, manufacturing and economics. Marketing says create a niche and make it look so good it can't be passed up, then manufacturing has to design and build it while maintaining a expected profit margin so that the cycle can be repeated. We are somewhere in the middle of this and the only say we have is with how we spend our money, which can and will be ignored if the road builder or the vehicle manufacturers think they can sway the market for their own purposes. So to sum it all up, it really does not matter whether one is a die hard FS9 user or a die hard FSX user, or somewhere in the middle. We will get what they want to sell us as a choice, buy it or not, is up to us. If that makes them or breaks them, well that is business and part of the risk. All 'we' can hope for is that the ones who listen survive and the ones who don't or won't do not drag the hobby of flight simming down with them. BTW, this is by no means a attack on or condemnation of the developers, after all they are trying to make a living and really have made FS(n) what it is.IMHOBest regards to all,Mel

I flew a Sabena livery FS9 PMDG MD-11 from EDDF to LFPG yesterday. How's that for unrealistic? I couldn't care less, I enjoyed it - basically playing with my toy aircraft on my PC. I have yet to be arrested by either the FS police nor the real police. Why do we have to fly realistic routes with the right equipment/liveries, etc? Though no offence to those who want to, I just don't understand why people 'have to'.

I deviate from the "realistic" once and a while, but for some reason I prefer to stick to real world routes and real world ops as much as I can. I will take the MD-11 on routes that carriers only use the DC-10 on though. I flew into KDEN the other night a couple times, and I don't ever see an MD-11 flight in or out of KDEN. I have seen that the MD-10 has operated out of KDEN with FDX, but MD-10s are some sort of secret I guess with FDX, so they don't "advertise" their type on FAA/Gov databases. :( As for the 744, I have taken a few trips with the Air Force YAL-1A model many times that I just made up on my own.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We all love our heavies and nearly everyone loves scenery, although I only have two sceneries installed myself since aircraft are my preference.Regardless, from my standpoint, what is missing in terms of aircraft has always been enormous. Sure we've had lots of Boeings, but most of the quality versions created have been long range. No one has produced a quality Airbus. No one seems to care about commuters (CRJs, Dash-8s). Business jets are largely ignored. Now, yes, we've had some commuter type of aircraft from certain companies as well as biz jets, but they aren't the caliber that PMDG and the like put out. Unfortunately, it seems Cessna is the only company that is friendly towards flight sim, as I've heard Gulfstream and Dassault are both not willing to work with payware developers. Then we have something like the DA Cheyenne, which has amazing flight dynamics and I love it for that, but the trimble is a royal pain in the @ss to work and never seems to follow the flight plan properly after version 4. Retrofits on that plane are a no-go it seems, so that's another high fast twin that is limited in its capabilities for me.

No one seems to care about commuters (CRJs, Dash-8s).

Try the Digital Aviation Fokker 70 / 100. Unless you're a VC diehard, it's a choice not to be regreted. A great regional!And by the way: in all this customer-developer discussion and pondering who needs who more, let's not forget all the incredible gifted people who gave us freeware pearls (like Project Tupolev, ISD airports, Finnish Scenery Designers, Greek Airports Project, Tomalchevo Team or BlueSkyScenery, to mention just a few). Mostly for FS9. Somehow. Luckily. Cheers to them!

Try the Digital Aviation Fokker 70 / 100. Unless you're a VC diehard, it's a choice not to be regreted. A great regional!And by the way: in all this customer-developer discussion and pondering who needs who more, let's not forget all the incredible gifted people who gave us freeware pearls (like Project Tupolev, ISD airports, Finnish Scenery Designers, Greek Airports Project, Tomalchevo Team or BlueSkyScenery, to mention just a few). Mostly for FS9. Somehow. Luckily. Cheers to them!

