Sure, you might like to post again when you've researched how dev capabilities under FSX exceed FS9 in more than just poly count.

Sure, you might like to post again when you've researched how dev capabilities under FSX exceed FS9 in more than just poly count.

I don't have to research, I am well aware of the difference in lighting capabilities and the fluidity of the gauges in the VC and the reason the beautiful PMDG 41 could not be released for FS9 with features that could never be replicated on that platform. I was just responding to your comment that the poly count was what made an AC dumb... And to that point, from a "flight" perspective the FS9 and FSX AC are "usually" the same, I can full a full CATIII ILS in 0/0 in either sim but I do not care to argue; I AGREED with your initial point, I did not agree with your comments or your arguments.Regardless, this is a completely pointless thread at this point which we are both better off letting disappear into the pits of the Avsim basement as nothing is going to be accomplished. There is no real argument here, I get it and you clearly do not want to address your earlier comments so I have nothing else to say.Paul

Let's try and get this topic into proper course again. Based on recently released products from CLS (i.e. 767), what are your expectations for their MD-80? I'll start.Since I am more into systems simulation than the so-called Lite products, I'll be expecting a beautiful model with lots of eye candy, but a complete default cockpit functionality disguised in MD-80 panel bitmaps.For me, Leonardo MadDog is the holy grail of MD-80 simulation. Add FS2Crew to it and you'll never fly anything else again. :(

Why are these companies releasing aircraft that have been done over and over? There are 3 different companies that have done 767's, another 2 with the 757 (and another stuck in vapor ware cycle). Now the MD-80/DC-9 family gets yet another same ole-same ole? I can count at least 3 or four companies that have or are now doing this one-I liked CLS when they did the 747 classics and the DC 10-they were actually good but the 767 they did-meh. I am spoiled by the LVL D and to some extent the CS. What happened to the 777 or the 737? I know Wilco did these but they are way old. It's great to have choice but man -- something original and not already done to death would be awesome.

For me, Leonardo MadDog is the holy grail of MD-80 simulation. :(

How about holy grail of airliner simulations period...

Yep it's the FS9ers, the "vocal minority". :( No amount of whining about how poor they are :( or how much they have invested in FS9 B) is ever going to make any developer switch back to FS9. FS9 is dead so please cant the FS9ers just get over it and save their pennies and upgrade to FSX like the rest of us! Alternatively they could purchase the AirSimmer A320 for FS9 B)

Here we go with the patronizing again... FS9 is not dead as long as there are people out there that still use it...

FS9 may not be the "latest and greatest", but calling it dead is just plain stupid.Payware developers many not see the monetary benefit in developing a product for FS9, but that hardly means FS9 itself is no longer a valid piece of software. Some may say that FS9 has plenty of payware as-is and is not really in need of more payware. I can't speak for others here, but my FS9 installation is just fine with the DA Fokker, Maddog, PMDG 737/747/MD-11, and myriad of other add-ons. As of right now, FSX does not have a true Fokker 70/100 model nor does it have a true MD-82/83 model. IMO, sometimes I feel it is FSX that "needs" more development, not FS9. In essence, stop with the entire "FS9 is dead!" banter, it is non-sensical.

FS9 may not be the "latest and greatest", but calling it dead is just plain stupid.Payware developers many not see the monetary benefit in developing a product for FS9, but that hardly means FS9 itself is no longer a valid piece of software. Some may say that FS9 has plenty of payware as-is and is not really in need of more payware. I can't speak for others here, but my FS9 installation is just fine with the DA Fokker, Maddog, PMDG 737/747/MD-11, and myriad of other add-ons. As of right now, FSX does not have a true Fokker 70/100 model nor does it have a true MD-82/83 model. IMO, sometimes I feel it is FSX that "needs" more development, not FS9. In essence, stop with the entire "FS9 is dead!" banter, it is non-sensical.

You hit the nail on the head! From a user's stand point FS9 definitely is not dead. It is FSX that needs more development, that is why developers are moving more towards FSX, because that is where the market need is. The reason they are losing money on FS9 development though, isn't primarily because there are less users, although there are more moving to FSX every day as faster computers that can handle FSX are available. The AVSIM polls bears this out, there are still more FS9 users than FSX. The problem though for developers, is that because FS9 is so well developed most already owns at least one version of a particular model aircraft, or scenery, utility etc. Many that won't buy a different version because they already have one they like. This means that while the overall user base of FS9 is still very strong, the potential market for developers are getting smaller, while the FSX market is growing.

