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.

Actually, no. This is again where you missed my point. Do YOU know how many people asked you for an FMS before you spent the time and effort to satisfy that request? Not approximately, but in EXACT numbers that you found out through a poll of your existing customers? You did what customers asked and I'm not insinuating that you didn't listen to your customers, but how many exactly did actually ask for that? Obviously you are disappointed with your sales, but then how many asked vs how many you "expected" to sell? How many posts on these forums claim "if someone made an X aircraft I'd surely buy it." Developers grasp at those straws but then don't understand what the true measure of density that request would generate.

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?

Semantics aside, from our view, support/patronize are synonomous terms and that is the issue that has been raised by FS9 users.Unfortunately for some FS9 users, reality has a place in this discussion. Frankly, we are uninterested in "debating the pro/cons" of the arguements made here.We've simply offered a view which might be of interest to some. When current commitments are completed, we've decided to move away from FS9 Development for the same reasons we moved away from FS2002 Development.You see, we've heard all of these arguements before. We well remember the "dust up" between FS2002/FS2004 users and devs and certainly haven't forgotten the ridiculous and nearly unending "slama jama" between FS9 and FSX users at the release of FSX.For us it has become a time to move forward. :(

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.

Quality Wings after SP1 is another contender. The only thing the CS model has over the QW version is a weather radar.

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.

I guess it will have to be up to some enterprising person to put up his funds, get his team togetherand spend at least a year or more in development and produce that high fidelity FS9 Airliner addon he believesthe people are clamoring for and will sell like crazy.Because other than that, its unlikely to happen.Regards.Ernie.

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.Pat

You have a perfect right to your purchase decisions just as we have a perfect right to our development decisons. :( The history is clear on FS2002FS2004 CX development. Abacus had theirs, Eaglesoft did CX1.0, FT did theirs, then Eaglesoft did CX Extreme 2.0 for FS9 and FSX.Avsim gave Eaglesoft a Gold Star Award Review for both FS9 and FSX CX Extreme 2.0. The FSX forums had pages on that review yet not one peep from the FS9 forums.The lack of interest on the FS9 forums along with the glaring difference in sales numbers between the FS9/FSX users has been extremely informative to us.

I guess it will have to be up to some enterprising person to put up his funds, get his team togetherand spend at least a year or more in development and produce that high fidelity FS9 Airliner addon he believesthe people are clamoring for and will sell like crazy.Because other than that, its unlikely to happen.Regards.Ernie.

The possibility that the clamour may not be backed up by user support/patronization raises the risk bar for those who may be considering one to two year dev cycles. :(

I do not understand :( why developers are not for fs9 still, when all you read in the FSX forum is how hard FSX is on a system even with all kinds of tweaks and how even with a Intel Ti7 980 xtreme edition 6 core processor ,that is very over clocked and using the lastest SSD hard drive can only get 22- 30 fps with high quality payware software being used. It is like the developers are banking on the future ,when the fact is there are people right now that can buy/use their products on fs9 with great fps ,if they were made for fs9.I myself have FSX and it does fly ok ,with my current system providing, I use default sim aircraft.My specs.Ti 960 overclocked to 3.9water cooled Nvidia 285 gtx 2gbssd 160 gb intel hd6gigs of ddr3 20000 creative sound blaster extreme gamer sound card

Ti 960 overclocked to 3.9water cooled Nvidia 285 gtx 2gbssd 160 gb intel hd6gigs of ddr3 20000 creative sound blaster extreme gamer sound card

Holy canoly man! It's almost an internal combustion engine :( Hey, here's an interesting idea: If there's a topic on the FS9 forum of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, flight simulation related sites and said topic has 3 pages stacked up with FS9 users screaming they want and will buy appealing products made for FS9, don't you think there's a market right there? Time to apply those demographics mentioned by Mike T earlier, don't you think?By the way, there was also a similar discussion in the FSX forum, triggered by the release of the CLS MD-80 (who saw that one coming :( ) only for FSX.Mike T: If I agreed with you 110% before, I'm with you 200% now. Let's run an airline!Needless to say this are my opinions not AVSIM's nor anyone else's, but just in case...

