ABOUT FS2004 CARENADO PRODUCTS

[Dillon 2,197]

"So, get better machines if thats what is holding you from flying fsx"Easier said than done, care to donate to my new computer fund?Phil

Great point...

[Deltalpha 3]

Kim, There is more then one reason I'm not moving to FSX. I understand about the new tech they are using.

[Jigsaw 8]

"So, get better machines if thats what is holding you from flying fsx"Easier said than done, care to donate to my new computer fund?

Well... the money that you save because you don't have to buy the Caravan is already one third of a decent dual core CPU that can run FSX easily. And even better: no one forces you to move the detail sliders all the way to the right, which is the main reason for performance grief. On lower graphics settings FSX still looks better than FS9 and runs well on your old FS9 machine. ;)

[gheeD 62]

Good point jigsaw. "sparse" autogen setting for FSX is same as FS9 max. My old computer could even run that easily with 30 fps. (amd athlon 3000+, 7600GS, 1gig ram.) Then i bought the perfect machine for fsx... Now it runs all max 30-50 fps everywhere. (with AI 20-30 at most detailed airports)

[Toxin 0]

... On lower graphics settings FSX still looks better than FS9 and runs well on your old FS9 machine. ;)

How did you get to that point? With GE Pro, HDE v2 or REX Pro, etc. FS9 can look pretty well.But anyway, I don't want to support any discussion about FS9 or FSX, everyone should decide himself and everyone should respect that.

[gheeD 62]

I don't want to continue arguing about it, but i must correct you. It's not about how many addons you have in your sim. FS9 can render exact amount of autogen and also mesh texture is smaller, and when FSX and FS9 is compared at same autogen density settings, they indeed look pretty identical with all cloud addons they both have, but FPS is really close to FS9. Problem is that everybody wants to run fsx like they did fs9, all sliders max, even tho sliders might be max, settings are way higher than FS9... That is the problem. Another thing i can understand is if you've bought many FS9 addons and don't want to buy them again / u can't upgrade them to fsx for free or there is NONE for fsx in that area or airport. But yes, FSX will run allmost as well as FS9 on same density values, and look better (FSX higher quality HD clouds, HD water textures, better shaders for water...). It's just users don't use the sim right.

[Jigsaw 8]

How did you get to that point? With GE Pro, HDE v2 or REX Pro, etc. FS9 can look pretty well.

Either compare Default FS9 to Default FSX or compare FS9 with add ons to FSX with add ons. Anything else is apples and oranges. ;)Anyway, my point wasn't that FS9 may be worse than FSX. My point was that there is no real reason to miss out on great new add ons and that one can't expect add on companies to support the more or less obsolete version forever.You can get FSX Deluxe for the price of a single add on aircraft and you don't even need a new machine for that. That's all I'm saying.

[Toxin 0]

My last comment on this point, please don't get me wrong now:If I decide to stay at FS9 I do it how long I want to do that and then I miss nothing, because it's my decision. The only one, who will miss something, is the developer who won't get my money.Ok, anyway, all my respect to Carenado's decision, they are the developers. I respect the decision too, if someone wants to fly in FSX, or in FS9, everyone should do, as he want to do.Ok, that's it for me, there are tons of IVAO/Vatsim- and FS9/FSX-fights in the forums arround the world. Don't forget, we are a community, we all have the same goal, to fly virtual and having fun and that's possible with all four combinations and don't forget, about 7 years before, FS9 was the best for all of you.That's it. Three greens to all :( :(

[gheeD 62]

I feel it is inpolite to ignore other peoples posts directed to you, And you are starting to sound contradictory. You are saying, you wont miss anything (except that you are missing the plane... obviously?) and developers only are, and i bet no big developer cares about FS9 anymore, Carenado stopped supporting it, Aerosoft did, PMDG did.. And we, community, made that happen. Then after insulting developers you say you respect them...?And don't forget, 4 years ago FSX was and continues to be the best for EVERYONE. But IMO, no need to stay in the past, if we would, we can still continue flying FS5.1... Technology goes on, and i will move on with it and follow the best there is. This is my hobby, and i want to enjoy it to the fullest, with best graphics and framerates. I find it silly to stay in past just becouse computer "can't" run FSX... Becouse it can... its just user error. But i respect everybody's decision if they don't want to throw away their payware addons.

[Guest]

The main reason people stay with FS9 is all the addons they have for it. There really can't be another reason. Saying that FSX performs worse just isn't true. As others already said: if you setup FSX in such a way that it mimics the FS9 graphics (you can even let FSX use the low res FS9 5m/pixels if you want to), you will see it will run just as fine as FS9 (if not better) and then you will also be able to run every new FSX-only plane! No problems at all. As gheeD said, just a lower autogen setting might already help to get FSX perform similar to FS9: default trees per tile for FSX is 4500 while it was 600 for FS9 and default houses per tile for FSX is 3000 while for FS9 it is 300. The LOWEST FSX setting for autogen (sparse) gives you a maximum of 900 trees and 260 buildings. So even the lowest autogen tree setting is 50% MORE than the max of FS9... so in order to get FS9-like graphics (and performance) you would even have to use tweaks to lower the autogen even more... I guarantee you that if you lower everything to FS9 standards, FSX (with SP1 and SP2) will perform GREAT. :( It's a very logical step for Carenado to stop producing FS9 planes: you cannot keep on making products for an old platform without getting into problems. ('Old' not meaning bad, btw: heck, even FSX is already old in computerland...!)