LOL, amusing to see the same cast of characters disparage FS9. Okay, I get it, FS10 visuals are superior and buying a new system every two years is a true mark of a hard-core flight simmer. As for the OP, yeah, not sure why developers keep making the same stuff over and over again. Maddon2008 is the gold standard for MD80, wouldn't buy any CLS stuff anyway, FS9 or FS10.Having bought 3 great airplanes over the past month, I'm not sure I need anymore airplanes anytime soon. I'm gonna start enjoying all the airplanes I've accumulated over the years.Pat

How about holy grail of airliner simulations period...

I was trying not to go that far, but actually, yeah, that's my opinion also!

LOL, amusing to see the same cast of characters disparage FS9. Okay, I get it, FS10 visuals are superior and buying a new system every two years is a true mark of a hard-core flight simmer. As for the OP, yeah, not sure why developers keep making the same stuff over and over again. Maddon2008 is the gold standard for MD80, wouldn't buy any CLS stuff anyway, FS9 or FS10.Having bought 3 great airplanes over the past month, I'm not sure I need anymore airplanes anytime soon. I'm gonna start enjoying all the airplanes I've accumulated over the years.

Buying new "stuff" is what makes the economy work. I agree that FS9 is saturated with good add-ons and so absolutely no point in releasing any new stuff for FS9 especially when the remaining FS9ers seem to be not keen on spending money. Like you imply your NOT happy to buy a new system every 2 years whereas FSXers seem to be quite happy to buy new systems to stay current and run FSX in its full glory. Developers are right to focus ONLY on the FSX market from now on.

Buying new "stuff" is what makes the economy work.

If that were wholly true, the used car market would not flourish, nor would Ebay be such a viable source for products. While new "stuff" can be used to spark interest and generate revenue it is not the end-all-be-all. While I agree new products definitely create and promote interest, a new product is not the "only" source of financial gain.

I agree that FS9 is saturated with good add-ons and so absolutely no point in releasing any new stuff for FS9 especially when the remaining FS9ers seem to be not keen on spending money.

That is sort of a broad-based generalization isn't it? Additionally, I am guessing many users who currently enjoy FS9 will not buy the CLS offering because it is ONLY for FSX. If the add-on was also being created for FS9, I imagine many would still purchase the product (well, those that are not Maddog users....and I bet even many of those folks would try to find a way to merge the model with the Maddog panel. lol). Whether there are enough consumers to make it worthwhile for CLS's bottom line is what is in question. If current FS9 users had no interest in spending money, than there would not be any outcry by that community when an FS Developer chooses to not make an FS9 version of a product. What you are saying is sort of contradictory. You are basically addressing a group of people who may want to potentially spend money by stating that none of them want to spend money. What you should be saying, is although there are many FS9 users out there that would like continued FS9 development, many current FS Developers do not see the financial gain from doing so. Just because a developer does ot want to create an FS9 version does not mean there is no intertest, it just means that more than likely the developer ran a cost vs return anlaysis and the retun side came up short.

Like you imply your NOT happy to buy a new system every 2 years whereas FSXers seem to be quite happy to buy new systems to stay current and run FSX in its full glory. Developers are right to focus ONLY on the FSX market from now on.

I would wager a guess that most FSX users would prefer to not HAVE to buy a new system every two years. Is anybody really "happy" to buy a new system every couple of years....because it is sort of required (required being a relative term)? Implying that people enjoy having to upgrade their system every two years in order to yield adequate performance from a product that was developed and bought years ago is somewhat backwards.If a developer will see a positive return on their time and monetary investment than they will create an add-on, if not, 99.9% of the time they won't waste their time. If may not benefit me, but I'm not the one paying their bills.

Argue all you like. Doesn't change the fact that its FSX only now for most developers, and rightly so!

Argue all you like. Doesn't change the fact that its FSX only now for most developers, and rightly so!

Argue about what? There is nothing to argue about. The comments you made were off-base in some instances.

Ok I couldn't be bothered arguing. FS9ers can complain all they like but no developer is going back to FS9 development once they have made the decision to focus on FSX. For most developers FS9 is dead IMHO.

Why has a thread about the CLS MD 80 become yet again another FS9 vs. FSX arguement?