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.

We agree 100%. :(

You say this yet me and others are still getting Feelthere sizable profits in FS9 (in some cases more than FSX)... :(

Dillon, I'm glad to hear that you and Wilco/FT are doing well but please understand that we and other devs make decisions based on our own experiences.As an aside, it does indeed appear that you are pumping for Wilco/FT and are acting as if they have reached some pinnacle that is unobtainable.Get a grip bud. :(

Whoops posted twice...getting old and shakey

I think PMDG's decision there was spot on! How many times has any third party developer released an addon aircraft on-time and with no bugs, that met with customers expectations? Could you imagine the outcry that would come about if PMDG took preorders and then slipped on the release date by a week... or a month... or two? ...nevermind the inevitable bugs that always pop up after wide release. PMDG probably said no because they don't want to put themselves behind that kind of an 8-ball. God knows I wouldn't do anything like that, even if I was one of the preeminent flightsim developers of our time. We have darem mentioning that the sales of an FS9 version of a particular Aerosoft airplane was only 10% of the numbers sold for FSX. Ron Hamilton of Eaglesoft has seen firsthand a dramatic decline in the market for his FS9 products across the board. I've casually monitored the readership of the AVSIM FSX and FS9 forums (via the "XX Users Browsing this forum" info at the bottom of the page), and found the FSX forum to have consistently more people participating and reading - sometimes 2x or even 3x more at any given time.... (it's 14 vs. 32 at the time of this writing)I get why people still use FS9 - I understand it, and I am not interested in trying to pull anyone from FS9 to FSX. In some respects, there are traits of FS9 that I wish were found on FSX (*outside of sheer performance). But that being said, FS9 users need to understand that every technology will have a period of decline and waning. Just imagine what will happen in several years time when FSNext eventually makes its way on to the market... chances are it will be far less backwards compatible to what we have today (*and 0% compatible if it is not a Microsoft product), and you will have close to 10 years of development time invested in FSX addons. THAT will be an interesting market to watch.

This was the same rational for Windows Vista. Microsoft claimed that it was time to move on to "new" technology. Two years later Vista is dead and Windows 7 is the "new" technology. There is a huge difference between moving to new technology because it is new vs moving to new technology because it is better. Vista had a new interface and was prettier than Windows XP to look at but it performed like a pig in quicksand. I said it on day one of FSX release, FSX is the Vista of the flightsim world. Oh you get 1m ground resolution and moving 3D cockpit shadows...but at what cost? Shutting off all of my AI aircraft so that I can land at an empty airport because frame rates can't handle it?So far, the arguments I've seen are two fold:1. FS9 community is not purchasing enough. But developers have failed to realize that you are not releasing anything that the masses WANT to purchase. The few developers who have like Wilco, QW, Cloud9, etc have not complained not one iota because their bank accounts seem to like FS9.2. FSX is the new technology, its time to move on. Again, new is not necessarily better. Pretty is not always more functional. AND the myth that FSX aircraft are more functional than FS9 is just that, a MYTH. The programming techniques are different, but show me where the FSX functionality is greater than its FS9 counterpart. We know that you can put more polygons in FSX aircraft, and exactly what does that buy? More accurately rendered moving sun shades and reclining toilet seats? Show me critical functionality in the PMDG FSX MD11 vs the FS9 MD11. Sorry, but this argument is poor and just doen't hold water.Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything but let's just say that we need to move to FSX because the developers can't afford to develop for both so they pick FSX and that's the way it is. I point back to XP vs Vista vs Windows 7. Why didn't everyone flock to Vista because it was so "new" and "better?" AND even with Windows 7, XP users are still slow to adopt because it simply is not compelling enough to run out and buy it. All I see is a concerted attempt to consolidate development on one platform by the developers and nothing more. It's good business for them. But, methinks the developers are forgetting something. New FSX users from outside the community is drying up as stores put FSX in the bargin bin or off the shelves altogether. In another year or two you'd better hope that the other 1/2 of the existing FS9 community flocks to FSX, because I betcha none of ya have a plan if that doesn't happen and your FSX sales go down the toilet too.

