There's a future for anything that people still use and have a need for.

:(

It's definitely FSX all the way. I just can't believe how much we Indonesians actually stick with FS9. They never actually realized how limited FS9 is in handling ultimate realism.It doesn't really matter where these Indonesians actually fly, either from their busy desktops on a heavily populized Jakarta or on the heated streets of Bangka, FSX will and forever simulate these places better altogether, once anyone realizes the places where it actually requires ultimate simulation.Some of us have moved on, even for those who were once Garuda Indonesia repainters of FS9.

It's definitely FSX all the way. I just can't believe how much we Indonesians actually stick with FS9. They never actually realized how limited FS9 is in handling ultimate realism.It doesn't really matter where these Indonesians actually fly, either from their busy desktops on a heavily populized Jakarta or on the heated streets of Bangka, FSX will and forever simulate these places better altogether, once anyone realizes the places where it actually requires ultimate simulation.Some of us have moved on, even for those who were once Garuda Indonesia repainters of FS9.

I have seen you post a lot of nonsense ever-since you got here, starting with allowing in banned members from other forums and moving on from that. This is just one of the latest examples.From a user point of view in terms of realism (flight handing and systems) there isn't a significant difference between FS9 and FSX, through different development processes what can be done in one can also be done for the other (in most cases) - the only real difference is graphics and if you mod your FS9 that difference is reduced.Try flying the Project Tupolev Planes, the SD Yak, the RFP Boeing 747-200, the SCS Tu-134, the Yuzefov Yak-18T, the Xomer An-2, the Samdim An-24, the PSS Concorde, the Rick Piper Hawker Siddeley HS.748, the Fravin Cessna 150, the Restauravia Team Nord 3202 and many other FS9 only planes and then you can talk about realism and FS9 being limited in that regard.Better yet try some of the freeware Russian sceneries, the Canary Islands, Holger Sandmann and Team's Glacier Bay - Alaska/Canada, or many of the other classic FS9 only sceneries and you'll see why so many are still using FS9.I understand having a preference to FSX because it offerers better graphics possibilities, but saying that FS9 is limited in terms of realism is just wrong.

X-plane and FS9, I use x-plane more though.

Hi all !I see often polls like this one... but I think ATC networks statistics are also a good way to get numbers:http://www.airsimmer.com/support/index.php?showtopic=6950Happy flying with your favorite simulator. :(

There's a future for anything that people still use and have a need for.

Very true. That's why we have guys still using and enjoying Flight Unlimited 3 over a decade after it was released. I was one of them until I moved over to FSX two years ago when I purchased a new PC. I created a few freeware packages for it over the years, and worked hard to refurbish the existing airports and airfields (the taxiways, AI pathways, lighting systems etc. were left in a rather sloppy condition, almost certainly because of the rushed release). Completing that work (including the FU2 San Francisco region) was immensely satisfying, and I am grateful to others (Jon Point, Robert Driscoll, and Ansgar Avermeyer in particular) for helping me to do it.There will always be a special place in my heart for FU3 :(

Unfortunately none of the above. I'm still on FS'02 since I'm saving up all my spare money for two vacations next year to the Jersey Shore & Puerto Rico, and this computer's Disk Space is inadequate for FSX so that version would be out either way.

I didn't like voting in this poll because to me it's not a case of one or the other.I still sim on Flight Unlimited 3 from time to time, and IL2 aswell. Both are far better in terms of flight physics than MSFS has ever been - no matter what add-on is installed.I do use FS9 more than anything though, because I do prefer the functionality, and of course - the entire real-world data involved.It's a toss up really depending on what mood I'm in. Do I want to simulate the feel, or the procedures?Quite frankly if MSFS got the physics engine better I'd be able to do both! This is why I really want to give X-Plane a go. ;)

Hi,Is this just for MS stuff? (Is X-Plane MS? See how little I know...)My simming's split about 50 / 50 between FS9 and Flight Unlimited 3. Can't buy anything for FU3 but it still gets a big slice of my attention...Regards,D

Well said - I believe it's a sim that should be on the survey.

The point of this poll started from a discussion of the validity of the FS9 market today. This poll is just about aviation sims alone. That being said it's really about FSX and FS9 but someone said include X-Plane as Caranado has shifted gears to that sim. iFly has shooken up, proven, and validated what we have been saying all along that the FS9 market is not dead as some would have us believe. I personally thought there were more dual simmers (FSX/FS9) than simmers partial to one version. I was wrong... Everyone who voted in the other polls said we should have everyone vote in one poll to conclusively see dual or single users so here it is. Another option was to say what sim will most buy add-ons for but I don't feel that's necessary for the simple fact that the sim one uses will be the sim one supports with addon dollars. Now comes the question as to what sim (FSX or FS9) simmers will purchase add-ons for the most. I think we already know the answer to that. One sim developers can make anything they want and people buy versus a choosy customer base where developers can't make anything they personally choose, throw it out there, and expect it to sell. I can understand going with the path of least resistance and thanks to iFly that's the real story. If both markets are equally vibrant and a developer is not selling to one, it's the product not the market surrounding that particular sim...There's also the point of new technology and so much work bringing the FSX version to market but maybe the 'one size fits all' model doesn't work anymore. Thought has to go into what would sell well for each Sim (Flight! is going to be no different). An MD11 would sell well for FSX where as a 737NG would sell well for FS9, VC only models work well in most cases for FSX users where as 2D panel options work best for the FS9 version. :(

True - the 'one size fits all' market is definitely a dying one. Especially with developers such as A2A Simulations with the Accusim add-ons. They alone make me want to spend £500 overhauling my system...

Thanks for a nice post. All in all we share the same sky.

Very well said!

I think the main issue of developers supporting both sims, isn't only how many potential customers they can garner, but also the operating costs of doing so. If Developers support both sims, there are only 2 ways of doing it. One build it FS9 based, which while still compatible with FSX will handicap the developers from exploiting the features of the newer sim, to add features and improve performance. Also since most complex sims use .dll modules, There would still be separate development and support costs. The second would be two separate development groups, One for FS9 and the other FSX building it to FSX SDK standards. This obviously will double their development, and support costs. So they would have to make very sure that the extra revenue from FS9 sales would offset these costs. For better or worse, PMDG, Level-D has made the decision it didn't.