Another one bites the dust (developer that is).

[Deltalpha 3]

Why can't developers make what we don't have for FS9, 717, 777 etc? That stuff would sell really well! We have plenty of money, but nothing to spend it on...hint hint... :(

[dallyborr 2]

We still need good 737Ng for FS2004...and i prey every day, that PMDG is goin' to change their mind about "FSX only", and finally understand that FSX ONLY is a HUGE mistake. There is TOOOOOO....many of us willing to throw away a couple of bucks in a blink of an eye, just for that plane. I got, let's say, 50 or 100 euros for it, but i don't have 1050 euros for a machine, that will run FSX without any problems.

[Guest over and out]

Bad example. Starbucks is very well known to get rid of great selling products for absolutely no reason (i.e the chocolate cream cheese muffin.) They have also tried to directly compete with the likes of Panera Bread and Dunkin Donuts...hence why they have cut back on their breakfast items (and if it wasn't for the $5000.00 microwaves that they hastily threw in every store, they would have killed off all of the sandwiches.) I know this because my wife has been a Starbucks store manager for over 8 years, and I worked for them for 2.5 years.I also feel that this has been a rather civilized discussion regarding an undeniably sensitive and heated topic. Nobody is throwing around conspiracy theories, but rather making educated arguments against an obviously flawed logic. Take this thread for example. This thread was started 3 days ago, and at the time of me writing this, it has over 4,000 views and 174 responses. That in itself is not something to laugh at.Just one more thing...you don't have to post 5 separate posts in a row to get your point across. You can always multiquote, and get it all said in 1 post. Just a friendly tip (without any emoticons.)Matt

I didn't say it was uncivilized, just that there seems to be this developer bashing because they are offering less and less FS9 products, and many of the comments have a twist about it being some type of purposful reason to leave out the FS9 group behind other than just it simply being a business model. For example, here's one "Buy what we make, not what you want or give up any vague hopes of seeing what you want " - do people really think this is how developers approach their business?Sorry, I don't know how you define "obviously flawed logic". According to who? "great products" are somewhat subjective according to the consumer, for example, I didnt like the chocolate cream cheese muffin, too much of a good thing for my taste. But anyhow, you missed the point of my point. I was simply saying that a company does what it does to stay in business and if it makes sense for them to pull a product for what ever reason, then they do . I dont think Starbucks is going out of business anytime soon. And again, if they decide that it was a bad to pull the chocolate cream cheese muffin, then they can bring it back. I never worked there, so you have more insight on them.Sorry you dont like the use of emoticons or the way I post. I didn't realize you can multiquote, thanks for the tip. But I hardly think your sarcastic "without any emoticons" comment was meant to be friendly. :(

[mgh 89]

I personally don't, but my wife does. And through her, I get to hear about them quite frequently. But in all honesty, there's no need for the sarcasm.

Those supporting your point of view seem to argue that companies sit down and, for no apparent reason, deliberately abandon profitable product lines - they don't know what they are doing. I suggest Microsoft's and Starbuck's records show that they do know what they are doing. What generally happens is that they take account of opportunity ciosts. They decide that they can get a better return by concentrateing on one product rather than another. If one product makes a return of 5% and another 10% then the second is the one they will concentrate on. Supermarkets work on return per metre of shelving. Given they have limited shelving space then they'll concentrate on those products that give the better return - even if the others are may be profitable..

I took this screenshot a few weeks ago. It's from IvAe and shows statistics about pilot client software on the IVAO network:As you can see, most pilots are still using FS9, not FSX:IvAp 1.3.* and 1.4.* are FS2004 users: 69%IvAp 1.9.* are FSX users: 29%

All that shows is what people are using - not what they are buying.As I said previously, it's developers who put up the resources so it's their decision what they develop. If you think you can do better then feel free to put up your own resources and compete with them.

[N400QW 205]

Those supporting your point of view seem to argue that companies sit down and, for no apparent reason, deliberately abandon profitable product lines - they don't know what they are doing. I suggest Microsoft's and Starbuck's records show that they do know what they are doing. What generally happens is that they take account of opportunity ciosts. They decide that they can get a better return by concentrateing on one product rather than another. If one product makes a return of 5% and another 10% then the second is the one they will concentrate on. Supermarkets work on return per metre of shelving. Given they have limited shelving space then they'll concentrate on those products that give the better return - even if the others are may be profitable.All that shows is what people are using - not what they are buying.As I said previously, it's developers who put up the resources so it's their decision what they develop. If you think you can do better then feel free to put up your own resources and compete with them.

