Who are you calling a "kiddie"? You talking to me?.........ya talk'n to me?........By the way......I'm a "heavy" 250 pounds who likes "lite"......but certainly no "kiddie" at age 61!You still talking to me?.............

Tell me about it...... :( Everytime I climb into my real airplane (sliding canopy), I realize that I'm carrying an extra 40 lb. bag of rock salt, that I don't need too!But I'm, only 59....Oh...... I prefer GA & scenery pkgs. Do use FS9/FSX, & X-Plane some.L.Adamson

Just talking about my own opinion here, but you know what? I really couldn't care less. I wouldn't have bought the plane anyway, and I don't really see them do a plane I'd really want that I don't already have or can't live without. I have tons of free and payware planes and thus I agree with JP: let me first learn to fly what I have, and then I'll see what to do ith new stuff.Besides, I don't plan to stick around with FS9 forever. When I get a computer that can handle it, I'll be installing FSX next to FS9 and enjoy the best of both.

The 763 decision was definitely puzzling, why didn't they do a -400 instead ? Something to be different from the crowd.I was very interested in the CLS MD80 when I assumed there would be an FS9 version. Not as much now, but willing towait and see. Maybe it'll will give me a reason to use FSX more.Regards.Ernie.

A message I wrote in the CLS forum:CLS competed directly with the LVD-767. I asked you personally for an updated A300/310 which would have sold 10 times over the 767 series in FS9, you refused. What did you end up doing, elect not to respond to anyone's post on the subject and 'SURPRISE' the 767 hit the market. How many people said in various forums, "NOT ANOTHER 767"??? Your outfit makes these kinds of decisions and expect people to just buy (especially in this market) when there's a more serious alternative available. I don't care about the fact you guys produced different versions of the 767, most couldn't justify the purchase when they already had the LVD version in their hangers. You refused to listen to anything your customers where posting here or in any forum... I got one for you, 'Make something no one else has made and see what happens', but your not going to do that. Your going to tuck your tail between your legs and throw the baby out with the bath water... Try a 717, Fokker, or the aforementioned updated A310. I find it tiresome the same old sorry excuse and then demonize a whole community for your lack of vision. It may be a good choice your MD-80 is FSX only when on the FS9 side of things there's the Leonardo MD80. A CLS MD80 wouldn't sell well in FS9 period and I can tell you that before it's official release, good choice with the FSX only option here. What's sad is you want to move forward with FSX only without listening to your customers to really find out what went wrong (well actually I think you know the answer to that and the solution is to jump ship). When there's a hardcore variant like the Leonardo MD80 that's well polished a 'lite' version is not going to compete well in most cases. In the case of the PMDG MD11 (another bag of excuses) you tell me which would have sold better for FS9, a MD11 or an updated 737NG. They release the dude MD11 first and fly off in a huff that it didn't sell well. People screamed for an updated 737NG series and got ignored. Now I guess your next bird out the gate will be a 717 or updated A300/310 for FSX only (the very birds that would sell well for FS9)...You guys kill me with this crap....

Very good reading Les. Hope your well mate? :)In all this dispute they forget that the majority of hardened flight simmers are using FS9 still because their meagre budgets do not allow for expensive upgraded hardware required to run the other sim.They can afford though, addon's for FS9 (the high flyers simulation).

I only own one CLS product, the DC-10, because it was the best example of this aircraft available for FS9. I wouldn't have purchased their 767 (or MD80) because cutting-edge examples of these planes already exist in FS9, and still work very well. I was thinking about getting their 742, just because it's such an eye-candy improvement on the RFP, even if the systems are "F-Lite". This does seem like a developer deciding that poor sales in a saturated market justify abandoning that market, rather than making unique products that don't have viable competitors. A shame, but we can probably expect more of the same in the near future, as developers look for any excuse to create for one platform instead of two.

Very good reading Les. Hope your well mate? :)In all this dispute they forget that the majority of hardened flight simmers are using FS9 still because their meagre budgets do not allow for expensive upgraded hardware required to run the other sim.They can afford though, addon's for FS9 (the high flyers simulation).

Hey Dave nice to hear from you as you know I've been very busy on my end with various things...Getting back to the topic this mess screams of Captainsim. Since the original 727/707 was released simmers pleaded with that developer to fix those birds once a for all. I see they got around to it only for FSX. I like others will move to FSX in a year or so but this stinks just the same. Many aren't in my position able to shell out $2,000 for a new machine in a year. The community is still evenly split but because of the length of time FS9 has been on the market users of that sim aren't running out buying repeats of birds they already have. How many 767's does one need? It would have been nice if we had updates to existing models and would gladly pay for that but many developers aren't like Eaglesoft and/or Feelthere. They march to the beat of their own drum and blame everybody else when their bad choices aren't selling...

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... :(

FS9 isn't selling much of anything these days. People just aren't purchasing for FS9 at a level to cover the cost of development for it.Our Citation X 2.0 was pretty much spit on by the FS9 crowd. *shrug*

Just talking about my own opinion here, but you know what? I really couldn't care less. I wouldn't have bought the plane anyway, and I don't really see them do a plane I'd really want that I don't already have or can't live without. I have tons of free and payware planes and thus I agree with JP: let me first learn to fly what I have, and then I'll see what to do ith new stuff.Besides, I don't plan to stick around with FS9 forever. When I get a computer that can handle it, I'll be installing FSX next to FS9 and enjoy the best of both.

