Maybe they should become politicians with backflips like that.

Oh! the irony :( http://www.randazzofornevada.com/Mark

Oh deary me! :( Would anybody like there palm read?

>>You have got to put your self in their shoes. If you spent hundreds/thousands of hours developing a product for both platforms and sales for the FSX version out sold the sales by a large margin of the FS9 version, then why would you continue to spend time and development cost and man hours working on dual platforms? Especially if doing the conversion to the other platform ended up resulting in lots of extra hours that didn't pan out to be cost effective.<<Bolony!First off, I'm an outsider looking in. Dont know what PMMG is or care for that matter. Regarding sales for FSX outweighing FS9, the numbers dont bare this out. And to ignore half of your market share to develop a product for a platform that is dead in the water (FSX) is plain ignorant on so many levels its actually comical.Not meant to be offensive, but do you even know what the term "cost effective" means little buddy?FSX in 5 years will be found to be a huge dissapointment in my opionion. FS9 was a proven product with huge success and "YES" the numbers do bare this out. Now that FSX development is history, would'nt these "pocket sized" companies be better off alligning themselves with a company such as Aerosoft, or the like, who has the ability, talent, and resources, to develop a platform that far exceeds FS9?Hmmm, food for thought.........Mitch

FSX is far from a platform that is "dead in the water". The next 2 years will see developers produce products that leverage the abilities that FSX gives them to an even greater degree. Coupled with the new PC hardware that is now appearing on the market FSX is going to be the premier flight sim platform. From reading other forum members comments I can't find one who having tried FSX on decent hardware has wanted to go back to FS9.Bryan.

I can't find one who having tried FSX on decent hardware has wanted to go back to FS9

The mistake you're making here is the misleading assumption that hardware power is the only reason for people to stay with FS9. It is NOT.But let's not get into this discussion AGAIN.

I'll agree with that Bryan. After I got FSX going on my new rig and working extremely well, I loaded FS9 up and was disgusted with the way it looked in comparison. Granted it does look better with Ultimate Terrain, GE Pro and REX, but imho no where close to FSX. Being an ex-FS9'er I can honestly say that with the exception of one or two planes or sceneries I can't see myself ever going back. I fly airliners mostly and I think it tops FS9 for that type of flying with all the great looking airports on the market now.Its funny that a lot of times people say the colors of FSX are to bright, some say to dull, and some even say that FSX looks cartoonish. Frankly, the colors look about the same to me and since neither are the real thing they are equally cartoonish in my book. Juat that FSX is a high def cartoon as opposed to a low def cartoon.Personall I can't understand why FS9 fans would be to upset if not much else was developed for it. Its been out so long that it seems like just about any airport or plane that you could possibly want is already available in either freeware or payware. If I was a guy like the fellow edetroit that posts in the screen shot forum and has hundreds of hours invested in his custom panels and stuff I can understand why he wouldn't want to start over.In the end it just comes to personal preferance. Its too bad that having two platforms seems to cause such a division between people. It almost always seems ike people who dislike FSX also dislike people who like FSX or have FSX running well on their system. If you post something saying how great FSX is there will always be another guy who comes along and says that it sucks and is the worst sim ever. In that case why not say I'm glad you like it cause it did work well for me, or not say anything at all. No need to trash what makes someone else happy.

I'm in full agreement with jimburke over here, with the one exception that I'm one of the guys who went back to FS9, simply because the computer just can't handle FSX well enough for my taste.I'm not sure why people get so upset over PMDG's decisions. In the end they are the developers and I think they have the right to do what they want and not listen too much to us. It would have been different if we would have paid money for a product with PMDG subsequently not delivering on their promises - that would have been a very bad situation. However, this is not the case with PMDG. They only stated about a product in development that it would go to the FS9 crowd, and now, based on their latest sales data, they decided it might not go to FS9 after all. It's a pity, sure, but nothing to get upset about or condemn them for in my opinion (doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, of course...).

Since some of you are still implying that PMDG has completely quit the development for FS9, I have to repost what I stated yesterday:Robert Randazzo of PMDG said, that PMDG is developing a brand-new 737NG for FS9, period.(source: interview in the German Monthly "FlightXpress", Dec 09 or Jan10)Wolfgang

I'll agree with that Bryan. After I got FSX going on my new rig and working extremely well, I loaded FS9 up and was disgusted with the way it looked in comparison. Granted it does look better with Ultimate Terrain, GE Pro and REX, but imho no where close to FSX. Being an ex-FS9'er I can honestly say that with the exception of one or two planes or sceneries I can't see myself ever going back. I fly airliners mostly and I think it tops FS9 for that type of flying with all the great looking airports on the market now.Its funny that a lot of times people say the colors of FSX are to bright, some say to dull, and some even say that FSX looks cartoonish. Frankly, the colors look about the same to me and since neither are the real thing they are equally cartoonish in my book. Juat that FSX is a high def cartoon as opposed to a low def cartoon.Personall I can't understand why FS9 fans would be to upset if not much else was developed for it. Its been out so long that it seems like just about any airport or plane that you could possibly want is already available in either freeware or payware. If I was a guy like the fellow edetroit that posts in the screen shot forum and has hundreds of hours invested in his custom panels and stuff I can understand why he wouldn't want to start over.In the end it just comes to personal preferance. Its too bad that having two platforms seems to cause such a division between people. It almost always seems ike people who dislike FSX also dislike people who like FSX or have FSX running well on their system. If you post something saying how great FSX is there will always be another guy who comes along and says that it sucks and is the worst sim ever. In that case why not say I'm glad you like it cause it did work well for me, or not say anything at all. No need to trash what makes someone else happy.