Even with the Fokker, they're not really in wide use anymore. You have a few airlines in Europe that still fly it, but I think that's about it. If you don't want to fly KLM or Air France routes (assuming the user is one that loves real routes), you're kind of S.O.L.. The Majestic Dash-8, while great, is for some reason not all that popular. Besides the obvious turn-off's, such as the graphics, I think they priced themselves out of the market, and their marketing is, well, less than stellar. A popular one would be the CRJ series. I'd wager that the family may well be the most widely used "regional" jet. DA is supposedly working on one, but who knows when that will ever get off the ground. They've started and stopped working on it so much that I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. Feelthere's CRJ is extremely dated....And that's all we have. Eaglesoft's offerings look good. I don't think they model the systems as well as other companies, but they have a nice solid grip on their market. I think that if they went the extra mile in system depth and graphics they would become a lot more popular. That's from an outsider looking in. I don't own any of their aircraft for the reasons I just mentioned.Carenado did well in FS9m until I believe they stopped doing QC on their ports from FSX to FS9. If I'm wrong on that, let me know. But they did smaller aircraft, fairly priced. People love their stuff. Feelthere continues doing what they do best; Embraers, and they seem to be doing fine, with FS9 still being a viable option. I find it remarkable that somehow they're still making a good profit off us while some other developers say that they can't...Just my $.02

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We all love our heavies and nearly everyone loves scenery, although I only have two sceneries installed myself since aircraft are my preference.Regardless, from my standpoint, what is missing in terms of aircraft has always been enormous. Sure we've had lots of Boeings, but most of the quality versions created have been long range. No one has produced a quality Airbus. No one seems to care about commuters (CRJs, Dash-8s). Business jets are largely ignored. Now, yes, we've had some commuter type of aircraft from certain companies as well as biz jets, but they aren't the caliber that PMDG and the like put out. Unfortunately, it seems Cessna is the only company that is friendly towards flight sim, as I've heard Gulfstream and Dassault are both not willing to work with payware developers. Then we have something like the DA Cheyenne, which has amazing flight dynamics and I love it for that, but the trimble is a royal pain in the @ss to work and never seems to follow the flight plan properly after version 4. Retrofits on that plane are a no-go it seems, so that's another high fast twin that is limited in its capabilities for me.

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

Even with the Fokker, they're not really in wide use anymore. You have a few airlines in Europe that still fly it, but I think that's about it. If you don't want to fly KLM or Air France routes (assuming the user is one that loves real routes), you're kind of S.O.L..

It's not that bad. :( In Europe they're still flying also with Austrian Arrows (24 of them), Helvetic, Contact Air (for Lufthansa and Swiss), Carpatair, Montenegro, Postugalia, Trade Air (Sun Adria), MCA, OLT, Blue Line, Denim, Netherlands Gov (and until recently Malev) and maybe I forgot something else. They are also used in Mexico, South America and Australia.Plus, something Gavin meant I guess, you can always take any livery (a house or ficticious livery) and fly whatever routes you wish.Anyway great addon is a great addon.

Even with the Fokker, they're not really in wide use anymore. You have a few airlines in Europe that still fly it, but I think that's about it. If you don't want to fly KLM or Air France routes (assuming the user is one that loves real routes), you're kind of S.O.L.. The Majestic Dash-8, while great, is for some reason not all that popular. Besides the obvious turn-off's, such as the graphics, I think they priced themselves out of the market, and their marketing is, well, less than stellar. A popular one would be the CRJ series. I'd wager that the family may well be the most widely used "regional" jet. DA is supposedly working on one, but who knows when that will ever get off the ground. They've started and stopped working on it so much that I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. Feelthere's CRJ is extremely dated....And that's all we have. Eaglesoft's offerings look good. I don't think they model the systems as well as other companies, but they have a nice solid grip on their market. I think that if they went the extra mile in system depth and graphics they would become a lot more popular. That's from an outsider looking in. I don't own any of their aircraft for the reasons I just mentioned.Carenado did well in FS9m until I believe they stopped doing QC on their ports from FSX to FS9. If I'm wrong on that, let me know. But they did smaller aircraft, fairly priced. People love their stuff. Feelthere continues doing what they do best; Embraers, and they seem to be doing fine, with FS9 still being a viable option. I find it remarkable that somehow they're still making a good profit off us while some other developers say that they can't...Just my $.02

Hello>Feelthere continues doing what they do best; Embraers, and they seem to be doing fine, with FS9 still being a viable option. I find it remarkable that somehow they're still making a good profit off us while some other developers say that they can't...When they release addons of the quality of their new ERJ-145 I am not surprised they are doing OKVersions for FS9 and FSX included along with the Call! copilot/checklist addon at a good price point its a no brainer.Companies that release for FS9 and include a version that you can take forward if/when you move to FSX deserve to sell product.