[Deltalpha 3]

And don't forget, 4 years ago FSX was and continues to be the best for EVERYONE. ...I find it silly to stay in past just becouse computer "can't" run FSX... Becouse it can... its just user error. But i respect everybody's decision if they don't want to throw away their payware addons.

No, FSX is not the best for everyone. If it was the best, why are there still FS9 users out there? My computer CAN'T run FSX, so if you want to tell me otherwise, please do. Thats not the only problem, I have so much money invested in FS9 to let it go to waste (you mentioned that).

[Ozark_Dogfighter 0]

I ran Vista for a couple years, then went back to good ol' XP, upgraded it to SP3 and installed drivers, etc. I realized I didn't miss Vista in the slightest bit. Not the fancy GUI, not anything. My uncle still runs 2000 and Win98 on a dual boot machine, simply because he doesn't need anything else.I do have FSX, and when it hit late beta I built my current computer (Summer 2006) in the hopes that it would run it. It does, and I love the way certain things look, feel, and handle in it so much that I have never re-installed god ol' FS9, nor any of the multiple payware goodies I had for it, unless by some slim chance they worked in FSX.Bottom line is this: we run what we feel like running. Ain't nothing wrong with showing a brand new Cobra Mustang that a tweaked and hot-rodded 1977 Mustang II will almost keep up with it. Sure you may get some teasing, and sure you might lose the race, but if that Cobra driver is anything of a decent person he's gonna acknowledge the fact that you must have a LOT of blood, sweat and tears in that ol' 'stang to get it to run like that.Run what ya' brung, as they say. Who cares if there are newer faster cars out there? Heck there always has been.I do hate to see a fine company decide to end supporting a classic, but it's an understandable move, and there will always be someone supporting FS9 regardless. Heck we'll be seeing new add-ons for it in 5 years maybe. And I still do have those FS9 discs somewhere.....:(

[Dillon 2,197]

On August 11, 2010 Carenado announced that the company will not release a FS2004 version of our F33A Bonanza and will stop developing FS2004 products.Tools and techniques we are currently using don’t allow making FS2004 versions of our products with a good quality and performance.It is sad news for all our FS2004 customers and we sympathize with all of them, but our commitment with high quality and use of new techniques don’t allow delivering consistent products.We currently have an ambitious product line for the next months. We are making five aircraft at the same time for FSX and we expect to deliver them in the next months beside new projects in the addon industry.RegardsCarenado

O.K. let me get this straight, you drop FS9 development in favor of X-Plane and explain it away as you no longer have the tools and time to continue products for FS9. Did you throw the existing tools away when you bought X-Plane or did you suddenly forget how to create FS9 versions of your birds? Is X-Plane easier to develop for versus FS9 or is it X-Plane is now more important than FS9 in the simulation world?Something doesn't smell right but you guys had better figure it out as FS11 is right around the corner. You would think FS anything would be a better development path than X-Plane especially with Flight! on the horizon. Waisting time with X-Plane might be a big mistake. I for one wouldn't dream of going to X-Plane under any conditions, I'd go to FSX first (hopefully FS11 turns out to be great hence 90% of FS simmers back on one sim). You would think Caranado would focus on Flight Simulator as we have a new version on the horizon that's been reported to build on the 'FS9 code' not FSX. Developers like Bill Leaming (who's been deep in the loop over the years with Aces) and Blogs from MS ex-Aces developers are starting to talk about it... X-Plane is a nitch market especially seeing MS is back in the game... :Thinking:It might be wise to get re-acquainted with FS9 and not totally dump it like trash as FS11 could be a well optimized version of the two (FSX/FS9) and for sure will out sell X-Plane in the stores 20 to 1... :(

[fbobum 0]

I use MSFS and xplane, enjoying both for different reasons; that said I'm a a really excited user to neither. But it seems that once Carenado's decision is out there, like it or not, it's out there. To beleaguer them, singularly or as an entire consumer base would seem a little futile, wouldn't it? In the long term, one wouldn't see them standing back, scrathing their collective heads and walking back to the FS9 table...

[Dillon 2,197]

To beleaguer them, singularly or as an entire consumer base would seem a little futile, wouldn't it? In the long term, one wouldn't see them standing back, scrathing their collective heads and walking back to the FS9 table...

Your right I'm just ticked about this. It would have been better if the plug was pulled after the F33A and Caravan as we've watched those birds with great interest on Caranado's site for quite a while. Now it's all up in smoke... Speaking of going back to FS9 I wouldn't poo poo that idea just yet. Again reliable sources are pointing to a possibility FS11 could build very much from that code as the foundation for it's development. Yes there's advancements and of course it's a new sim with new technologies very different from the current incarnation of FS9 but just the same who's to say where the development path for creation of aircraft will go. Of course all of this has yet to be seen but FS anything where people are buying has just got a new shot in the arm thanks to Microsoft and bailing on something people are still using at this point sinceless...