MGH, it is good that we find common ground and agree on something for a change. Some of the arguments made here make no sense from a business perspective but do at least show a passion for FS9 even if their purchasing activity shows less passion. :(

[flightwatch 68]

I didn't say it was uncivilized, just that there seems to be this developer bashing because they are offering less and less FS9 products, and many of the comments have a twist about it being some type of purposful reason to leave out the FS9 group behind other than just it simply being a business model. For example, here's one "Buy what we make, not what you want or give up any vague hopes of seeing what you want " - do people really think this is how developers approach their business?Sorry, I don't know how you define "obviously flawed logic". According to who? "great products" are somewhat subjective according to the consumer, for example, I didnt like the chocolate cream cheese muffin, too much of a good thing for my taste. But anyhow, you missed the point of my point. I was simply saying that a company does what it does to stay in business and if it makes sense for them to pull a product for what ever reason, then they do . I dont think Starbucks is going out of business anytime soon. And again, if they decide that it was a bad to pull the chocolate cream cheese muffin, then they can bring it back. I never worked there, so you have more insight on them.Sorry you dont like the use of emoticons or the way I post. I didn't realize you can multiquote, thanks for the tip. But I hardly think your sarcastic "without any emoticons" comment was meant to be friendly. :(

Myself and many many other people. See below for my reasoning of "obviously flawed logic."I also didn't miss you point. I was just stating that it was a bad example. It will always be a bad example to try and compare fs developers to major corporations. It was a friendly suggestion. Personally, I find emoticons to be annoying. Especially when used for sarcasm (like the "crying" emoticon, or the "talk to the hand" emoticon, but I have neither the time nor energy to be sarcastic...and sarcasm wasn't what I was trying to convey.

Those supporting your point of view seem to argue that companies sit down and, for no apparent reason, deliberately abandon profitable product lines - they don't know what they are doing. I suggest Microsoft's and Starbuck's records show that they do know what they are doing. What generally happens is that they take account of opportunity ciosts. They decide that they can get a better return by concentrateing on one product rather than another. If one product makes a return of 5% and another 10% then the second is the one they will concentrate on. Supermarkets work on return per metre of shelving. Given they have limited shelving space then they'll concentrate on those products that give the better return - even if the others are may be profitable.. All that shows is what people are using - not what they are buying.As I said previously, it's developers who put up the resources so it's their decision what they develop. If you think you can do better then feel free to put up your own resources and compete with them.

Yes...that is my point of view. PMDG is basing the decision on dropping fs9 production based on sales data collected from the MD-11. That is flawed logic. I won't repeat why, but you can scroll through this thread and read my other posts stating my reasoning.Again, trying to compare a 10 man fs development team with a major corporation that employs tens of thousands of people is flawed logic. If a major corporation is loosing money on something, they put it on sale. There are very few developers that do that. PMDG is still selling their 736/7 for $44.95...7 years after it's release. This is a niche market made up of people from all around the World. Some are 7 while others are 70...and all inbetween. If you make a niche market out of a niche market, then you are already cutting out profits by not catering to several different groups of enthusiasts. QualityWings realized that and developed a product that fits into more than 1 category. You don't hear them complaining about fs9 sales.If a company develops only what they want to develop, then they will be out of business so fast their heads will spin. PMDG made the JS41 for them, and their sales on it suffered. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to buy something that they have no interest in. I hate Smarte Cars. You wouldn't catch me dead in one. I sure as heck wouldn't throw away $20,000.00 on one. But with your logic, you are saying that I should buy it anyways because it's what Mercedes wants to make.Again, why would people that use fs9 buy products for fsx??? People who use fs9 buy fs9 products...same with fsx.

[Guest over and out]

Myself and many many other people. See below for my reasoning of "obviously flawed logic."I also didn't miss you point. I was just stating that it was a bad example. It will always be a bad example to try and compare fs developers to major corporations. It was a friendly suggestion. Personally, I find emoticons to be annoying. Especially when used for sarcasm (like the "crying" emoticon, or the "talk to the hand" emoticon, but I have neither the time nor energy to be sarcastic...and sarcasm wasn't what I was trying to convey.Yes...that is my point of view. PMDG is basing the decision on dropping fs9 production based on sales data collected from the MD-11. That is flawed logic. I won't repeat why, but you can scroll through this thread and read my other posts stating my reasoning.Again, trying to compare a 10 man fs development team with a major corporation that employs tens of thousands of people is flawed logic. If a major corporation is loosing money on something, they put it on sale. There are very few developers that do that. PMDG is still selling their 736/7 for $44.95...7 years after it's release. This is a niche market made up of people from all around the World. Some are 7 while others are 70...and all inbetween. If you make a niche market out of a niche market, then you are already cutting out profits by not catering to several different groups of enthusiasts. QualityWings realized that and developed a product that fits into more than 1 category. You don't hear them complaining about fs9 sales.If a company develops only what they want to develop, then they will be out of business so fast their heads will spin. PMDG made the JS41 for them, and their sales on it suffered. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to buy something that they have no interest in. I hate Smarte Cars. You wouldn't catch me dead in one. I sure as heck wouldn't throw away $20,000.00 on one. But with your logic, you are saying that I should buy it anyways because it's what Mercedes wants to make.Again, why would people that use fs9 buy products for fsx??? People who use fs9 buy fs9 products...same with fsx.

