mgh;What part of "we're proceeding" dont you understand?Proceed; 'go forward', 'continue', 'go on with an action'. Continue; 'do something without stopping'.Promise; 'A statement that you will definitely do or not do something'.Again the STATEMENT; "...Yes, we're proceeding with the new NG for FSX and FS9..." No i didnt ignore it, well actually i did because i couldnt believe anyone would be so selfish as to write something like that. What about all those who will miss out on using the product after it was stated that 'we're proceeding'?I wonder what FSX users like yourself would be saying if PMDG suddenly came out with a statement to the effect of, sorry boys and girls but we are no longer developing the NGX.Even though you wont admit it, you would be a little ######.

Others have already answered.PMDG promised nothing and no one has lost anything.

Others have already answered.PMDG promised nothing and no one has lost anything.

Exactly. I would have purchased a PMDG B737 for FS9. For business reasons this turned out not to be appropriate for PMDG. Whether this is the correct decision or not from a potential income point of view is another issue - but that's PMDG's business. Their decision has cost me nothing whatsoever. I'm sure they are not the first company in the world that has changed a plan due to prevailing market conditions.I really can't understand what all the fuss is about.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.Just out of curiosity, Gavin and Chock, are you both FSX users?

I think we will have to agree to disagree.Just out of curiosity, Gavin and Chock, are you both FSX users?

I am a big FS9'er and quite honestly not holding anything back this whole argument sounds like a bunch of whining over nothing. Hell I promised to marry my ex-fiance but when it turned out to be wrong I took back a $35,000 ring and called it off. Big deal!!! A promise is not a contract, no one signed over any money to PMDG, nothing wagered nothing lost...You guys need to get out of this mindset that something is owed to you, stop giving other FS9 users a bad name and understand how the business world really works... A passing comment in a forum does not a promise make. Pan,Pan,Pan, as you are asking others if there opinions are based on the fact they are FSX users I will ask you how old you are and if your comments are a result of your age. I would feel any adult who understands economics and basic business practice of supply and demand would completely understand PMDG's decision whether they are personally upset over it or not!!!And again, I am an avid FS9'er and also an avid PMDG fan, is that so hard to believe?-P

If you all want the new stuff, all you have to do is install FSX. :(

Yeh, but I prefer smooth to slide shows though. Thanks,Greg

Yeh, but I prefer smooth to slide shows though. Thanks,Greg

Guys, we need to start letting go of that argument a little bit... It was applicable back in the day pre- I-7 and the 4 series from Nvidia. Now with guys like ******* reverse engineering the FSX .DLL's it has been shown that you can get 30FPS plus in almost any situation in FSX with full sliders right and the correct hardware. And that would make sense considering how many years it took for HW to catch up with FS9... Does any remember trying to run FS9 pre E8500's and 8800 series video cards? Again, Avid FS9er getting tired of other FS9'ers giving us a bad name by constantly putting FSX and its users down and complaining every time something is not released for the sim we prefer!Paul

It's a slide show if you don't have the hardware to run it. LOLI love reading some of these threads. I always learn something new.Thanks for the brief lesson on economics.

It's a slide show if you don't have the hardware to run it. LOLI love reading some of these threads. I always learn something new.Thanks for the brief lesson on economics.

Same way FS9 was until we all spent years and $$ upgrading our systems. And again, it was not until YEARS after FS9 was released that the appropriate HW came out to run it. Now FSX has been out for years and the HW is starting to catch up and I don't see why that is so hard for people to understand... Yes, it costs money to run a system possible of running FS full bore, it always has and always will but just because we have chosen not to spend our money on that hardware yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist and certainly doesn't mean FSX wont run well on it with the correct tweaks (again the same way we had to with FS9!)PS... Just noticed your specs DJ, love the system, a real beauty!

Same way FS9 was until we all spent years and $$ upgrading our systems.

4 years to be exactly. FS2004 was released in midsummer 2003, in March 2007 I bought my C2D-2.67 that allowed me to run FS2004 with all sliders to the right, 100% AI and average 15-20FPS in heavy hubs.Now we're in 2010 - four years after FSX release and there is no sign of hopes for out-of-the-box hardware that would allow to run FSX the way I do this with FS2004. The only solution is heavy overclocking that many people (like myself) do not accept for many reasons. Intel future plans do not impress as well - they will be increasing the number of cores, L2/L3, but not CPU frequencies and this will not help FSX either.Simply speaking - I have money, but I have nothing to buy. Seriously. I recently went to Microcenter and asked for "safe overclocking", do you know what the guy in tech department have said?...We do not do overclocking, because we CANNOT provide warranty for anything once OC is done.

