So is there anything to the apparent notion that Carenado is done with FS9? That's gonna suck because I've been waiting for a good 185 for FS9 for about 7 yrs now. On the other hand there is an FSX version, Orbx PNW, and I just sent in my taxes :( . i7 950?Jim

Aces made FSX. Aces were contracted by Microsoft. Microsoft get their money from hardware developers.The whole program demanded hardware that literally, wasn't available at that time to run FSX.FSX was never properly finished because Microsoft told them it was taking too long so, Aces released it half finished and was sacked.In my opinion they did nobody any favours by providing a flight simulator with desert terrain and ridiculous dynamics for the default aircraft. It was never then intended as a sim, the mode was changed in favour of the gamer.This is where the missions was added.FS9 development was the way to go. Everyone had caught up with it's performance. Addon developers was producing perfect payware aircraft and scenery developers such as 'Vauchez' and Patrice who wrote 'Flightzone 01 and 02' (Still the best ever scenery in both sims) released optimized packages with traffic, unequaled airport movements that didn't effect fps proved that it can be done.One day someone will write a simulation that doesn't need expensive hardware to run, will be better than anything else before and will sell millions of copies. I will not be holding my breath though :(

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.

HelloThe PSS / JF 757 is also a nice product, may not be as pretty as the CS 757 but has plenty of systems modeled and out of the two I prefer it.

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

The FT CX was released at a time when FS9 sales numbers remained larger than todays FS9 sales numbers are.The fact remains that FS9 development is rapidly becoming a non starter for aircraft devs.The writing is on the wall folks so adjust accordingly.We have a few FS9 projects left but when completed that will be that for FS9 development for us. :(

The FT CX was released at a time when FS9 sales numbers remained larger than todays FS9 sales numbers are.The fact remains that FS9 development is rapidly becoming a non starter for aircraft devs.The writing is on the wall folks so adjust accordingly.We have a few FS9 projects left but when completed that will be that for FS9 development for us. :(

Well,It is a fact I don't fly payware/freeware corporate jets,so I decided against the Citation X.I will however be buying the 328JET if it is released for FS9.Th

CLS has decided to make their latest MD80 FSX only

Oh, for crying out loud!I have no CLS products but was looking into the 767 and I was definitely buying the MD80! Guess I must switch to FSX now... NOT!

WARNING: A RANT FOLLOWS.

Amen, brother! ;D You know, the conspiracy theorist in me is thinking that certain developers are making these odd choices on purpose so they can drop FS9 support without appearing to rub FS9 (potential FSX) customers the wrong way.I wonder, should I go ahead and still buy the FS9 767? Think I'll ask CLS that question...:(

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.

Why would devs "need an excuse" to stop FS9 development? Why would they be castigated for a strictly business decision?Facts are cold hard things which must be dealt with properly. The fact that FS9 development is waning should open FS9 users eyes.Two views on the subject. The dev view is that FS9 users do not support the FS9 work while the user view is "provide variety and we'll support it".Both views are the proximate cause of the decline in FS9 Development/User Support and we suspect the decline will continue if not accelerate.

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?

If YOUR computer can't give a smooth approach and landing on a busy addon airport in FSX, you have seriously misconfigured your rig. Ok, if you can't do it on Aerosoft's Heathrow, you are excused, I think it needs cloud computing *g* - but even with my 3.2GHz processor and 3360x1050, high AA and REX, UTX, GEX, ASA with 20 cloud layers and whatelse, I don't have problems getting 25fps approaching LSZH from FSDreamteam with autogen one notch below max, a 5m mesh and Switzerland Pro X.So, what's YOUR point? :(

Mike T: I'm with you 110%!Screw this! Let's just all switch over to X-plane! It is a fact that it is more of a simulator than bloody FSX! (And FS9 too)That way we get the developers to switch to X-plane as well! :(

Why would devs "need an excuse" to stop FS9 development? Why would they be castigated for a strictly business decision?Facts are cold hard things which must be dealt with properly. The fact that FS9 development is waning should open FS9 users eyes.Two views on the subject. The dev view is that FS9 users do not support the FS9 work while the user view is "provide variety and we'll support it".Both views are the proximate cause of the decline in FS9 Development/User Support and we suspect the decline will continue if not accelerate.

I have no problem with the decline in dev support of FS9; as you say, it is a business decision. On the other hand, as a long time FS9 user (having found that it supports everything I expect of a flightsim), why should I invest large sums of money and time in an evolutionary dead end like FSX? From my standpoint it's a simple dollars and cents trade-off not to do so since FSX offers me very little that I don't have except for the opportunity to spend a lot more money rebuilding the status quo. Consequently, the devs must expect a brief influx of business from new buyers (since FSX is pretty much all that is on the shelves these days) followed by the same inevitable decline in sales that FS9 has experienced; perhaps accelerated by a complete lack of marketing support from the manufacturer of the sim.Hard times all around I suspect.Regards,DJ

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!).