again, I don't understand why there is this reasoning that a company (no matter how small or big) that decides to stop making a certain product is so flawed? They can not go after every market? Who are we to judge, for example, a smaller fs developer that decided to concentrate on a few products rather than a multitude? Every company (big or small) has it's limitations in what they are going to attempt to provide. Its obvious that all fs developers are different and have limited resources. And if a small company can not provide a wide array of products, due to limited resources, and have to pick where their strengths are, they should not be labled as flawed or poor decisions. In fact, I'm sure they would all love to pursue every avenue of income generation but simply can not. And I think bashing a certain fs developer for not producing fs9 products anymore is simply ignorant to the complex nature of running a company. And then to take it one step further, as I have read in this thread by some, to suggest there is some other agenda is also a little far fetched.Give them a break. Are people actually suggesting that if every plane is not made available for FS9, than the third party developers are letting "us" all down? Lets be a little reasonable. I challenge anyone to tabulate the FS9 offerings on sites like PCAviator or other flight sim online companies and come back and tell us that there isnt proper coverage of add on planes for FS9. The reason no body will do this excercise is because it would take too long. And the crazy thing is that despite all this back and forth in this thread, you and I can go out today and purchase NEW fs9 planes, maybe not as many as we could 5 years ago, but c'mon, there is plenty of stuff to fly and buy still. And it's to the credit of the third party developers that made and make FS9 great.

[level7 175]

If a company develops only what they want to develop, then they will be out of business so fast their heads will spin. PMDG made the JS41 for them, and their sales on it suffered. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to buy something that they have no interest in. I hate Smarte Cars. You wouldn't catch me dead in one. I sure as heck wouldn't throw away $20,000.00 on one. But with your logic, you are saying that I should buy it anyways because it's what Mercedes wants to make.

i dug up this post by ryan from PMDG about the JS41 and the MD-11. their don't seem to have "suffered" like you said by going the FSX route.

Regarding your assertions about the MD-11 and J41, explain to me then why the FSX MD-11 outsold the FS9 one by a 3 to 1 margin and explain to me why we saw torrents that had something like 20,000 combined seeds and peers on them downloading the FS9 MD-11 just a day or two after release? Nothing even close to that number of pirates existed as far as the FSX version is concerned. The J41 is now our best selling product since the original 747 in 2005 - there's no problem at all with sales on it.

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1672029

[out 769]

Some of the arguments made here make no sense from a business perspective but do at least show a passion for FS9 even if their purchasing activity shows less passion