Agree completely. I better not say what I think about CLS here... :(

FS9 isn't selling much of anything these days. People just aren't purchasing for FS9 at a level to cover the cost of development for it.Our Citation X 2.0 was pretty much spit on by the FS9 crowd. *shrug*

Interesting, Feelthere did great with the FS9 community selling their E-Jet and ERJ-145v2 series (Citation X as well)...

I will move to FSX when it can run 100% AI as flawlessly as FS9 can. For now, it cannot. I'm sick and tired of seeing 5-9fps at FSDT's JFK on approach, when FS9 easily sits around 25-30fps. There's not much I can really upgrade in my machine to make FSX run better. I suppose I could get me a pair of GTX 480s :(

Last 2 polls I have seen (both run by developers), one for an addon aircraft (the best one out there) and one for a Voice/crew addon, both highlighted that of the users who voted there was a 2:1 spilt in favour of FS9.Is it that only FS9 users vote in these polls, or are the developers just mad in giving up with FS9?

I will move to FSX when it can run 100% AI as flawlessly as FS9 can. For now, it cannot. I'm sick and tired of seeing 5-9fps at FSDT's JFK on approach, when FS9 easily sits around 25-30fps. There's not much I can really upgrade in my machine to make FSX run better. I suppose I could get me a pair of GTX 480s :(

A pair won't help at all. :-)With the latest generation of processors and a GTX285 and up, a lot of people can run FSX with nearly full details (and LOTS of addons that enhance weather, ground etc.) in most places. Even me with my old Q9550 is pretty happy except in a few places, where I drop below 15fps.

A pair won't help at all. :-)

I was being sarcastic. I know neither FS9 nor FSX support SLI.

With the latest generation of processors and a GTX285 and up, a lot of people can run FSX with nearly full details (and LOTS of addons that enhance weather, ground etc.) in most places.

Well, I occasionally get 200fps in mid-air looking straight ahead, what's your point? It's not the "most places" that count, it's the most critical phases of flight that are important. If I cannot get a smooth experience on approach to a busy airport that means I can't land the bloody plane and if I can't put her down, what's the point of me taking off to begin with?

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... :(

WARNING: A RANT FOLLOWS.Look, make a freeware quality 767 like CLS and sales will suffer. Make an aircraft like the Citation X when there was already one available and sales will suffer even if the new version is really good (and it is!). Make an aircraft that is hugely unpopular like the MD11 and sales will suffer. I'm not sure what developers are not getting about this concept.FSX has a huge hole in the number of add-ons available for it. 90% of the payware scenery that I have for FS9 is still not available for FSX. FSX is also STILL missing most of the high fidelity aircraft that I have for FS9. This means that sales for FSX will be higher because users will buy almost anything to add to it to get it to a state that resembles FS9. Make a high fidelity flying toilet for FSX and sales will be good. Feelthere and Wilco are first to market with their products so FS9 sales are just fine for them. No complaints seem to be coming from over there. REX came out with a hugely popular addon for FS9 no complaints from there either. Meanwhile Captain Sim took 3 years of "blocks" and released a buggy mess called the B757, released two patches and abandoned it still broken for FSX. Is that our fault or their fault?What does it tell you? FS9 users have been BEGGING for a high fidelity 777, 757, 767, 737NG, etc but instead we have been seeing niche aircraft being released and then complaints that FS9 users aren't buying them. Well duh! Developers keep saying that they make what THEY want but have not gotten a clue yet that what THEY want is not necessarily what WE will buy! This should be obvious to a 5 year old.If you told me that a new high fidelity B767 was released and did poorly in FS9 then I'd say the sim is dead. If CLS releases a crippled scaled down aircraft that is not any better than you can get for free from POSKY and complain, I'd really simply think that you have failed to do your homework. We are seeing a rash of "light" products from companies that simply don't have the skills to make high fidelity products. And in the case of Airsimmer who promised a "high fidelity" product but couldn't deliver, they deliver a broken "light" product instead and then ran out of money.The same with niche products. With the economy the way it is, people are much more picky on what they spend their money on...people spend their money on things that they will use not on what developers try to get them to buy. Has anyone missed the fact virtual airlines are HUGELY popular and most of the traffic on VATSIM and ICAO are airliners? You want the biggest bang for the buck? MAKE AN AIRLINER! ALL of the high fidelity and hugely successful Boeings for FS9 have been converted from FS2002 and re-released which tells you that FS9's potential has yet to be tapped. If someone where smart (like Feelthere and Wilco), they'd continue making high fidelity products for FSX and FS9 and make an absolute killing.How come no developers are asking us HERE IN THIS FORUM what we want and releasing products accordingly? All I see are complaints that we are not buying what developers THINK we should buy. I think that they will find that sales on FSX only products may not force users over to FSX and they will shoot themselves in the foot over the years until the entire ONE HALF of the community switches over to FSX.

WARNING: A RANT FOLLOWS.............Captain Sim took 3 years of "blocks" and released a buggy mess called the B757, released two patches and abandoned it still broken for FSX.

Thanks for the warning :( The Captain Sim Boeing 757 is not bad, I tried this recently from a sale and liked it. With the patches it works well in FS9. Even without them (I tried it without the patches first) it was still OK for me. Its the only systems detailed 757 so far.As for the rest you may have a point.