Eaglesoft's offerings look good. I don't think they model the systems as well as other companies, but they have a nice solid grip on their market. I think that if they went the extra mile in system depth and graphics they would become a lot more popular. That's from an outsider looking in. I don't own any of their aircraft for the reasons I just mentioned.

The Citation X v2 is as in-depth as you can take an aircraft in FS9 with regards to systems. I can assure you it's the most accurate business jet modeled for the sim.

Eaglesoft's offerings look good. I don't think they model the systems as well as other companies, but they have a nice solid grip on their market. I think that if they went the extra mile in system depth and graphics they would become a lot more popular. That's from an outsider looking in. I don't own any of their aircraft for the reasons I just mentioned.

That perception is no longer true with our latest FS9 Citation X 2.0 release.There is a no cost Hotfix pending which restores custom holds and custom waypoints, corrects a mixup in NDB/VOR selection, adds full keyboard shortcut and Goflight/FSUIPC Macro support and a "sweetened up" VC.We issued a challenge to anyone who would like to fly a few DME ARCS, Missed Approaches, Difficult SID/STAR/IAP routines with altitude restrictions, Make 'em tough and fly 'em fast, Compare to any other "Systems Intense" aircraft out there. We think you'll find that this aircraft meets or exceeds others in this department.By the way, this is not a sales pitch, just an effort to educate folks on the "depth of simulation" in that project and those to come. :(

The Citation X v2 is as in-depth as you can take an aircraft in FS9 with regards to systems. I can assure you it's the most accurate business jet modeled for the sim.

The Beechjet is nothing to sneeze at as well. The Cirrus aircraft are second to none, ES does outstanding work when they release their birds. Ron stating a declining trend for FS9 when he has aircraft in his development stable that will sell well in the FS9 community is puzzling. I hope his predictions aren't true at least for a couple more years as I feel FSX is still not reaching it's full potential on most available hardware. Once FSX runs well with standard hardware of the day it'll replace FS9 but not until then. I won't comment on most of what's been said here as I agree with the cases being made. I've already spoke on this in the JS41 thread so there's no use going over it again. I think we all agree what needs to happen and instead of developers writing FS9 off prematurely they need to take a page from Feelthere and use a little more common since in their decisions as to what products their going to bring to market...I don't now how many times we have to repeat the word 'Airbus' only to find the choice is an 'MD11' and/or another 767. How many times do we have to say CRJ only to get an obscure JS41. This reminds me of FSX's development and everything we told Microsoft we wanted not one of those things made it into FSX. Maybe somethings getting lost in the translation, I'd hate to think people are just brain dead... It's a no brainer if you want to make money make what people are asking for. If you don't want to do that don't blame it on anything other than your choice of product.

"I feel FSX is still not reaching it's full potential on most available hardware. Once FSX runs well with standard hardware of the day it'll replace FS9 but not until then." Hey Les-I just got a Costco computer for under $1000 that is running fsx with all sliders almost full to the right with fps 30-50 average.The hardware of the day is here-time to change from the I'd rather fight than switch club ..... they have Costco's up where you are don't they?

"I feel FSX is still not reaching it's full potential on most available hardware. Once FSX runs well with standard hardware of the day it'll replace FS9 but not until then." Hey Les-I just got a Costco computer for under $1000 that is running fsx with all sliders almost full to the right with fps 30-50 average.The hardware of the day is here-time to change from the I'd rather fight than switch club ..... they have Costco's up where you are don't they?

I read about your experience the other day. What's the full cost of this setup?

I read about your experience the other day. What's the full cost of this setup?

$999 including shipping-but I did not need a monitor and my 2 year old 8800 gt was a better video card which I replaced.

$999 including shipping-but I did not need a monitor and my 2 year old 8800 gt was a better video card which I replaced.

Sounds good now let's see if others fare as well. When most of the community can get on board with FSX with performance comparable to FS9 then we're on our way to becoming a community under one sim again...