Holy canoly man! It's almost an internal combustion engine :( Hey, here's an interesting idea: If there's a topic on the FS9 forum of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, flight simulation related sites and said topic has 3 pages stacked up with FS9 users screaming they want and will buy appealing products made for FS9, don't you think there's a market right there? Time to apply those demographics mentioned by Mike T earlier, don't you think?By the way, there was also a similar discussion in the FSX forum, triggered by the release of the CLS MD-80 (who saw that one coming :( ) only for FSX.Mike T: If I agreed with you 110% before, I'm with you 200% now. Let's run an airline!Needless to say this are my opinions not AVSIM's nor anyone else's, but just in case...

It depends on the developers. The demand will vary by the developer and the product. I guess appealing is the magic word. I would go for a lighter MD-80/90, an Avro, or CRJ if they were made available for FS9, but some products I wouldn't. I will say though that there is still demand out there for FS9 products (in general and it varies depending on the product/developer).

Hey, here's an interesting idea: If there's a topic on the FS9 forum of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, flight simulation related sites and said topic has 3 pages stacked up with FS9 users screaming they want and will buy appealing products made for FS9, don't you think there's a market right there?

Let's put things into perspective. There have been 29 different people reply to this thread, and without doing the math I'd say half of them are "screaming" for FS9 development, but for the sake of argument suppose all 29 were, and each absolutely would without a doubt purchase a developer's new razzu aircraft for FS9. Say the aircraft will sell for $50 a copy (you're already complaining) and will require a team of 4 developers a year to complete. That calculates out to $1450 in sales to be divided up among the 4 (in a perfect world) which means each developer will recieve an annual income of $362.50. Now when half of you get butt-hurt because you wanted an icon for the default GPS and the developer who just spent a year programing a complex FMC masterpiece "won't listen to you", and therefore you decide not to buy it (and maybe even throw up a forum post detailing your "bad experience" with the company which hurts sales even more), you've now reduced each developer's annual income to a whopping $181.25. Somebody was just talking about REAL numbers a minute ago, weren't they? I'm not saying there's no market left for FS9 development (there probably isn't a market for any FS development realistically), but this definitely is not "a market right here".So does anyone know if Carenado has ditched the 185 for FS9?Jim

You have a perfect right to your purchase decisions just as we have a perfect right to our development decisons. :( The history is clear on FS2002FS2004 CX development. Abacus had theirs, Eaglesoft did CX1.0, FT did theirs, then Eaglesoft did CX Extreme 2.0 for FS9 and FSX.Avsim gave Eaglesoft a Gold Star Award Review for both FS9 and FSX CX Extreme 2.0. The FSX forums had pages on that review yet not one peep from the FS9 forums.The lack of interest on the FS9 forums along with the glaring difference in sales numbers between the FS9/FSX users has been extremely informative to us.The possibility that the clamour may not be backed up by user support/patronization raises the risk bar for those who may be considering one to two year dev cycles. :(

As I said, if it's not a compelling product in the mature FS9 space, safest bet is going FS10 only. From what you've shared w/ us, I would agree with you that your outfit's best bet is FS10 based on sales figures. Wish you luck. As for the "Gold Star Award," it's subjective and I've been burned by some of those reviews. A data point for sure, but not a definitive verdict on payware. And the thing about FS10 forums having pages on the topic, I think you and your crew seem to tag team in every little thread that mentions your products, which add to pages--perfectly okay. It may be great marketing practice, but for me, it's pure entertainment, especially when tempers start to flare and I see time and again snide comments made followed by a smilie face icon :( Pat

