sorry, i don't get this. if it's one license for both (i bought from them many times the two versions with one license), how would sales for one simulator exceed the other? p.s. there is nothing that asks the user which simulator he's buying for during the purchase process.

I always heard Aerosoft making points the boxed software was not selling for FS9 never the online option. Aerosoft won't comment on what the numbers are for their online sales of FS9 products... This really all boils down to developers wanting to develop for one sim and be done with it. I wish more would just admit that because the argument FS9 products are selling seems like a joke when I for one am blatantly seeing otherwise (we don't want to talk about the various polls on the subject). The rest of you guys know the truth as well when you look at what QualitySim, Leonardo, REX, and Feelthere have accomplished (especially as of late).

Dont have a problem with them going FSX only, but when you promise something for years and then turn around and say, nope aint happenin', well thats not good business, trust goes out the door.

What's funny is PMDG will deny they ever stated they would make the NGX for FS9. All posts referencing these statements we've all read have been removed...

Well, cant say that I have much to add. But, I can run both FS9 and FSX on my PC, although FS9 runs much better ramped up with lots of WOAI flying around. And thats how I like it. A busy world to fly in. I dont really buy a lot of payware stuff, just a few sceneries, no aircraft. I guess that makes me one of those 'lite' flyers. But thats how I like it, im not interested in all the button pushing and switch flicking.I use freeware stuff, it works for how I use Flight Sim. So honestly, who develops for what doesnt matter much to me. Which leads me to wonder if maybe because there is so much freely available for FS9, the majority of its users dont buy stuff. Lots of users would still stack the polls in favor of FS9 users, but that wouldnt necessarily translate to big $$$ for developers.

Lots of users would still stack the polls in favor of FS9 users, but that wouldnt necessarily translate to big $$$ for developers.

It will if the product is right...

I don't really get why this discussion is so long or so heated? The decline if FS2004 is inevitable. I am one of the many who have stuck with fs2004 for performance and other reasons, and I've been extremely happy with my decision. While I am saddened that add-on support is dwindling, I can't say I'm a bit surprised. No matter what your opinion on FSX is eventually hardware will catch up. I remember back in the FS98 and 2000 days where people thought 2000 would "never run". Of course eventually it did. While it made a ton of sense for many to stick with FS98 at that time, eventually the time came for everyone to move on.Honestly, I'm amazed that we've come this far and still have releases coming out. The volume of fs2004 add-ons is astounding and honestly I doubt in all my years I've experienced anywhere near half of it. Even before FSX the add-on market wasn't exactly what I would call "great". Development times increased as well as complexity. Once FSX came out it took a niche market and split it into two pieces. I'm no industry expert but clearly that was not a good thing for the market. Personally I am supporting the few vendors we have left supporting fs2004 and enjoying my time with the hobby. Who knows what the future will hold for us. We've all heard the discussions, but nothing is certain other than uncertainty. The only sure thing is that we have fs2004 and fsx right now and eventually PC hardware will make FSX viable for everyone. The only question is when.

Reasonably and rationally stated Craig. :(

and eventually PC hardware will make FSX viable for everyone. The only question is when.

It's getting old that only hardware is "holding us back". Personally speaking, there's just nothing in FSX that has been able to entice me to switch. Areas that I'm interested in, such as AI, have been neglected in FSX, so why should I "move on"? And discard all the time, energy and money I've invested in FS9?Nah, I'll stay with FS9. FSX is indeed like Vista, which I've also skipped. I've used both FSX and Vista, but they just didn't do it for me. There's no irrational resistance to change as some like to rationalize it, I am quite happily using Windows 7 after all, with no desire to go back to XP at all. When the right sim comes along, it's time to move on. But when isn't here yet.And as long as it isn't, I'll continue to buy the FS9 products I like. Make the right product, price it right and I'll buy it, even though I'm poor and can't buy a new computer so I can switch to FSX...:( :(

Although UT2 does exactly what you say it does, it's one aspect of AI and the one aspect I and others are less interested in. The core AI system has not changed. When do users interact with AI the most? At airports. Are fake runways still needed to unlock non-parallel runways? Does FSX understand the concept of one-way runways? One-way taxiways? Approach separation? Holding patterns? What are the most annoying things of the FS9 AI/ATC engine? What has been discussed to death? Have those things been addressed in FSX? No, instead MS gave us things that weren't exactly at the top of our lists. We all know what the consequences are or we wouldn't be having this thread's conversation.A returning theme is developers making odd choices... followed by even odder reasoning and ditto conclusions.Most developers are a lot like politicians.

Although UT2 does exactly what you say it does, it's one aspect of AI and the one aspect I and others are less interested in. The core AI system has not changed. When do users interact with AI the most? At airports. Are fake runways still needed to unlock non-parallel runways? Does FSX understand the concept of one-way runways? One-way taxiways? Approach separation? Holding patterns? What are the most annoying things of the FS9 AI/ATC engine? What has been discussed to death? Have those things been addressed in FSX? No, instead MS gave us things that weren't exactly at the top of our lists. We all know what the consequences are or we wouldn't be having this thread's conversation.

