Since many if not most FS9 downloads will run in FSX, but no FSX downloads will run in FS9, I don't think the numbers can tell us much about the target sim for a download.scott s..

Scott:That's not true. MANY FSX downloads are made for both FSX and FS9 but are placed in the FSX download queue as long as it has FSX somewhere in the documentation. If Avsim restricted the FSX download queue to FSX ONLY files you'd see the amount of FSX downloads dry up to next to nothing.

Scott:That's not true. MANY FSX downloads are made for both FSX and FS9 but are placed in the FSX download queue as long as it has FSX somewhere in the documentation. If Avsim restricted the FSX download queue to FSX ONLY files you'd see the amount of FSX downloads dry up to next to nothing.

I hadn't thought about it this way but I have to agree...

Scott:That's not true. MANY FSX downloads are made for both FSX and FS9 but are placed in the FSX download queue as long as it has FSX somewhere in the documentation. If Avsim restricted the FSX download queue to FSX ONLY files you'd see the amount of FSX downloads dry up to next to nothing.

I suppose that could be too. Not sure how you could really prove it, but one thing I noted before the library went poof was that most downloads were WoAI packages. What I am afraid of is that there isn't that much new complex freeware for either sim, at least not fsx.scott s..

Not surprising at all to me. Once I got my new PC this summer all my challenges switched from trying to get FS to run well to trying to find something that could slow my performance down. Being able to fly into Chicago with detained 3rd party scenery at night in bad weather in FS9 and still maintaining high FPS is basically like a brand new sim to me. I'm sure FSX will run well someday.. but until then FS9 has been fantastic for me.

Ok, so why do the payware developers insist that FSX outperforms FS9 in sales, and thats the way of the future?There not in cohorts with Microsoft are they?

why do the payware developers insist that FSX outperforms FS9 in sales

Among many other reasons someone might bring in here, let me give you three:- planned marketing (it's easier to concentrate on one platform)- the number of already existing quality addons for FS9 is way larger than for FSX, so the FSX market is the target to fill- there are, as always, many new simmers coming - why should they start with an older sim? I wouldn't if I were them

I have to offer some disagreement to most of the posts here. There seems to be an element of "FSX denial" coming through here. I have used FSX exclusively since May. I believe it is far superior in every way to FS9, graphically and performance - so much so that I never went back. I failed to move to FSX a number of times and once shared the view of most here that FS9 was in fact my sim of choice for the long term. Then i7, Windows 7 and DDR3 came along. From then on FSX requires no tweaks whatsoever. The hardware is here right now for FSX. I see 2010 actually as the year FSX is embraced. Yes, Vista was a dog, but FSX is most definitely not.(*For the record, I'm a heavy flier, cities, large jets, large airports with large frame rates. It is possible with hardware. This is my humble opinion based on my own experience and all due respect is given here and I don't attempt to discredit anyone's view of either sim)

I have to offer some disagreement to most of the posts here. There seems to be an element of "FSX denial" coming through here. I have used FSX exclusively since May. I believe it is far superior in every way to FS9, graphically and performance - so much so that I never went back. I failed to move to FSX a number of times and once shared the view of most here that FS9 was in fact my sim of choice for the long term. Then i7, Windows 7 and DDR3 came along. From then on FSX requires no tweaks whatsoever. The hardware is here right now for FSX. I see 2010 actually as the year FSX is embraced. Yes, Vista was a dog, but FSX is most definitely not.(*For the record, I'm a heavy flier, cities, large jets, large airports with large frame rates. It is possible with hardware. This is my humble opinion based on my own experience and all due respect is given here and I don't attempt to discredit anyone's view of either sim)

Ofcourse that is your opinion...but I am sure that many here beg to differ.There must be some reason why there are simmers each day who goes back to FS9....putting FSX way back on the shelf. :( You know,....not many chooses to let the simulatorversion rule the choice of system,...anymore. And the fact that FSX is the end of the road of simulators for a loooong time to come, makes it even less interesting in reinvesting hundreds and even thousands of Dollars in FSX addons.IMHO, the developers who went all FSX, will have to reconsidder sooner or later. :(

Hello,Well that response is way out of line and has no business here at AVSIM, its no wonder many individuals stop posting on the forums. To flyhalf, I also have to disagree with you myself. I have an I7 975 overclocked to 4.1 GHz system with a BFG 285 overclocked graphics card. I get ok performance with FSX and "some" of the graphics are superior. However, FSX does not outperform FS2004!. I spend 99.99% of my time in the Level-D 767-300ER, I'm not about to give up all my addons for the minor differences I see as far as graphics, nor am I going to lose the performance benefit I get using FS2004.The cost of replacing all my addons (some are not, nor will ever be available in FSX), downgraded performance and minor graphic enhancements do not justify the move to FSX. In fact, if FS2004 gets HD city textures along the same lines as REX2004, I see no reason to move to FSX at all.Since Microsoft has abandoned the Flightsim market, you are investing in a dead end platform. The aces team will not be back at Microsoft, they started and/or work for a company called "Cascade Game Foundry". I'd rather purchase what I'm missing in FS2004 at a cost of a few hundred dollars and save the rest for my next hardware upgrade than to spend a thousand plus dollars on a dead end platform.

