The biggest reason why FS9 is still relatively popular is because we still haven't reached a point where we can run FSX on average hardware (it's been about 5 years since FSX release) with full sliders, full AI traffic, complex payware aircraft and scenery. It's silly to suggest that we all should get i7 extremes, water coolers and overclock them to 4GHz in order to get decent framerates at the highest settings.

No need for i7 Extremes, but it's true that getting near or above 4.0 ghz makes a big difference in performance. There are a lot of people running i7 920's at 4.0ghz and they aren't that expensive and I'm meeting your performance requirements on a 2 year old , $1800 system that I had built just for the sim.

. It's silly to suggest that we all should get i7 extremes, water coolers and overclock them to 4GHz in order to get decent framerates at the highest settings. Not silly at all. Hardware requirements move on all the time for the latest games and FSX is no different in that regard.This is a problem for the community because it splits the market into 2, people who invested much of their time and money in FS9 won't spend a penny on FSX if all they will get is a graphical slideshow or a blurry low res cartoon. e.g. Concorde X with FSDT JFK or Aerosoft Heathrow/Roissy.If people don't want to move to the newest simulator that is up to them, but the perceived split is no more than users making a decision that is cost effective for them. Thankfully from my perspective as a FSX user I am glad that increasingly the top payware add on makers are making the decision to concentrate on FSX exclusively without the inevitable compromises that backward compatibility brings. Incidentally backward compatibility is one of the reasons that FSX ran so poorly in the first place.By the look of things the NGX would be released after September (AFAIK they not in beta yet) and the FSLabs A320 would most likely arrive in 2011 or 2012.

. It's silly to suggest that we all should get i7 extremes, water coolers and overclock them to 4GHz in order to get decent framerates at the highest settings. Not silly at all. Hardware requirements move on all the time for the latest games and FSX is no different in that regard.

The problem is that FSX is not a multi-core CPU or GPU optimized game even with the patches and performance is still very much dependent on CPU clock speed, hence my 4GHz remark. Other graphics intensive games such as Crysis are much less dependent on the CPU and are able to take advantage of technological advancements of successive generations of graphics cards. Remember FSX is about 5 years old now and when you compare that to FS9 after 5 years (around 2008) the full graphics potential of FS9 had been reached by that time. Meanwhile 5 years after the release FSX we're still adjusting sliders and bufferpools etc to get that extra frame rate.

If people don't want to move to the newest simulator that is up to them, but the perceived split is no more than users making a decision that is cost effective for them. Thankfully from my perspective as a FSX user I am glad that increasingly the top payware add on makers are making the decision to concentrate on FSX exclusively without the inevitable compromises that backward compatibility brings. Incidentally backward compatibility is one of the reasons that FSX ran so poorly in the first place.

While it's great that the payware developers are moving to FSX exclusive content, the problem still exists: A fragmented market which is already getting very tiny and very niche. (The only other big flight 'sim' in development is HAWX 2) The only way to solve this problem is for FSX to achieve that 'maxed out' graphics potential either by improved hardware, or perhaps Aerosoft can buy the source code from M$ and release another patch/expansion, a bit like Falcon 4 Allied Force.

The problem is that FSX is not a multi-core CPU or GPU optimized game

Incorrect, FSX is Multicore aware, and will use them... you are correct in relation to GPU's

FSX ain't deadFS9 ain't deadI don't even think FS2002 or 98 is dead.or FS5 for that matter(although possibly poorly.)I ain't deadThe cat ain't dead.Or the hamster either.The Parrot?now that is definitely dead,not merely resting as some would have you believe. An ex parrot.A deceased Polly.But FSsss past and present.NEVER!(In Churchillian accent)Andy

FSX dead?Look at the thread view count for the PMDG 737 NGX pinned topic in the PMDG forum "The View Forward".It's coming up on 400,000 views...That's not the sign of a dead FSX...FSX is still the only real game in town in my view, and it will probably be that way for a few more years. After that, who knows what'll happen.Cheers,

IMHO, the lack of a new flight sim platform is a good thing. Developers have finally been allowed to carefully and fully develop a new add-on--regardless of whether it's an aircraft or other add-on--instead of trying to stay ahead of the release of a new platform that makes all their work unusable. There may be fewer releases of new stuff, but I think things that are being released are of better quality than might otherwise have been expected.

Incorrect, FSX is Multicore aware, and will use them... you are correct in relation to GPU's

You are correct, but awareness doesn't mean it is completely optimized. adding 2, 4 or 8 more cores doesn't improve performance the way overclocking the clock speed to 4GHz does. We're talking about legacy architecture here which first started in FS2000. I fear FSX may be facing a dead end here performance wise with Intel and AMD developing more cores instead of faster clock speed.

IMHO, the lack of a new flight sim platform is a good thing. Developers have finally been allowed to carefully and fully develop a new add-on--regardless of whether it's an aircraft or other add-on--instead of trying to stay ahead of the release of a new platform that makes all their work unusable. There may be fewer releases of new stuff, but I think things that are being released are of better quality than might otherwise have been expected.

It's a double edged sword. There is no incentive for payware developers to do a 747-400 simply because PMDG did one so superbly and cornered the market. What happens when you run out of big planes to develop? Pretty much the entire current Boeing lineup is completed, and now everyone is trying to do the A320 at the same time.