All the things you have listed are not AI, but ATC problems. I agree, stock ATC hasn't changed in FSX compared to FS9. But you can code your own ATC (like Radar Contact) and use direct control over AI introduced in FSX to do everything you mentioned. So it's a matter of proper addon, that unfortunately would be FSX only.

I use freeware stuff, it works for how I use Flight Sim. So honestly, who develops for what doesnt matter much to me. Which leads me to wonder if maybe because there is so much freely available for FS9, the majority of its users dont buy stuff. .

Excellent Point! When I got FSX one month ago, I was looking for a certain type of freeware aircraft and did not find anything suitable. So I was "forced" to buy an aircraft which suites my demands. There would have been "tons" of freeware planes of this type available for FS9 though.There is generally not much freeware available for FSX considering, that FSX is out for quite a few years now. So if you want improve your FSX you have to go payware.Wolfgang

All the things you have listed are not AI, but ATC problems. I agree, stock ATC hasn't changed in FSX compared to FS9. But you can code your own ATC (like Radar Contact) and use direct control over AI introduced in FSX to do everything you mentioned. So it's a matter of proper addon, that unfortunately would be FSX only

As I said "AI/ATC engine". Whatever you want to call it, it's a problem. Seeing as how there are only two serious ATC addons at the moment, that hardly go beyond the occasional AI freeze here and there, I'm not all that optimistic about some developer coming along and providing full replacements for AI_PLAYR.dll and ATC.dll or whatever files are responsible. This is another one of those niche cases, the AI crowd would go nuts, the rest... not so much.MS was in an excellent position to do something... anything about it, but they didn't. (Well, they did change the appearance of the progressive taxi arrows...) Perhaps there is more control possible in FSX than in FS9 (largely undocumented to boot, no doubt), but until someone actually takes control, we're stuck with stock. And I'm seeing no reason to migrate.:(

Reasonably and rationally stated Craig. :(

I agree, very well said Craig...I too have been watching this thread, especially after starting the why such a negative disposition to FS9 thread....My .02,At the end of the day it is the developers choice to make. I am sure no developer WANTS to leave $$ on the table and if there was a positive ROI for them they would continue to develop for FS9. If the development time and cycle costs will not or can not be recuperated then why would anyone expect a developer to continue to develop for FS9??? My personal opinion is I LOVE FS9, I am more satisfied with it now than ever but I have accepted the inevitable reality that FS9 development has trickled to a slow stream opposed to the raging white waters we saw during its peak... I choose to stay with FS9 for what I have TODAY, not what might be coming in the future because chances are they will not be coming for FS9! What gives us FSniners a bad rep is the guys who assume they understand the developers business model and cost structure better than the developer. The guys who will not and can not accept when a release is not done for FS9 and continually badger the dev's to "change their mind". (back to my point earlier, they don't want to leave money on the table but there has to be a positive ROI!!!) The guys who do nothing but put down FSX in their support of FS9. (both sims have their value, why can't some of us accept that) The guys who think it is a big conspiracy theory against FS9 by FSX developers and so on and so forth....If you have made the decision to stick with FS9 (as I have for now) then enjoy what you've got, that is why you stuck with it in the first place. We as FS9ers HAVE TO face the inevitable though, devs have turned their focus to FSX and that is their prerogative, a lot of us have decided to stick with FS9 for our own reasons, that is our prerogative, but just because we decided to stick with it doesn't mean devs do too...It is time for us to start respecting the dev's decision and be happy with what we've got! Heck, to this day I think Acura dropping the Legend Coupe was the DUMBEST thing the company ever did. A lot of others do too, every time I go to my dealer we talk about how much we loved that car but I am not going to sit here and challenge their business decisions and expect them to start making it again because of my emotional connection...Just my .02 but I think it is time for us to let some things go, be grateful for what we have, enjoy the sim we all decided to stick with and get over this mentality of assuming that everything we want released for FS9 should be... Our emotional reasoning is obviously not meshing with the dev's business reasoning and IMHO business reasoning outweighs emotional reasoning any day of the week and that is coming from a real FS9 lover!Paul

