Developers that promise compatibility patches should keep their word and deliver - period.Compatibility patches however should not be expected IF not promised - call such a dev stupid but if it works in fs-whatever version the cold fact is that's what you bought, that's what was delivered and it will always be your choice to use that version to run the addon. Most devs push their products forward, and it's just plain good business to do so, but I cannot wrap my head around expecting this as being DUE. Some go so far as to expect multiple patches as fs advances???It's like buying an after market part designed specifically for my '02 Corolla, then complaining that it does not work in my new '06 Corolla. I cannot expect the after market dev to provide me with the new part free nor can I necessarily expect Toyota to ensure my old after market part works on the new car.Having said that - In the telecomms industry a key focus is developing products that allow a customer to transition to newer equipment gradually, without necessarily having to 'forklift' their current, often substantial investment. MS Game Studios and addon devs should, and do consider compatibility issues and less than top end hardware, but the advancement of the platform must continue. It's really up to me to keep up if I can.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/markrey/lsd2.jpghttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

I beta tested FS2002 and FS2004 and my policy was to keep a dual installation of both for at least 6 months to allow for the 3rd party stuff to catch up. Besides, after thousands of hours of tweaking, flying, etc., my set up became so customized that it took me months to slowly migrate it anyway. I'd say if you have the HD room, keep a double install. What I probably wont do is keep multiple installs of the same version. For instance, I have FS Golden Wings set up as a separate install of FS9. When FS10 shows up, GW will probably go off my machine as part of the upgrade migration and to economize the HD space.Eric

I fully agree. Noone can guarantee their addons will work with a new version of FS they have never seen, nor can they say it can be made to work in a cost efficient manner.

FS2006 may be bug free, backward compatible, and have stunning features that are a must have. Why decide now not to use something when you have no idea what that something is? Wait until it comes out and read the posts and opinions here and elsewhere then make an educated decision about whether the negatives outweigh the positives. It will likely have bugs, probably nothing that affects the casual user flying default aircraft, but we "more advanced" users will find things that aren't quite right. Balance that against the new features and then decide. billg

>Hi,>>I will say that sometimes I get a little peeved at feeling>like I am a beta tester when I am a paying customer. Sometimes>I don't mind. Maybe it just depends on my mood. Getting peeved over something "No one has any control over" does not make any sense. It just creates unnecessary stress, and we have enough in life. When MS brings out a NEW version, they make it the best possible in the time to do research, write the billions of bits of code, and test. If you want bug free software, it will -never- happen. You think this is bad, it is not worth even complaining about. Put it in perspective. Before Windows or even DOS even existed, we had CPM, and I paid $1800 for a piece of software for my business. It came on four 96k disks. Yes, much less than 1meg. And, it NEVER worked it had so many bugs. They updated it 4 times in a year, it still did not work. The company sold it to another, they tried to fix it, and finally went bankrupt trying.It cost $495 for a Floppy drive which held 97k. My first HD, cost $2400, and it held 5MEG... Those using computers in the 70's were real "beta" testers. You had to know a lot more about how a computer operated, and how to do most of your own coding. Programs you pay $25 for today, have 100's of times the code one had then for $25. AND $25 then, was a LOT more money or bought a lot more than today.It is NOT the maker of an add-on's fault, that it does not work with a new version of software. No one used to ever expect them to do so. Personally, I would prefer it, if MS upgraded the flight sim so much each version, that it was NOT backward compatable. Yet, I have people like Justin Tyme, at FSGenesis.net who has been upgrading add-ons to the FLight Sim at no cost, since the early 90's... When I first used the Flight Sim, mountains were just lines on the screen. There was NO addon available. The first addons I can recall, were made by Bruce Artwick, who created the flight sim, and we had to PAY for them. >Maybe I should say I'm sorry, nah, I don't think so, but I>just don't understand where you could be coming from with>this. Maybe the majority appreciate the fact that they dont charge for -every- upgrade. We used to get upgrades for software sometimes 2-3 times each year, and had to pay for every one of them. Thankfully those days seem to be gone forever, and we don't have to pay for bug fixes. Software has always had bugs, fortunately today there are not as many as there used to be. >It does have a few other issues as all previous versions>have(can see through clouds too easily in 100% IMC conditions,Then, your settings may need changing. I cant see through My clouds at all. Yesterday it was not even 100% over all of S CA. in the PMDG B1900, but in some areas it was. I was above the most clouds' From take off at L35 Big Bear City, to Oceanside, from BOD in them all the way to KSAN. On final, did not break out of them and could barely see the brightest lights of field at 1000, (Hardware rendered lights set to 8) ... could not see the runway until just below 500, gradually becomeing clearer as I got lower. But, fog still obscured the closest hillsLooks to me like you may need to turn up your clouds. My system is set for Real Weather. Sight distance of 60 miles. Cloud draw distance of 30 miles, 3-D Cloud preference 100%, Cloud coverage density Maximum... IF you set them for less, you limit cloud coverage, and even this is NOT as high as they can be set, but at least I can get 30-40fps at this setting. Even today, when S.CA is supposed to have 50 mile clear visibility, distant hills probaby 30+ miles are grayed from ground haze. Usually we get fog in S.CA until as late as 19-11 am a good deal of the time. My scenery is set at: Terrain Mesh complex 98% Terrain Texture High Terrain detail Land Only Water effects Low Dawn/Dusk & extended check'd Special effects High Scenery Complexity Extremely Dense Autogen Extremely Dense Addon checked, Extremely Dense Sun Glare & Flare offCrank up your settings, and it gets more realistic. I believe even the "Effects" setting may have some relationship to the way clouds look. Most of the time I fly below 120, so I like max scenery especially mountain details. I've got everything in my system, that FSGenesis has available, including EZ-landmark, it helps when VFR to find your way around unfamiliar areas.

hey john, haven't read all the replies yet but i'd like to jump in on this too. seems like just yesterday that i finished all of my upgrading for FS9, actually it was awhile back but seems like yesterday. alot of upgrading too just to get it running the way i like. now, with ALL these great addons for FS9, mainly aircraft and panels for me, my hands are FULL! with the few that i have {freeware}by top of the line developers and all the fine detail, i have enough to keep me busy for a VERY long time. i'm not to hot about giving all this up for a new version which would probably include another MAJOR upgrade. no, i don't think i'll go after it any time soon. for me it would be a total waste to not enjoy what i already have. i could almost bet alot of people haven't scratched the surface of what they already have and are already waiting for FS6 or whatever it's called. as soon as they get it, they're crying and complaining all over again. sorry, that just sort of came out with the other stuff. now, what was your question again?:-) william

i mean FS 10 or whatever. EEEK!!! william