IMHO, the lack of a new flight sim platform is a good thing. Developers have finally been allowed to carefully and fully develop a new add-on--regardless of whether it's an aircraft or other add-on--instead of trying to stay ahead of the release of a new platform that makes all their work unusable. There may be fewer releases of new stuff, but I think things that are being released are of better quality than might otherwise have been expected.

Yes, I agree. My dream is to have the British Isles completely covered with high resolution photographic scenery and terrain mesh, detailed airports, and custom autogen trees. That dream is attainable with FSX, but it probably won't be fully realised until at least Summer 2011. The last thing that I want is for a new flight simulator to be released during that time, since it would probably result in addon developers switching to the new version.In short, whilst FSX lacks an obvious successor, it will never be dead.

Can the community grow ? I mean is the Microsoft activation problem fixed ? Can people find boxes in their favorite retail stores ? And will Microsoft make sure that FSX will work on future operating systems and hardware ?

IMHO, the lack of a new flight sim platform is a good thing. Developers have finally been allowed to carefully and fully develop a new add-on--regardless of whether it's an aircraft or other add-on--instead of trying to stay ahead of the release of a new platform that makes all their work unusable. There may be fewer releases of new stuff, but I think things that are being released are of better quality than might otherwise have been expected.

Amen! I completely agree with this. Of course it would have been nice if there had been some sort of next-gen update or new version for FSX, but to me it always has been about the addons: they make the sim great! FSX itself is 'merely' the bottom of the pizza. So a new version would probably have resulted in a awesome bottom, but to tell you the truth I rather have a mediocre bottom with tons of awesome toppings than a bare bottom, no matter how awesome it may be! :(

At first I chuckled about this topic until I read a few responses and started to think about the legitimacy of the question being asked. I'm biased because I read the forums and follow the latest news on FSX third party developments. From my perspective, having been in this hobby since the early 90s, it's the best it's ever been and gets better on a daily basis given the stability of the FSX platform and ability of developers to focus and refine their technologies. I could rattle off a very long list of developers who continue to amaze me and I can only imagine what will be coming in the next few years. What I don't know is if the FSX platform is able to attract folks new to the hobby who may not be aware of all of the addons out there which basically turn FSX into a much more modern sim (if not futuristic if you ask me). And, of course, there are dollars involved in order to modernize FSX and for what segment of the hobby population will be willing to spend this with every passing year I don't know. Perhaps FSX needs to be re-packaged with certain addons in order to continue its mainstream exposure? If anyone else has opinions on this I would be interested in hearing them. Main point for me is that the hobby hasn't ever looked so promising, just hope FSX can continue its growth. I'm following X-plane development as well and their future appears promising, but at this point in time I can only see myself splitting time between the two at best (I don't own XP9 but do own XP8). Thanks for listening to my opinions. Spud.

I am wondering if my hobby has reached the peak and is starting to die out.LevelD released their 767 3 years ago,PDMG released their 747 about the same time. The wait for the LD757 and the PDMG 737NG seems to be dragging on for ever. No one has announced any intentions for a new Microsoft Flight Sim. Are we basically going to be flying the same planes, on the same platform for the next 5, 10, 20 years? I am happy with my 767 and 747 in FSX and flying on VATSIM but this "hobby" had such fast progress and developments over the 1990 and up until 2008 and now it seems we hit the end of the runway.Any input, hope, insight?

"Die out"? Couldn't be further from the truth! Just take a look at the almost 10 gigabyte FREE UPGRADE for REX2 that came out today (Thursday). WOW. Over 5 months of very hard work by dedicated developers at REX to come up with the HD capable set of cloud, sky, runway, taxiway, and water variables for this GROWING version of flight simulation.It only gets better from here.Stan

IMHO, the lack of a new flight sim platform is a good thing. Developers have finally been allowed to carefully and fully develop a new add-on--regardless of whether it's an aircraft or other add-on--instead of trying to stay ahead of the release of a new platform that makes all their work unusable. There may be fewer releases of new stuff, but I think things that are being released are of better quality than might otherwise have been expected.

I have the opposite belief. The lack of a new flight sim platform slows or stops the progression of the hobby. We need new features, buttons, bells and whistles. This is the only to ensure a long term health flight sim community. I would even like to see several producers of a flight sim program. The competition is good, as can be seen with every other aspect of a capitalistic society. Change is good. Summary ...Lack of a new flight sim platform - badNew and progressive flgith sim platforms - good, real good

a new platform just makes it more difficult for addon developers to make money. They have to keep adapting their techniques for the new sim, and still make a version for an older sim otherwise alienate some of their customers. Now with FSX being the defacto king of fs for a long time, everyone knows what to expect and can plan and develop accordingly. The only thing not releasing a new platform does is bringing out more new customers who walk by a store and see a new version for sale. Which is fine because these are most of the people who only fly default airplanes and get tired of the sim after a few months.I have an i7 950 and cannot get it to oc to anywhere near 4ghz. So my frames are not great. I guess I just have to wait to be able to afford the new nvidia video card to see stable frames. But we are close to having a system that people can afford that will run fsx well enough