I've been overclocking for years and I have never had a CPU fail. You have to do your research and find out just how hard you can push your particular processor. I would imagine that most CPU failures are due to pushing the Vcore way beyond the limits. Heat is also a major factor. If you're not going to spend the money for a proper cooling solution, don't bother trying to overclock.

It's a slide show if you don't have the hardware to run it. LOLI love reading some of these threads. I always learn something new.Thanks for the brief lesson on economics.

Uhhh, my system isn't exaclty a p.o.s., besides, there's folks like yourself that have invested huge in a top-o-the-line system and are still struggling to get FS9-like performance and I'm guessing, no matter how much 'reverse engineering' occurs, it ain't ever gonna happen. Thanks for the lesson in socio-economics.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.Just out of curiosity, Gavin and Chock, are you both FSX users?

I tend to use FSX more, and I prefer it because of the better weather environment emulation it enjoys. Things such as the A2A B-17 have also swayed me in that direction too of course. Nevertheless, I actually need both FS9 and FSX installed, because for one thing, I might get asked to review an FS9 product for Avsim, however, even if that were not so, I would still keep FS9 on my system because enjoy one or two add-ons that I have for FS9 which I either cannot get for FSX or don't want to buy again since I have them for FS9 already and their FSX incarnation adds little to the equation. Two examples of that being the Supronov Yak-40 (which you cannot get for FSX) and the PMDG Boeing 747-400 (which you can get for FSX, but it is little different and so I'm not going to buy it again just for the privilege of flying it around at a lower frame rate). If they tart up the PMDG's VC and sort out one or two of the other issues with it in FSX to make it genuinely superior to the FS9 version, then I would certainly buy it for FSX.As it is, I have stopped buying pure FS9 products, but do still buy ones that work in both sims, since that offers added value, thus I do kind of still buy FS9 stuff in an indirect fashion. Two good examples of that would be the Flight 1 ATR-72 and the Uiver DC-2, which I happily bought years ago knowing that they would have a good deal of longevity. As a hypothetical scenario though, if the new PMDG 737NG was only available for FS9 and not for FSX, I'd almost certainly buy that, because it is shaping up to be a landmark FS add-on of the same importance as their 747 when that first showed up.But I don't limit myself to FSX any more than I limit myself to FS-anything. I'll happily fly what does the best job for what I want, and that includes Condor and Silent Wings, which are both better at emulating vertical air movement than either FSX or FS9, and they both simulate spins better too.Al

I've been overclocking for years and I have never had a CPU fail. You have to do your research and find out just how hard you can push your particular processor. I would imagine that most CPU failures are due to pushing the Vcore way beyond the limits. Heat is also a major factor. If you're not going to spend the money for a proper cooling solution, don't bother trying to overclock.

Coming from someone who has had an E8500 running at 4.25-4.45 for 3 years I echo your sentiments 100%...For me to get my FS9 looking the way it does now it required a hell of a lot of OC'ing out of that $200 chip and everyone knows they were built to OC the heck out of same as the current I-7's... Your analogy is like going to your car dealership and asking them to bore your engine and add a supercharger. Of course they will tell you no and how it would void your warranty but if you went to another mechanic and they did the work I damn well bet you your dealership would be lining up to go for rides :)-P

Uhhh, my system isn't exaclty a p.o.s., besides, there's folks like yourself that have invested huge in a top-o-the-line system and are still struggling to get FS9-like performance and I'm guessing, no matter how much 'reverse engineering' occurs, it ain't ever gonna happen. Thanks for the lesson in socio-economics.

Folks like myself spend more time enjoying FSX than folks who, unfortunately don't have the hardware, to run FSX smoothly.I seriously have a problem with your attitude. I never implied that folks like me were looking for FSX to perform like FS9.The truth is that FSX performs and looks way better on my system than FS9 ever did.I'm sorry for going of topic but I think most simmers know why a full transition has not been made from fs9 to fsx.That's if you are a frequent AVSIM visitor.

The truth is that FSX performs and looks way better on my system than FS9 ever did.

How is better perofrmance with FSX possible since, from a technical standpoint, everything FSX does (for the most part) is more technically demanding?I don't see how FSX can perform better than FS9 in any scenario on your systrem. FSX is more demanding from a CPU and GPU standpoint. I think what you are comparing is your system performance with your current system and FSX to what your old/other system used to run FS9 at (is this what you mean?). If you put FS9 on your current system, it would destroy FSX form a performance standpoint.Not arguing that FSX definitely does more with regards to the graphics, but having better performance in FSX than FS9 on the same computer is a little wierd. lol