Dash 8 & 737

[Guest realatp]

Was there a mention of which plane comes first? I searched the forums found nothing, bot in 2010 though.

[questy 0]

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=268477737 ngx v2 first then dash 8 cherrs colin

[1FLIGHTSIMFANATIC 4]

FS9 is still very popular because it works better than X and I would ask PMDG to not abandon FS9 as we FS9 captains still want to get the best addons on the planet, so please dont shut us out.Michael pare.

[BlakeWilliams 6]

FS9 is still very popular because it works better than X and I would ask PMDG to not abandon FS9 as we FS9 captains still want to get the best addons on the planet, so please dont shut us out.Michael pare.

Interesting take - first time I've heard this plea.With recent advances in chip technology (since FSX is completely CPU dependent), FSX is running along fine, if not better than FS9, and looks a lot better. PMDG is going to produce products in which the market is needing them. FS9 is on the way out, just deal with it brother - embrace the future.

[ronzie 21]

If you started with FSX, fine. If you are like me that started with FS8 and moved up to FS9 with a large $$$ investment in scenery not compatible with FSX, then the FSX improvements for me were not worth it just to get some eye candy and throw away my FS9 add-ons and my significant investment in time tuning scenery and AI. Third parties have released products to enhance FS9 graphics. FSX lacked significant improvements in traffic and AI handling compared to weaknesses in FS9. MS has closed ACES studio with an announcement of an unspecified totally different sim product that will perhaps be released I would guess obsoleting everything. It was stated that the product is only ethereal in concept and development was a low priority at that time.MS is moving into Cloud applications and if there is a sim I would expect it not to operate in a stand alone fashion.The future is not FSX but unknown. A poll by PMDG showed a few months ago about an even split of FS9 and FSX users as I recall. Since then perhaps new users have increased the FSX proportion but that does not mean a significant decline in FS9 users that would welcome new products.Aerosoft Germany via a product manager queried users if they would be interested in a dedicated airliner sim. It will be interesting to see if it comes about.

Interesting take - first time I've heard this plea.With recent advances in chip technology (since FSX is completely CPU dependent), FSX is running along fine, if not better than FS9, and looks a lot better. PMDG is going to produce products in which the market is needing them. FS9 is on the way out, just deal with it brother - embrace the future.

[Irishcurse 234]

Interesting take - first time I've heard this plea.With recent advances in chip technology (since FSX is completely CPU dependent), FSX is running along fine, if not better than FS9, and looks a lot better. PMDG is going to produce products in which the market is needing them. FS9 is on the way out, just deal with it brother - embrace the future.

PMDG has stated the NGX will be for FS9. Of course with it not developed they reserve the right to change their mind. FSX is the future? Future of what? MS already discontinued FS for now so the word future is a bit of a stretch. I for 1 have a ton invested in FS9 and won't be upgrading to FSX anytime soon. With no new simulator coming out I see no need to. If PMDG abandons FS9 I will abandon PMDG. Not a threat just a fact. I have all of their products except the J41. I won't be missing anything. I already have a 737 from them. People with the attitude of " FS9 is outdated , catch up" have never really invested in FS or are new to FS. To upgrade just for the "New Version" doesn't make it better. FSX has been out for 2 years ( approx) and for the first year it was rare to hear anyone with FS experience talk great about it. It took patches and expansion packs.I won't be switchingRegardsRichie Walsh

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

People with the attitude of " FS9 is outdated , catch up" have never really invested in FS or are new to FS.

That's a terrible generalization, and an inaccurate one at that. I started with FS4, and have had nearly every addon, expansion pack, and patch for every version since then. I was heavily invested in FS9, but I found that even on a mediocre system, FSX was far and away a better simulator than FS9. At the termination of the FSX Beta, I was convinced to cut the ties with FS9, and I haven't looked back since.In a moment I rendered obsolete several hundred, perhaps a thousand dollars worth of addons, and not once have I had any heartburn over it. It's not because I'm "well-to-do" either.As long as we're making generalizations, I've got one of my own:The most vociferous FSX detractors are usually ones who merely repeat what they've "heard" about FSX from so-called (and self-proclaimed) "experts". There is far more to FSX than the oft referenced "eye-candy", and that fact would be apparent to anyone who has spent any measurable amount of time with FSX to give it a fair shake.The End.

[1FLIGHTSIMFANATIC 4]

That's a terrible generalization, and an inaccurate one at that. I started with FS4, and have had nearly every addon, expansion pack, and patch for every version since then. I was heavily invested in FS9, but I found that even on a mediocre system, FSX was far and away a better simulator than FS9. At the termination of the FSX Beta, I was convinced to cut the ties with FS9, and I haven't looked back since.In a moment I rendered obsolete several hundred, perhaps a thousand dollars worth of addons, and not once have I had any heartburn over it. It's not because I'm "well-to-do" either.As long as we're making generalizations, I've got one of my own:The most vociferous FSX detractors are usually ones who merely repeat what they've "heard" about FSX from so-called (and self-proclaimed) "experts". There is far more to FSX than the oft referenced "eye-candy", and that fact would be apparent to anyone who has spent any measurable amount of time with FSX to give it a fair shake.The End.

