http://www.airsimmer.com/support/index.php?showtopic=6821

It shows fs9 is the most used out of the two sims. Someone then states," not all of us have a intel Ti7". The funny thing is, even with a new Ti7 960 overclocked (with all tweaks I found on the net also) to 3.9hz, ssd hard drive and a 2gb 285 gtx My copy Fsx still is a side show (well down in the lower teens as far as fps goes) with descent addon scenery and aircraft.Take a look at say a company like orbx which makes excellent addon scenery. All of their videos use a default aircraft being used . The reason is because there is not way to even use their scenery maxed out at the present time with a addon aircraft. So if you can live with default aircraft fsx is the way to go.I have wasted money on addons for fsx that I can't even use so for that very reason I will not buy any more .

Whatever the outcome of the wrestling match between FS9 and FSX- I'm finding less and less reason to boot up FS at all. After 16 years of flight simming, my enthusiasm is waning. Perhaps I just have the blahs- hoping there might be a new FS9 737NG - which now seems doubtful. Reading the X forums, I've concluded you have to be a computer tech to make it work and have a sockful of cash for hardware & software. Neither of those attributes fits my profile. So the old drawing board is out to see how I might use my existing computer / flight sim desk, as the basis for a model railroad- abandoning FS entirely. Cost wise, probably less expensive than an upgrade to X. And simpler too!(one of my 17" LCDs would make a dandy old time Drive In Movie screen for scenery and still be usable for email etc !)Alex Reid

I actually went back to LOMAC recently. There's something nice about just turning it on, jumping in a plane for some "simple" air combat action with out having to fine tune 3rd party weather, make a flight plan, turn on 3rd party ATC, progam FMC ... dont get me wrong, I did all that for years, and still want to. Its just a little refreshing to take it down a notch. They also just came out with Flaming Cliffs 2 which upgrades LOMAC to better, but still achievable, graphics quality on older machines.Some here may cringe, I know its apples and oranges between Air Combat programs and FS9, X etc. But its kinda nice to go flying with limitations to keep it simple - my point may be missed here.

It seems we have another developer that's went FSX only. CLS has decided to make their latest MD80 FSX only. You have pretty much bet the course of future development from this company. There goes my hopes of an updated A310 from them for FS9... :( Like what was said before, be happy with what's offered today for FS9 because the future is looking bleaker and bleaker... :(

Just think about the poor saps running FS2002, you think we FS9's got it bad :( I appreciate the passion many of the posters in this forum have about the slow replacement of FS9 by FSX, I used to be one, back when FSX first came out. But now I

We didn't say the FS9 CX2.0 isn't selling, we said it doesn't sell as well as the FSX CX2.0 version despite the fact that the FS9/FSX Versions both earned the the Avsim Gold Star Award.Please understand that our FS9 CX2.0 example was just that...an example and we'll reiterate once more that our decisions are based on across the board numbers, not on a single projects numbers.It is also important to remember that we've never said FS9 is dead. In fact I've posted many times that I enjoy and run FS9 and have no intention of removing it from my drive.Our only point in all the back and forth between FS9 and FSX supporters is that we and others find FS9 development no longer viable. :(

Ya, I don

Surely the bottom line is that it's the developers who put their time and money into future add-ons and so they will put obviously their resources into those areas they that think are most worthwhile. Why should anyone complain about that? - it's the way the commercial world works. There are no real barriers to entering add-on development, so those who think they know better are free to begin developing whatever they want for whatever platform they chose.

You said it !! :( :( :( And if a developer that decided to take the FSX route finds that sales are slumping, then heck, dust off the FS9 boxes and make something for FS9 B)

Ya, I don

To me that reads as "Buy what we make, not what you want or give up any vague hopes of seeing what you want "Just saying :(

sooo you didn't really want the PDMG 747F? :( Do people on this forum really think that developers dont want to produce a product they think will have greatest demad? As far as I know, just about every major plane has been developed for FS9/FSX, most of the Boeing series, Airbus Series, tons of general aviation products, tons of military products, helicopters... historic and modern. gee wizz, is this really a fair statement?

so they dropped the MD 11 and Beech 1900 and kept the 737 and the 747.smart move,Starbucks :(

hu, ya, cause it makes more sense for them to produce 737s and 747s.... and if there becomes a great demand for the B1900 again, then by all means they can decide if they want to produce it again.. its called business - not a conspiricy

http://www.airsimmer.com/support/index.php?showtopic=6821

Self-selecting polls like that give meaningless results because they are not based on a valid sample of the underlying population.

Example, Starbucks came out with about 4 breakfast sandwiches a few years back. Now they offer two of the original 4. Did they stop making the other two because they were selling so many that they were tired of making money, or could it be that they just were not selling enough of the other two and decided to just offer what they do now? I'm glad they chose the two I liked the best. :(

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

Bottom line if after all these nice replies: we cannot force them, we can only ask and hope.In the meantime, fly with what you have.. already good at a vor-dme approach or a circling one in a 747 for example ? no ? then enough to do in the meantime while hoping. :-)

http://www.airsimmer.com/support/index.php?showtopic=6821

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you choseFS9 or FSXYou cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

I'm not about to register at YAFSFF (Yet Another FS Forum) just to see silly poll results... :(

Someone then states," not all of us have a intel Ti7". The funny thing is, even with a new Ti7 960 overclocked (with all tweaks I found on the net also) to 3.9hz, ssd hard drive and a 2gb 285 gtx My copy Fsx still is a side show (well down in the lower teens as far as fps goes) with descent addon scenery and aircraft.Take a look at say a company like orbx which makes excellent addon scenery. All of their videos use a default aircraft being used . The reason is because there is not way to even use their scenery maxed out at the present time with a addon aircraft. So if you can live with default aircraft fsx is the way to go.I have wasted money on addons for fsx that I can't even use so for that very reason I will not buy any more .

most of the orbx videos are not made using the default planes.i'm running much more modest hardware than you and i'm getting 30 fps with ORBX scenery with add-on aircraft.if you're using orbx scenery, you should read their manuals which include their suggested optimal settings.

I'm not about to register at YAFSFF (Yet Another FS Forum) just to see silly poll results... :(

Just for you Bill ;)FS9 or FSX FS9 (41 votes [50.00%] - View) Percentage of vote: 50.00% FSX (13 votes [15.85%] - View) Percentage of vote: 15.85% both (7 votes [8.54%] - View) Percentage of vote: 8.54% mainly FS9 sometimes FSX (16 votes [19.51%] - View) Percentage of vote: 19.51% mainly FSX sometimes FS9 (5 votes [6.10%] - View)

Developers aren't looking for evidence that FS9 is still a viable market, many have decided to narrow their scope to a single platform regardless. So arguing back and forth and posting poll results that have been unanimous across multiple user sites are irrelevant to them. Like most management, once they are convinced of an idea there is no proving otherwise. Let's just enjoy the many outstanding add-ons we have, and move on with a more productive use of time and energy.

post deleted