There is generally not much freeware available for FSX considering, that FSX is out for quite a few years now. So if you want improve your FSX you have to go payware.Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang.What you`ve posted makes me remember something that Aces guys said here when developers were very active on a discussion about all the big problems they (me included) were facing to produce add-ons for FSX, including things like the rounded-earth related issues and restrictions to work on ground, backward compatibility on some areas, SP-1 arriving and breaking what was working well before, the needed SP-2 to fix it, the importance and the extremely need of a SDK easier to understand and decipher, and a closer contact with a wider range of developers instead of a few selected and chosen group of devs (it should have been done before FSX was finished and was extremely necessary for a nice FSXI if this was to come somewhere in the future) to avoid funny (in fact, sad) things like Aces having to admit to Martin (Fly-Tampa) they have no idea of scenery customers demands for a fine worked and detailed ground on a scenery when they made FSX...Well returning to the point I was in mind, by the time of this discussion, Aces openly said that any developer who wanted to produce adds for the "coming" FSXI, would have to follow new parameters and use new tools like 3ds Max... Well, for a freeware developer it would be the best of the worlds: 3ds Max at only US$3,495 and just for producing freeware stuff for the incoming FSXI :( Can you imagine, as there is already few free stuff for FSX (like you`ve stated), the quantity of freewares being released fo FSXI, with the freeware guys having to spend US$3,495 to produce something? My best regards,Carlos Pereira.www.tropicalsim.com

I agree, very well said Craig...I too have been watching this thread, especially after starting the why such a negative disposition to FS9 thread....My .02,At the end of the day it is the developers choice to make. I am sure no developer WANTS to leave $$ on the table and if there was a positive ROI for them they would continue to develop for FS9. If the development time and cycle costs will not or can not be recuperated then why would anyone expect a developer to continue to develop for FS9??? My personal opinion is I LOVE FS9, I am more satisfied with it now than ever but I have accepted the inevitable reality that FS9 development has trickled to a slow stream opposed to the raging white waters we saw during its peak... I choose to stay with FS9 for what I have TODAY, not what might be coming in the future because chances are they will not be coming for FS9! What gives us FSniners a bad rep is the guys who assume they understand the developers business model and cost structure better than the developer. The guys who will not and can not accept when a release is not done for FS9 and continually badger the dev's to "change their mind". (back to my point earlier, they don't want to leave money on the table but there has to be a positive ROI!!!) The guys who do nothing but put down FSX in their support of FS9. (both sims have their value, why can't some of us accept that) The guys who think it is a big conspiracy theory against FS9 by FSX developers and so on and so forth....If you have made the decision to stick with FS9 (as I have for now) then enjoy what you've got, that is why you stuck with it in the first place. We as FS9ers HAVE TO face the inevitable though, devs have turned their focus to FSX and that is their prerogative, a lot of us have decided to stick with FS9 for our own reasons, that is our prerogative, but just because we decided to stick with it doesn't mean devs do too...It is time for us to start respecting the dev's decision and be happy with what we've got! Heck, to this day I think Acura dropping the Legend Coupe was the DUMBEST thing the company ever did. A lot of others do too, every time I go to my dealer we talk about how much we loved that car but I am not going to sit here and challenge their business decisions and expect them to start making it again because of my emotional connection...Just my .02 but I think it is time for us to let some things go, be grateful for what we have, enjoy the sim we all decided to stick with and get over this mentality of assuming that everything we want released for FS9 should be... Our emotional reasoning is obviously not meshing with the dev's business reasoning and IMHO business reasoning outweighs emotional reasoning any day of the week and that is coming from a real FS9 lover!Paul

Well stated Paul. :(

I have the idea that making addons for FSX is got progressivly more difficult, complicated and extensive. May be the reason for less freeware stuff, where FS9 was easier to add something.Also, FSX is more geared to the market, more eye candy, but no new features. No sloped runways (they didnt have to provide them, but at least an easy to implement way would be nice) no interraction with wet runways, no snow accumulation etc. And then to know that weather is for aviation one of the most important things!This bugs me a bit, since ATC can be done with addons, but the weather, only the visual depiction, and some winds can be done by others, the rest is hardcoded. Strange, that after FS98 not much is improved, meaning that the focus is entirely is on graphics.So for us old dino's, FS9 users, there is not a big reason to step over to FSX. Only a better scenery resolution comes to mind. VC's we already got. Maybe under the hood for designers are improvements, but seeing the difficulties developers have to get it al work, at reasonable performance, seems to me it is getting difficult each time.And why developers goto FSX only is simple, its a new version, with a new customers base, and they just want to progress. One can easily ask why there is no development for FS98 anymore.. Same story.Finally, developers bites the dust, since its a normal cyclus of raise and fall.. eventually PMDG for example will be history, and new ones will come and go. However what I do see is there are less and less smaller ones. May have to do with the needed resources, the high customer demand, (spoiled users) and the global markets. Look around, how many small businesses are nowadays gone and swallowed up in to big corporations. Our glory days are over.. get used to it.So I stick to FS9 for the time being, tried FSX but cannot have what I want, maybe in a few years when my budget is enough for a state of the art machine again.

My car is now 10 years old- but has only 70,000 on the odometer. Since it still does the job I ask of it- no plans to buy a new one.For servicing, I look for a garage sign that says in effect "We service both new AND old cars".I don't recall seeing any signs saying "We service only the newest cars". Such a shop will tend to have a limited customer base. And perhaps an uncertain future?Alex Reid