I just want to clear one thing up... customers literally screamed for Eaglesoft to update the Citation X with a functional FMS system. So, Eaglesoft did what the customers asked.Claiming Eaglesoft doesn't listen to their customers isn't valid.

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

Why would devs "need an excuse" to stop FS9 development? Why would they be castigated for a strictly business decision?Facts are cold hard things which must be dealt with properly. The fact that FS9 development is waning should open FS9 users eyes.Two views on the subject. The dev view is that FS9 users do not support the FS9 work while the user view is "provide variety and we'll support it".Both views are the proximate cause of the decline in FS9 Development/User Support and we suspect the decline will continue if not accelerate.

See, this is where developers have it totally pear shaped. If you want "support" then you can't be in "business." Charities and not-for-profit orgs are "supported", businesses are patronized. If you are a business then fine: You sell, and if we like it, we buy. If you want "support" then you are in the wrong line of work. I don't support Macy's simply because they sell things. I don't support BMW, I don't support Kenneth Cole, I don't support Home Depot simply because they have merchandise on their shelves. When they offer something that I like at the right price then I will buy it as a customer, NOT as a supporter. On the other hand, I donate thousands of dollars per year to Shriners Hospitals because they give FREE services and they are not a business. If they called me and asked for support, I'd give it to them. If Macy's asked for my support I'd hang up the phone. There is a difference. Macy's is smart enough to know, however, what people will want so that they will pack their stores and they don't need to ask me for anything. How do they do this? Market research and a full understanding of the demographic to which they sell. That means if all they sold were pink pants, because that is what THEY like, but their customers all wanted black pants, they would be out of business. UNLESS they realize that maybe half of the population will buy pink pants and they other half will buy black pants and they sell BOTH!Look, you are a business owner, and any decision you make with your business is strictly your concern. However it is evident as a successful business owner myself that many fs developers have great talent in the development category but are clueless in the marketing, product release, project management and sales category. Cutting a full 1/2 of a sales demographic is insanity in the real world. Not polling your customers on their needs is suicide in the real world. Selling things that YOU think are great without speaking to your customer bases is simply putting nails in your own coffin. Look at american automobile mfgrs. GM sold crap that they thought was acceptible but no one else did so what happened? They went BANKRUPT. I'm not making this up...this is Business 101 here.What I see are "knee-jerk" reactions that only take into account what people are buying without understanding why that pattern occurs. Why do developers think that FSX products are outselling FS9? Instead of blaming FS9 users, why not access your own products, because I promise you that if a product fails to sell, it is ALWAYS the sellers fault and NOT the consumers fault. And since not ONE DEVELOPER has come into this forum and asked what we would buy, then who's to blame?

Why would devs "need an excuse" to stop FS9 development? Why would they be castigated for a strictly business decision?Facts are cold hard things which must be dealt with properly. The fact that FS9 development is waning should open FS9 users eyes.Two views on the subject. The dev view is that FS9 users do not support the FS9 work while the user view is "provide variety and we'll support it".Both views are the proximate cause of the decline in FS9 Development/User Support and we suspect the decline will continue if not accelerate.

It is true that FS9 market is saturated and mature, recycling products will not give one the sales numbers 2nd time around. I believe you had the CX v1 from a while ago and CX v2 on FS9 would naturally sell less, unless the new v2 product was compelling. So, to be safe, it makes sense to take such products to FS10 and be done with FS9. In my case, I found FT's CitationX more compelling so I went that way. Good luck. -----I'd guess a PMDG quality 777 or 737 would sell well on FS9, but seeems they view FS9 as a declinging base and its users are pirates so that's that. Life goes on. As someone just mentioned, the 777 is their reward for "moving up" to FS10. Sure is tempting but unless HW can handle complex airports w/ decent AI and WX, I'd have to stick w/ my trusty and FPS-friendly PSS+Posky merge 777 for a while longer.Pat

Aces made FSX. Aces were contracted by Microsoft. Microsoft get their money from hardware developers.snippedFSX was never properly finished because Microsoft told them it was taking too long so, Aces released it half finished and was sacked.In my opinion they did nobody any favours by providing a flight simulator with desert terrain and ridiculous dynamics for the default aircraft. It was never then intended as a sim, the mode was changed in favour of the gamer.snipped

Microsoft owned Aces....We got more desert terrain than I'd like with FSX, but the mountains are far better in FSX. Much higher resolution and look of depth. It's the mountains that sold me on FSX.As to the default aircraft, many of them have very believable flight dynamics. I should know, as I beta tested FS2002, FS2004, and would have done FSX if my older CPU had been up to par.L.Adamson