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*

I don't think that the sales of your Citation X is an indictment of the whole FS9 market.I think lots of folks like me already had the first version of your Citation X as well as the FeelThere Citation X, and weren't about to pay full price for a third reincarnation of it. The market for a C-X in FS9 was saturated...largely by yourselves in fact, so I don't think it's a surprise people aren't paying full price to buy the new FS9 version in large numbers. I did buy the FSX version of the ESDG Citation X V2 since it gave me a substantially new capability that I didn't already have covered on that platform.I still think that you'd see more FS9 sales if you gave a big discount to your previous V1 and/or FSX version owners. Your dev costs are already sunk and given that your marketing strategy for a new version in FS9 is failing...guess I don't understand what you'd have to lose by changing course.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I don't think that the sales of your Citation X is an indictment of the whole FS9 market.I think lots of folks like me already had the first version of your Citation X as well as the FeelThere Citation X, and weren't about to pay full price for a third reincarnation of it. The market for a C-X in FS9 was saturated...largely by yourselves in fact, so I don't think it's a surprise people aren't paying full price to buy the new FS9 version in large numbers. I did buy the FSX version of the ESDG Citation X V2 since it gave me a substantially new capability that I didn't already have covered on that platform.I still think that you'd see more FS9 sales if you gave a big discount to your previous V1 and/or FSX version owners. Your dev costs are already sunk and given that your marketing strategy for a new version in FS9 is failing...guess I don't understand what you'd have to lose by changing course.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Don't worry, we are not shedding tears over the lack of interest over one FS9 product.The FS9 CX example was just that..an example. Watching ALL FS9 product numbers decline is the real crux of the matter from our perspective.As already mentioned, we have few FS9 commitments and then we cease the FS9 development based on the information we and other devs have in hand.Discount sales coupons are already in place for certain periods throughout the year. :(

As I said, if it's not a compelling product in the mature FS9 space, safest bet is going FS10 only. From what you've shared w/ us, I would agree with you that your outfit's best bet is FS10 based on sales figures. Wish you luck. As for the "Gold Star Award," it's subjective and I've been burned by some of those reviews. A data point for sure, but not a definitive verdict on payware. And the thing about FS10 forums having pages on the topic, I think you and your crew seem to tag team in every little thread that mentions your products, which add to pages--perfectly okay. It may be great marketing practice, but for me, it's pure entertainment, especially when tempers start to flare and I see time and again snide comments made followed by a smilie face icon :( Pat

The Gold Star Award is the result of a steller team of Avsim Reviewers who happen to be as unbiased as any I've ever witnessed.The "subjective" comment generally applies to all reviews but if you feel "burned" by that one there is not much hope that you will ever feel "unburned" by a review.The FSX thread about the Gold Star Review was not started by us but we did participate in the thread and enjoyed what we considered to be one of the most positive threads we've experienced.The puzzling part was why no positive response in the FS9 Forum at the same time. As we said, that fact proved to be informative to us regarding the highly heralded FS9 market.Oh, almost forgot the smilie for you. :(

I don't think that the sales of your Citation X is an indictment of the whole FS9 market.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, Aerosoft says their FS9 sales are little more than 10% of their FSX sales FOR A PRODUCT THAT IS MADE BOTH FOR FS9 AND FSX.I think that is reality that has to be accepted. Same thing will happen to FSX in the future, and again we will have to live with it.

Bleaker?I have literally TONS of payware aircraft for FS9,and most I hardly ever fly!so for me the future ain't bleak,it will be filled with learning to fly the DA Fokker,Leonardo's Maddog,and countless others,and flying to many wonderfulfree and payware sceneries I haven't even been yet.I say good for them,it'll ensure they are in business whenever I will switch over to FSX.cheersJP.

While I was convalescing from having some surgery in South America, I decided to pull everything I deemed decently flyable out of my FS9 hangar and fly one good leg in each of 'em.In that week I didn't come anywhere close to flying even half of them just once.Same for scenery...I recently bought a great package of something like 47 TropicalSim FS9 sceneries that covers just about the whole Carribean, and haven't come close to getting to all of them even once yet.I don't mourn the loss of development for FS9...it had to happen some day. But the loss of FS9 developers doesn't at all mean the loss of FS9. It just means I can fly FS9 without the temptation to get my wallet out quite so often.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO