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...

Well you have me there...I thought we were all flight sim fans-including xplane, flight unlimited, fly etc.The divisions imho were self induced...

I must say that I personally find the general opinion in this thread puzzling. I care very little what aircraft is simulated, so long as it is simulated well. I will take a wonderfully simulated MD-11 over a mediocre Airbus any day. Indeed, the reason I sim is to learn, and flying less common aircraft are lot more interesting to me to learn than yet another Boeing. Also, I think with the JS41 that PMDG chose it because one of them had a lot of real world experience with it. I would much rather see devs model an aircraft they know and love, rather than just picking something because conventional wisdom or opinion polls say it will sell better.Then again I am mostly a FSX user, so the sentiment in this thread is probably good for me. If niche developers don't bother with FS9, that is more time they can spend on FSX...

Thanks for the kind words Les.I agree with Geof that the off the shelf systems these days with Win7 64 Bit and FSX/SP2 are nothing short of amazing on a cost/benefit ratio.I spent only few more bucks than Geof on an off the shelf Dell. Posted an FSX screenshot of our bird and displayed a high of 109 FPS with medium high settings.Wouldn't return to the Vista 32 System if you paid me. Win7 64 truly is snappier and the load times are waaaaayyy shorter than the old Vista setup. :(PS: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?sk...d=1218120178969

I must say that I personally find the general opinion in this thread puzzling. I care very little what aircraft is simulated, so long as it is simulated well. I will take a wonderfully simulated MD-11 over a mediocre Airbus any day. Indeed, the reason I sim is to learn, and flying less common aircraft are lot more interesting to me to learn than yet another Boeing. Also, I think with the JS41 that PMDG chose it because one of them had a lot of real world experience with it. I would much rather see devs model an aircraft they know and love, rather than just picking something because conventional wisdom or opinion polls say it will sell better.

Once again don't mis-categorizer FS9 sales when you choose to go this route... Conventional wisdom (100's of user request) results in sales on both platforms, everything else is a potential mixed bag...

Thanks for the kind words Less.I agree with Geof that the off the shelf systems these days with Win7 64 Bit and FSX/SP2 are nothing short of amazing on a cost/benefit ratio.I spent a only few more bucks than Geof on an off the shelf Dell. Posted an FSX screenshot of our bird and displayed a high of 109 FPS with medium high settings.Wouldn't return to the Vista 32 System if you paid me. Win7 64 truly is snappier and the load times are waaaaayyy shorter than the old Vista setup. :(PS: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?sk...d=1218120178969

Thanks Ron but I just bought my new system a year ago. Medium high setting is not what I'm looking for from a system that cost over $1,100. When I buy a system at that cost in this financial market FSX will have to run stutter free with maxed out setting using your new Citation X... Anything else is not worth the trouble. Just the same I believe Geofa and understand FSX is getting there but it's premature now to abandon FS9 as it's still alive and well. Just look at todays new download section here on Avsim... Most of the community can't afford the latest and greatest these days and until the day comes (which it's coming) where one can go out and get a new $700 machine (something under a $1000) and run FSX with all options available it's not worth it... Again I get where you guys are coming from but we still have a ways to go yet...

Well you have me there...I thought we were all flight sim fans-including xplane, flight unlimited, fly etc.The divisions imho were self induced...

Geofa there's an agenda to kill off FS9 development by mis-categorizing the situation on various levels. No one is stating X-Plane, Flight Unlimited, or whatever development should stop in favor of FSX but that same can't be said of FS9 development versus FSX.

Thanks Ron but I just bought my new system a year ago. Medium high setting is not what I'm looking for from a system that cost over $1,100. When I buy a system at that cost in this financial market FSX will have to run stutter free with maxed out setting using your new Citation X... Anything else is not worth the trouble. Just the same I believe Geofa and understand FSX is getting there but it's premature now to abandon FS9 as it's still alive and well. Just look at todays new download section here on Avsim... Most of the community can't afford the latest and greatest these days and until the day comes (which it's coming) where one can go out and get a $700 machine (something under a $1000) and run FSX well it's not worth it... Again I get where you guys are coming from but we still have a ways to go yet...Geofa there's an agenda to kill off FS9 development by mis-categorizing the situation on various levels. No one is stating X-Plane, Flight Unlimited, or whatever development should stop in favor of FSX but that same can't be said of FS9 development versus FSX.

Its called progress..By the way-in the 1990's I paid $3500 to upgrade from a 386 33 to a 386 66..Now $999 gets nirvana... no one is killing anything-but I have no desire to fly fs2000 anymore-or fs2002 or...