Funny then that (some of) the best and visually most stunning shots at the AVSIM screen shot forum are FS9 shots.Wolfgang

From reading other forum members comments I can't find one who having tried FSX on decent hardware has wanted to go back to FS9.Bryan.

Then you should look harder because there are numerous posts here and in other forums of new I7 users who have come back to FS9 and acknowledged they like each sim for different use cases... Enough with the stupid bickering, if I enjoy FS9 and you enjoy FSX then more power to each of us. Get over the stupid debates already because for the near term future FS9 and FSX are all we have in the MSFS series... One of the most prominent I can think of is Mitch with his FS9.75 post...Man can FS9.75 Dish it outor:Do we give up on realism by staying with FS9I am not here to get into ANOTHER FS9 v FSX debate but rest assured everyone who moves to FSX does not stay there exclusively and it has nothing to do with machine Horsepower... I just wanted to point out the erroneous post above and the fact that there are indeed a plethora of users with very high end HW who still appreciate FS9 for all its beauty and do not see the need to bash it every time the chance arises so they can beat their chest about how much better FSX is and why we should all switch.Notice, an FS9 post that strictly talks about FS9 and does not bash FSX at all :( it is possible...Now if FSX users could just speak about FSX without bashing FS9 in the process and vice versa it would be wonderful... After all these are the FS9 discussion forums, so if all of you FSX users are so happy with FSX it begs the question what are you doing in the FS9 forums other than stirring up trouble? :( In all seriousness, why is there this constant push to make users choose and point out that I am right and you are wrong if my choice doesn't agree with yours... It is getting so old... :( Paul

FS 9, out of the box, was garbage! FS X, out of the box, was garbage too!It took patches and the hard work of some great developers to enhance both sims to what they are today.I am one of those avid fs users who never really enjoyed fs9. Too much tweaking. Even on my current system FS 9 behaved badly.With FSX Plus SP2 and add-ons like ORBX, there has been a feeling of accomplishment. I did not waste thousands of dollars on hardware and add-ons, because with FSX I have a sim that is truly a joy and worth the financial investment. For me it's a no brainer as to which sim feels better. Which sim is more real to me. The answer is FSX SP 2 and all the add-ons available. Having said that, there are many happy FS 9 simmers who deserve to have the new add-ons and I think that developers should NOT stop developing software for FS9, even if the numbers say, "DON'T." It shouldn't be only about the bottom line. It should also be about satisfying customer's needs and or wants.

I am baffled!!!!! :( What are all these FSXer's doing in a FS9 forum???? :( That alone speaks volumes if you ask me. :(

FlyTampa is not producing high-end aircraft addons - one of our aircraft costs twice as much or more as their sceneries do. It's not the same market. What do you guys think we're doing here exactly? Do you think this is some sort of conspiracy where we make money every time MS sells a copy of FSX or something? MSFS is dead, there's no reason for us to support one sim over the other aside from what we have seen in our sales trends. Why in the hell would well do something that resulted in us supposedly losing half our customer base? It's just not true folks, we're not dumb.I don't know where that magazine got its information btw (probably very old source material) - we are not doing an FS9 NG, the real information is on our forum.Btw, take a look at the total post count for the FS9 vs. FSX forums here. 69,000 to 420,000. Does that look like a majority are using FS9 to anyone?

FlyTampa is not producing high-end aircraft addons - one of our aircraft costs twice as much or more as their sceneries do. It's not the same market. What do you guys think we're doing here exactly? Do you think this is some sort of conspiracy because we make money every time MS sells a copy of FSX or something? MSFS is dead, there's no reason for us to support one sim over the other aside from what we have seen in our sales trends. Why in the hell would well do something that resulted in us supposedly losing half our customer base? It's just not true folks, we're not dumb.I don't know where that magazine got its information btw (probably very old source material) - we are not doing an FS9 NG, the real information is on our forum.Btw, take a look at the total post count for the FS9 vs. FSX forums here. 69,000 to 420,000. Does that look like a majority are using FS9 to anyone?

A post count reveals very little Ryan. There are many ways to interpret data. There could be many reasons for the difference. For instance . . . perhaps FSX still poses many more problems than FS2004 resulting in more posts for help and assistance? I'm not saying that this is the reason for the discrepancy but just pointing out that *there are many ways to interpret data*. What about the daily new freeware addons uploaded to Avsim . . . always many more for FS2004 but can we conclude that FS2004 is definitively the more popular version . . . maybe, maybe not ?! As I say *there many ways to interpret the data*.

FlyTampa is not producing high-end aircraft addons - one of our aircraft costs twice as much or more as their sceneries do. It's not the same market. What do you guys think we're doing here exactly? Do you think this is some sort of conspiracy where we make money every time MS sells a copy of FSX or something? MSFS is dead, there's no reason for us to support one sim over the other aside from what we have seen in our sales trends. Why in the hell would well do something that resulted in us supposedly losing half our customer base? It's just not true folks, we're not dumb.I don't know where that magazine got its information btw (probably very old source material) - we are not doing an FS9 NG, the real information is on our forum.Btw, take a look at the total post count for the FS9 vs. FSX forums here. 69,000 to 420,000. Does that look like a majority are using FS9 to anyone?

HelloThat post count is misleading, when the forum was split in order to give each sim their own forumall of the FS9 posts were put into the new FSX forum (many years worth).So please disregard post counts, every poll I have seen indicates an even split between FS9 and FSXI would love to know what the numbers were like for Feelthere with the ERJ 2.0

Btw, take a look at the total post count for the FS9 vs. FSX forums here. 69,000 to 420,000. Does that look like a majority are using FS9 to anyone?

Let me explain the post count.The original discussion forum (FS9 and before) became the FSX forum. The FS9 forum is a new one made after the discussion forum was made the FSX forum.So one would actually wonder why the now FSX post count is not even higher. :(