Well not everyone has the NASA computers to run FSX and run the add ons to boot. PMDG would be wise to not forget the FS9 captains that don't have the money for the machines to run it, and don't forget both sims are no longer in production.Michael Pare.

[SWDT 1]

Please PMDG - some more info on the Dash 8 !

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Well not everyone has the NASA computers to run FSX and run the add ons to boot.

I wasn't aware that my single core P4 with 512mb of RAM (delivered in January of 2003) was the standard by which "NASA computers" are judged. From day one I had FSX configured to both look and run better than FS9.Why must so many people perpetuate untruths about FSX? Wouldn't it be easier just to try it yourself? Just remember that full sliders in FS9 is equivalent to about 25% sliders in FSX, and you'll be fine.

[des182001 1]

Let's not continue with a "which FS is better" conversation. It's a moot point since everyone has their own opinions.

[LPPT_man 6]

Man... this FS9 vs FSX argument is just a comedy.Two facts: FSX is the latest version; FSX is slower than FS9 in any conditions;Enough with the arguments. It's clear that what u guys want is to have more products available and score a point for it.FSX users attack FS9 cause they think developers should move on. FS9 users attack FSX cause they dont want developers to move on.-------What its not clear is how big the FS9 market still is for the NG2.0.Yes.. probably the average simmer is between 15-25... and the majority of simmers staying with FS9 are probably a minority against the large boom from FSX.FSX sales were bigger than any other FS title... so its not only FS previous owners.... its also new simmers... but i guess the FS9 still have a large number of hardcore simmers who love the Boeing 737 and only use that one.Giving the numbers about MD-11 is b**lsh*t. How many of us fly for real in those planes... not many... most ppl fly in the Boeing or in the Airbus latest airplanes.Also most of us want to sim what we fly in the real life as flight simming is about copying the real life things.Think about this.Regards,M

[BlakeWilliams 6]

Man... this FS9 vs FSX argument is just a comedy.Two facts: FSX is the latest version; FSX is slower than FS9 in any conditions;Enough with the arguments. It's clear that what u guys want is to have more products available and score a point for it.FSX users attack FS9 cause they think developers should move on. FS9 users attack FSX cause they dont want developers to move on.-------What its not clear is how big the FS9 market still is for the NG2.0.Yes.. probably the average simmer is between 15-25... and the majority of simmers staying with FS9 are probably a minority against the large boom from FSX.FSX sales were bigger than any other FS title... so its not only FS previous owners.... its also new simmers... but i guess the FS9 still have a large number of hardcore simmers who love the Boeing 737 and only use that one.Giving the numbers about MD-11 is b**lsh*t. How many of us fly for real in those planes... not many... most ppl fly in the Boeing or in the Airbus latest airplanes.Also most of us want to sim what we fly in the real life as flight simming is about copying the real life things.Think about this.Regards,M

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Two facts: FSX is the latest version; FSX is slower than FS9 in any conditions;

Maybe on your computer, but not on mine. And just to be clear, you DO have FSX right? You're not simply repeating what you've heard on the forums?

FSX users attack FS9 cause they think developers should move on. FS9 users attack FSX cause they dont want developers to move on.Think about this.

Come on...I've never seen FSX users trash FS9 the way "you guys" trash FSX. There's really no comparison between the two arguments.Most FSX users like(d) FS9 but appreciate the greater capabilities of FSX and have moved on. Conversely, die-hard FS9 fans are grasping at straws to trash FSX for its (largely) perceived shortcomings.I genuinely couldn't care less if you still use FS9. More power to you, honestly.That said, I'm dismayed that "you guys" can't seem to come to terms with the fact that the state-of-the-art techniques that developers use to create cutting-edge fidelity are no longer compatible with FS9. It is neither technically possible, nor economically feasible to create FS9 addons that approach the level of quality that is possible within FSX.That's the only fact that matters.The "which sim is 'better'" argument is just a red herring. FSX allows developers to stretch their creative legs without running headlong into artificial limits imposed on things like poly counts, texture resolution, animations, etc., etc... FS9 was and is a great simulator, but FSX is a more capable platform upon which to build PMDG-level addons.

[Irishcurse 234]

"People with the attitude of " FS9 is outdated , catch up" have never really invested in FS or are new to FS."This statement is even funnier. I have been flying virtually since FS95. I'm sure the poster who made that statement was in diapers back then. Please don't make assumptions over the internet, or for that matter, post ridiculous items that assume you know peoples history with a product.

Not quite. I have been using FS since my Atari 8 bit with floppy disk changes on approaches. So take your own advice about assumptions. My point is simple. With what I have invested in FS9, why would I upgrade to FSX? Yes it's newer but is it so superior that it requires an upgrade? There is no future MSFS in the pipeline so I am staying put. A lot of people are. As mentioned in another post, there are a ton of new FS users that joined in at the FSX level. FS9 users aren't going anywhere unless MS decides to continue the product line. Not saying either product is better. Just saying I'm staying put and to suggest I invest 1000's more in software ( yes I have that invested in FS9) for FSX when it may be the last is silly.RegardsRichie Walsh