I think PMDG's decision there was spot on! How many times has any third party developer released an addon aircraft on-time and with no bugs, that met with customers expectations? Could you imagine the outcry that would come about if PMDG took preorders and then slipped on the release date by a week... or a month... or two? ...nevermind the inevitable bugs that always pop up after wide release. PMDG probably said no because they don't want to put themselves behind that kind of an 8-ball. God knows I wouldn't do anything like that, even if I was one of the preeminent flightsim developers of our time. We have darem mentioning that the sales of an FS9 version of a particular Aerosoft airplane was only 10% of the numbers sold for FSX. Ron Hamilton of Eaglesoft has seen firsthand a dramatic decline in the market for his FS9 products across the board. I've casually monitored the readership of the AVSIM FSX and FS9 forums (via the "XX Users Browsing this forum" info at the bottom of the page), and found the FSX forum to have consistently more people participating and reading - sometimes 2x or even 3x more at any given time.... (it's 14 vs. 32 at the time of this writing)I get why people still use FS9 - I understand it, and I am not interested in trying to pull anyone from FS9 to FSX. In some respects, there are traits of FS9 that I wish were found on FSX (*outside of sheer performance). But that being said, FS9 users need to understand that every technology will have a period of decline and waning. Just imagine what will happen in several years time when FSNext eventually makes its way on to the market... chances are it will be far less backwards compatible to what we have today (*and 0% compatible if it is not a Microsoft product), and you will have close to 10 years of development time invested in FSX addons. THAT will be an interesting market to watch.

You're picking apart my post. Ron was saying that fs9 users should put there money where their mouth is. I was simply stating an example where fs9 users tried to do just that, and how PMDG said no to it. I don't really care why they declined it, but that was not the reasoning behind the post to begin with.

Developers are not forgetting Mike. As a business man it is incumbent on you to know your market and respond accordingly.If a market is in severe decline it is disengenous to state that vendors to that market are the proximate cause because they aren't building anything that market wants.In other words, people often request certain things and then fail to patronize the very request which has been delivered. That's life. :( "shrug"Six years ago and since my email account was/is inundated with requests for all types of aircraft and for us to setup a store for Eaglesoft Stuff like Mugs and Mouse Pads. We did setup the store and in six years sold one T Shirt for $8.95.Why the story? Because clamour from a given market does not always translate into succesfull sales numbers. :(

Another reason for FS9's demise is the fact that Vista made it impossible to run FS9, forcing people to buy FSX to remain flight simming. I am still with XPpro. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Another reason for FS9's demise is the fact that Vista made it impossible to run FS9, forcing people to buy FSX to remain flight simming. I am still with XPpro. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Hello DaveWhy did Vista make it impossible to run FS9 ?There are plenty of folk running FS9 on Vista and Windows 7 both 32bit and 64bit.I run FS9 under XP64 which I feel gives the best performance out of all the available MS operating systems

As an aside, it does indeed appear that you are pumping for Wilco/FT and are acting as if they have reached some pinnacle that is unobtainable.Get a grip bud. :(

Quite the contrary... Your the one saying what's impossible at this point and I'm proving it is possible by pointing out a developer that's doing it. I'm even going a step farther and telling you how their doing it. In the case of Pumping for Feelthere, their in the game you and others are taking yourselves out the game (going over to one side). 'Unobtainable Goal' is what you've sized things up as not me, I'm showing you otherwise.Ron you can look at trends and figures all you want but you have to see where your own products get you. If Feelthere looked at things like you and PMDG they would have stopped with the Citation X, switched over to FSX, and reached the same conclusions your reaching here. Your problem is you haven't released anything new in over a year or two. Get some of those promised planes out the hanger and see what your own products are giving you. You can't predict what the market will do with your products when they haven't even hit the streets to any real volume in over 3 years. That's crazy. It's like PMDG releasing the MD11 and jumping ship. If people are even offering up payment well before the product's development that's telling you something. PMDG knows their 737NGX will sell greatly for FS9, they want to develop for one platform to make it easier on themselves in the future (no amount of money will sway them). Their banking on the fact that in two years everyone will be on FSX. Hell I might be using FSX as my main sim in a year. My thing is don't say one thing and the reason is something totally different. Without your own product on the market to make an educated assessment to where your own work is at (not others or the community in general), you can't make a case. The only honest case you can make is you are tired of developing for two sims which is reasonable. Ron I applaud the fact your going to see your existing in development projects through to their intended platform (FS9). When you finally release your Diamond DA42, Cessna Citation CJ1+ Extreme V2.0, Cessna Citation XLS Extreme V2.0, Cirrus SR22G3 Turbo Perspective, and Dornier 328 Jet your going to see more FS9 profit than you previously thought you'd bring in. The problem is will you admit it, tell us, and adjust accordingly or is the honest fact that developing for one platform more efficient than two? In the case of PMDG no amount of money will sway them from FSX only development it's not about money or the community going away from FS9. It's the opposite actually, the developer going away from FS9. I didn't know until reading through this thread FS9 simmers offered to pay PMDG in advance for a FS9 version of the NGX. I would have been in on that myself. If that doesn't tell you it's not about money anymore nothing will...