Do you have anything left in that crack pipe? I erased that poor excuse for a program from my computer.

Mike, you and Staffan have nailed the essential point here, in that FSX is just as much the "past" as FS9 is, and any differences between the two are mostly minor and cosmetic. And one version runs a teeming world of big AI-filled airports and complex airliners smoothly with little tweaking on reasonably modern hardware. I realize developers are loath to develop for two platforms, but I believe the smart ones will keep FS9 in their planning horizon for the next few years. The sales are there!

Not for nothing FS9 with recent addon scenery textures keeps it fresh and the sim runs a whole lot smooter than FSX. There is so much junk you have to do to FSX to make the framerates descent. Then when your done with all of that the frame rates still have issues! I recently uninstalled my FSX because I just dont use it as much as I do FS9. FS9 has more scenery files and some very realistic looking aircraft. To see that it is still kicking $$$$ in 2010 shows that Microsoft hit gold with this version and in their haste to create a new version didnt really test it. In honesty the only thing that I see really sets FSX apart from FS9 is that every major airport has active gates. and the water has reflections of the planes in them. Then another detail is the static objects that actually bring the scenery to life. That is all cool and all, but when you trade that with what made your flightsim great to begin with you get lumps of coal! In all reality if Microsoft was smart they would make the next installment of Flight Simulator incorporate the best of FS9 and FSX. Just my opinion! Not for nothing FS9 is just as good as FSX because the majority of aircraft being released for it now come with their own static airport vehicles that pop when you shut the engines down! The people have spoken and the designers have given us what we want to keep FS9 rocking !

For the record when I posted this January 1, 2010 FSX had one freeware download option to FS9's 33. That's what struck me...

Hello,Well that response is way out of line and has no business here at AVSIM, its no wonder many individuals stop posting on the forums. To flyhalf, I also have to disagree with you myself. I have an I7 975 overclocked to 4.1 GHz system with a BFG 285 overclocked graphics card. I get ok performance with FSX and "some" of the graphics are superior. However, FSX does not outperform FS2004!. I spend 99.99% of my time in the Level-D 767-300ER, I'm not about to give up all my addons for the minor differences I see as far as graphics, nor am I going to lose the performance benefit I get using FS2004.The cost of replacing all my addons (some are not, nor will ever be available in FSX), downgraded performance and minor graphic enhancements do not justify the move to FSX. In fact, if FS2004 gets HD city textures along the same lines as REX2004, I see no reason to move to FSX at all.Since Microsoft has abandoned the Flightsim market, you are investing in a dead end platform. The aces team will not be back at Microsoft, they started and/or work for a company called "Cascade Game Foundry". I'd rather purchase what I'm missing in FS2004 at a cost of a few hundred dollars and save the rest for my next hardware upgrade than to spend a thousand plus dollars on a dead end platform.

Wow what a thread for the new year, all started with how many daily downloads!I got a new i7 920, 3d system for Christmas. It took me a day to install fsx and beef it up, and a little tweaking, not much. I have DDR3 RAM 12 gigs. I have GTX260 GeForce 2 Mb video card. My FSX rocks, no fuss no muss. Most sliders are at MAX and I get a steady 30FPS. I love the new Tongass Fjords which I purchase when i came out and my system was so poor as to make it useless. Now I can fly 3D all over the west coast, love it! in a 3D virtual cockpit.I have both sims, FS9 FSX, I use both FS9 works excellent in Win7. I have so many addons and great planes that I will keep using it.So, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, lets leave it at that. Both still have great fun value.cheers mates.

From what I'm hearing the i7 is the genesis for FSX. Everything after the i7 is what's most likely going to bring us all back on one sim again. I'll hold out for another year and a half and buy an FSX only machine so I can really enjoy it. I may wait two years so I can max everything out to really see an improvement over FS9. After dealing with a well performing FS9 experience for so long I don't want any compromises when I make this huge transition.

I don't know what that deleted post was all about but someone's got issues to sort out...Look, if you see my recent scenery release you'll see it was for both versions so that should indicate where I stand on the matter also. Happy new year.