See, Ron, having read so many threads on the FS9vsFSX addon sales something starts being clear to me.I will try to remain objective though I cannot be totally unbiased since I'm a passionate FS9er, right? :( I'll get it in points to get my thoughts straight and make the reading easy:1. 'FS9 users don't buy new products'I spend around 200-300 euro a year on FS9 addons on average. This is my hard-earned money and I find it difficult not to be irritated when I read someone (not even a developer) stating 'FS9 people DON'T buy addons'. No more comments on it then.2. 'FS9 users are more often pirates and use torrents'I don't know if it's true. But since there are still more FS9 users (users, not saying buyers) so maybe that would be logical? No matter how terrible it is, of course.In addition I don't want to be punished for others' sins. My first officer is my credit card, not John Torrent.3. 'Companies who stop making FS9 products are wrong'No, they're not. Although it is always a pity for me, FS9er, I am sure they know what they are doing (even though some later change their minds, lol).I wouldn't get too much into financial/marketing discussions with professional developers. Each to their own. Respect!For me it's enough that many known developers (including Aerosoft - an audible FSX supporter) still release a lot of great stuff for FS9, mostly airports.4. 'FS9 is the simulator of the past and FSX is the simulator of the future'False and false. Both FS9 and FSX are the simulators of this time, which so unfortunately split us into two groups. Groups that sometimes fight for no reason.The ACES studio has gone and if there is any simulator of the future that will be something else.5. 'Even with sliders to the left FSX looks better than FS9 with maxed sliders'Everyone has his or her own eyes to jugde. As far as my eyes are concerned, I disagree with this popular statement.Of course FSX looks better than FS9, with the higher resolution textures and mesh, anyway visuals were the most improved part of the sim.But with the addons I have, FS9 looks veeeery good to me. For my way of simflying I find it very nice and have no need of switching to FSX, really. I am not trying to prove anyone to be wrong. I would be wrong to do it. That is simply what I feel, kill me if you don't like it.6. 'FS9 is better for heavy metal flying and FSX is better for low&slow VFR'To a degree that might have something do do with the truth. Heavy metal is usually conected with mega airports full of AI traffic, complex panels with high fidelity gauges, flying through dense HD clouds, downloading live data, etc. This is sometimes hard even for FS9. All the pretty details FSX offers you on the ground are then not so visible and important for many people, including me. On the other hand, when I tried FSX flying a Piper 3000ft over the ground, I did enjoy the detailed ground textures, more trees and moving cars, etc. It was nice, I can understand it easily. VFR is based on visual reference, so FSX seems better for this purpose.To summarize, I dream of a day when the fact that you fly FS9 or FSX becomes a small technical detail, like the different models of monitors you all are gazing at now. We are all an MSFS community of passionate armchair pilots, supporting each other and sharing valuable knowlegde. I love that!Too much time and key hits have lately been wasted on trying to prove the ones using another platform are wrong on this or that. What for?Does it make us feel any better?And to developers:You will continue making FS9 addons? Great! Thank you so much, I will support you with my money, if I like the product, and many others will too.You drop FS9 and make FSX only addons - fine, I may be sad to lose you (PMDG for instance) but I respect your decision and will fly your great existing FS9 addons for years to come. Good luck with your business, frankly!

[G7USL 117]

i dug up this post by ryan from PMDG about the JS41 and the MD-11. their don't seem to have "suffered" like you said by going the FSX route.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1672029

That post was PMDG 'spin'.What they didn't admit to was, how many 'combo' packages they sold, that contained both sims. :(

[Guest Astradan]

Very good post Rafal. Good to see some common sense and open mindedness, amongst some of the immaturity and ego-parading that goes on in these types of threads.I use FS9 and FSX in the way you suggested in your comment above; FS9 for complex airliners sims, and FSX for VFR flying in nice GA aircraft, around the Orbx FTX sceneries.Thanks,

[Dave Morgan 68]

Hey all.I felt like agreeing with Rafal so thought I'd pipe up too..."don't buy new products." ?? I do- with the exception of a few addons I've had from the library here, all I have in FS9 is payware. I only bought FS9 about 6 months ago and I'm still buying.I don't use torrent sites. If something is worth having, it's worth doing the originator the courtesy of obtaining a genuine copy.FS9 doesn't seem to me really to be outdated, as Rafal's explained. 9 and X serve slightly different purposes.Personally, I have to confess that my favourite flight sim is still Flight Unlimited 3 which, as far as new commercial development is concerned, has been dead for a long, long number of years. However, there's a bunch of us still making new stuff for it and de facto it's very much alive. I imagine my FS9 will outlive most installations of FSX. It's possible that my FU3 will outlive them both! At the end of the day, if it's liked it will persist.

[Mike... 7]

Its just none of the FS9 users want to buy anything from the developers. FSX people are the only people buying things at the moment.

LOL! Last six months I spent a couple hundred bucks on addons...Look, I don't think anyone has any real problems with business decisions being made. It's all about money, I get that. But what can be debated is what they base those decisions on. And I think it has been clearly demonstrated that certain developers have indeed a flawed sense of logic. You can't release an umpteenth version of something then be surprised at disappointing sales numbers and drop support. Well, you can, but it is a missed opportunity. On the other hand, you have developers that recognize that with the right products you can still make a bit of extra pocket money off FS9. Those products are still being bought, rest assured.

[mgh 89]

See below for my reasoning of "obviously flawed logic."

In reality your definiition of flawed logic is logic that disagrees with yours.If you so so sure of your argument why not beginning developing add-ons yiourself. You might end up as CEO of a very successful company.

[kerosene31 349]

As a flyer who spends most of his time flying only GA planes anymore, I thought I would just chime in again and mention that I stick with FS9 for low and slow flying. I tried FSX on my PC and it worked pretty well with simple planes, but I found that even GA planes with the slightest bit of complex avionics had a big FPS hit. I went back to FS9 and haven't regretted it. I can fly patterns in the VC with smooth FPS and not have to worry about staying away from busy airspace, turning off AI traffic, etc. Visually FSX is fantastic, and while it ran pretty well I still prefer not to have to worry about FPS, and fs9 that's what I get.