I can't help but see a parallel to this discussion in the quarrels we've all seen and done with the whole 2D Cockpit vs. 3D Virtual Cockpit decisions that we see developers having to make these days. There are plenty of simmers on either side of the aisle who demand one or the other, and still others who don't entirely care which method is used - so long as they can fly the airplane in question. In the face of knowing they might lose some sales, developers will make their choice one way or the other (or both). It's a calculated risk, as they try to predict what the lost sales would be like as compared to the time and effort needed to code the alternate cockpit method. Sometimes, the difference is worth the extra effort - other times, the difference is negligible - and still other times, the difference is so far out of whack that there is no need at all to entertain the other idea. Sometimes, developers set of personal preferences will be the overarching decision maker. In all cases, I vote with the wallet - I haven't purchased the acclaimed PMDG J41 because I really don't like the VC-only nature of it. I haven't embraced that shift yet. (shrug) It is what it is, though. I won't kvetch that my needs aren't being met, I just won't buy it.

I will say again (purely for note by AVSIM administrators, no debate will be entered into) that I find the saturation of AVSIM discussion forums by the Eaglesoft 'machine' (typically Ron, Ed and occassionally a third 'reserve battery' whose name escapes me), off-putting, tiring and bordering on the offensive. Every thread I read becomes dominated by the opinionated, over-commercially-biased [sic], patronizing views of these people.I know developers support AVSIM (commercially and otherwise) but to sit quiet and allow this is grossly unfair on other more moderate developers who make their contributions to the forums on a 'give some take some' basis.All I see from the Eaglesoft team here are superiority-complex-ridden [sic] 'put downs', obsessive 'last word domination' tactics and of course, the tiresome diversion of debates across the forum onto Eaglesoft sales progression.I'm getting really [sic] of it. Davido.

Another reason I believe FS9 sales lack is that FS9 has a ton of freeware aircraft availible as an alternative to payware. I dont care about systems all that much, I look for a quality model and a realistic FDE. If I can get that then I am happy, and Freeware has given me a good compremise. IIRC FSX does not offer this wide of an alternative. There are some FSX models freeware and you can always port FS9 stuff over but not without possible bugs and a hit to performace. So FSX people are probably more willing to get something made for FSX versus an FS9 product ported over to FSX. This is also why FS9 seems to be a really viable market in scenery because freeware scenery isnt availible for all possible airports and alot of the times they are not as good looking as the payware alternative.

Someone has yet to respond to my comment.Go over to the Leonardo forum. It is host to the best (bar none) aircraft developed for Microsoft Flight Simulator. It is sold as a joint FS9/FSX aircraft.On their poll of which sim users use the results are:65% (152 votes) use FS935% (80 votes) use FSXNow go to the FS2Crew Maddog forum, again:57% use FS928% use FSXthe rest use both.Is this a freak vote. Do FSX users just not bother to vote. This poll shows that the best aircraft available (subjective, but true) is flown by twice as many people in FS9 as FSX.Could a naysaying developer please explain?Maybe the way ahead is to do like Leonardo and sell at 1 price to both simulators.Neil

I believe that for serious fans of this barmy hobby, the FS9 vs FSX debate is moot, because most of us would buy a much anticipated complex add-on for whatever sim it was released for. Airsimmer A320 proved that for me. I had uninstalled FS9 years earlier but reinstalled it for the Airsimmer and have been thoroughly enjoying my time with it (it IS a bloody good add-on if you're lucky enough not to get any CTDs like me!).I mean if a "PMDG-quality" Dash 8-Q300 was released out of the blue for FS9 only, who of the hardcore aircraft FSX simmers wouldn't buy it?Both sims have their strengts and weaknesses. After 3 years and after finally getting smooth high performance from it, I still regard FSX as an unreliable version of the franchise. Have some conflicts with graphics drivers, etc, etc that I get none of with FS9.For me, an analogy would be 'vinyl versus CD' in the music world. FS9 is vinyl with it's analogue feel, it's technical imperfections that somehow make it nice (like analogue music from the 80s somehow sounds sweeter than cold digital recordings of today).I love both sims and will buy quality add-ons for both.I also "buy people", which is why I'm more likely (from this debate) to 'buy from Les' than 'from Ron'. :(