By the way-in the 1990's I paid $3500 to upgrade from a 386 33 to a 386 66..

And if I remember correctly that system at the time got you a pretty decent running sim (FS5 I believe)...

And if I remember correctly that system at the time got you a pretty decent running sim (FS5 I believe)...

Yep-12 fps....I was elated... after adding my voodoo card that gave me that...

Yep-12 fps....I was elated... after adding my voodoo card that gave me that...

8-FPS... :( I hope you still got your receipt and the store is not closed by now... :(I had a 386 33 and got at least 20FPS (it was higher than 8 I know that)... :(

8-FPS... :( I hope you still got your receipt and the store is not closed by now... :( I had a 386 33 and got at least 20FPS (it was higher than 8 I know that)... :(

I didn't get 20 fps till many years later-you must be at leat 20 fps ahead -which makes one question-why are you still with fs9?

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.

Les, just to be clear, we still like FS9 and run both it and FSX.It is a tall investment in terms of staff time/workload and other costs to produce aircraft for both sim versions these days.We've bridged the gap by producing for both versions since FSX RTM and [taken the heat for it as well] but frankly we are beginning the phase out of FS9 products for reasons already stated.The numbers just aren't there. Since we have to choose because the workload is too much it is obvious to us that FS9 phase out is the only reasonable choice. :(

I didn't get 20 fps till many years later-you must be at leat 20 fps ahead -which makes one question-why are you still with fs9?

:( I actually don't remember what I got back in 1992 exactly I just know it was playable without issue and it was more than 8FPS...I've got to give it to you this is the most creative setup I've seen for an alternative argument. Reaching way back to 1992 leaves one little room to defend and or confirm. Just the same I don't remember a problem child sim on the level of FSX with the exception of FS2000. Back in the days of DOS and FS5 it was all in how you configured your 'autoexec.bat' and 'config.sys' files. You had to know how to optimize your system to get the best performance but understand optimal performance was possible on release day. In those days you didn't have to putts around with tweaking FS5 itself. With existing systems upon FS5's release I remember the sim was very playable (this was before the age of add-ons outside of Microsoft's Paris, Carribean, and Europe scenery packages).

Thanks Ron but I just bought my new system a year ago. Medium high setting is not what I'm looking for from a system that cost over $1,100. When I buy a system at that cost in this financial market FSX will have to run stutter free with maxed out setting using your new Citation X...

Actually I can max it out but it won't yield 109 FPS. more like 45-50. I just don't run cars and ships nor do I run "Bloom"The numbers I stated are w/out DX10 Preview which yields even better FPS.Anyway, my point is that if that system runs FSX in that range imagine what you get w/FS9. :(

Actually I can max it out but it won't yield 109 FPS. more like 45-50. I just don't run cars and ships nor do I run "Bloom"The numbers I stated are w/out DX10 Preview which yields even better FPS.Anyway, my point is that if that system runs FSX in that range imagine what you get w/FS9. :(

Just out of curiosity, do you guys run any AI/use complex scenery add-ons? Cause I'm sitting pretty right here at FSDT's KLAS, with REX, UTX, ASA weather, GEX, in the Feelthere ERJ-145 with 100% AI (as in all the airlines that visit KLAS) and getting 9fps. On an i7 @ 4Ghz. GTX285 SLI. I get 60fps (locked) in the exact same spot, with the exact same addons in FS9. It just boggles the mind how everyone is getting awesome FSX performance and yet I can't get squat on this monster of a system.

:( I actually don't remember what I got back in 1992 exactly I just know it was playable without issue and it was more than 8FPS...I've got to give it to you this is the most creative setup I've seen for an alternative argument. Reaching way back to 1992 leaves one little room to defend and or confirm. Just the same I don't remember a problem child sim on the level of FSX with the exception of FS2000. Back in the days of DOS and FS5 it was all in how you configured your 'autoexec.bat' and 'config.sys' files. You had to know how to optimize your system to get the best performance but understand optimal performance was possible on release day. In those days you didn't have to putts around with tweaking FS5 itself. With existing systems upon FS5's release I remember the sim was very playable (this was before the age of add-ons outside of Microsoft's Paris, Carribean, and Europe scenery packages).

I sure do-I didn't use ms the entire 90's decades, though I bought each version. Ice cube clouds, childish instrumentation when other sims of the time had reality, the disaster of ms for windows (did you forget the boycott?) and fps 10 and under. The difference was since that kind of performance was normal, one didn't expect anything better.