Hey Guys, First off - I am a fan - and - when you guys put forth the effort - your products are superb... Obviously - with your recent foray into X-Plane - Carenado is interested in expanding sales into other markets... Why not consider one last full blown attempt at the FS9 market (X-Plane has more users than FS9 ???)... I'm sure poor sales initiated your decision to terminate FS9 products... In my humble opinion - you really didn't give FS9 a fair shake... In my experience - jumping from your FS9 Mooney to your FS9 Arrow IV was like the products were produced by two different companies... The FS9 Mooney was a work of art - well polished - and - had all the bells and whistles... The FS9 Arrow IV - not so much... The Arrow IV had a boat load of issues - as it seems the the plane was made for FSX and only ported to FS9 as an after thought... We had issues with contact points causing the plane to bounce down the runway - the flight model left something to be desired - we couldn't even see through the windows in the rain - and - of course no 2D panel... I'm not sure if these issues were ever fixed by subsequesnt patches... I know I spent a great deal of time trying to tweak the plane myself to get it to work right - before I got frustrated and lost interest... From posts I have seen - it seems many of these same issues continued through the newer FS9 product line - which certainly discouraged me from spending any more money with Carenado... I think it was more the issues and not the platform that caused poor sales... I still fly your Mooney and 182RG all the time... Obviously - there is a large portion of this community still using and purchasing software for FS9... Just ask the IFly guys about FS9 sales... This is just a suggestion - so take it for what it's worth - why not consider one last full court press effort into the FS9 market... Pick one of your recent products that sold well - and - convert it "fully" for use with FS9... Give it all the care and attention to detail you did when creating the Mooney - including the 2D panel... Then at least you will have an honest indication of what FS9 sales are still capable of... In the end - it may put a substantial amount of money in your pocket for the effort involved with the port...Regards,Scott

With all respects, I wish to put forth a counter argument. In this day, even the low end computers are well above what the medium-level computers were when FSX first came out. Add in Acceleration and now almost any computer made within the past 2 years that is at least somewhat gaming capable (and if it isn't, you probably aren't playing any games on it successfully) can run FSX well at the default settings. FSX has so much more to offer than FS9, even at default settings in FSX vs. the higher settings in FS9, that it's a mystery to me why a lot more people haven't turned to FSX. Most (but certainly not all) aircraft have been either converted (with varying degrees of success) or there have been new machines made for FSX that can take full advantage of all that FSX has to offer. Insofar as 2D panels go, I don't ever recall swinging my head around in a real 185 or Beaver while flying and having the panel follow me around. That's exactly what happens with 2D panels and it's extremely unrealistic. Now, VC's in FS9 were rudimentary and frame hogs. That's anything but true in FSX, and while it took me a little while to adjust to the VC-only environment, I now find it light years more realistic and far, far easier to fly, especially when I'm trying to look out the side window for a small strip in the bush below me, or even taxiing a tail dragger along a narrow taxiway and I actually stick my head out the open door or side window so I can see ahead - just as I did in real life. The immersion factor is so much more intense in the VC, and unless the VC is very badly done (which is most definitely not the case with Carenado), it is far, far easier and more realistic to use, and gives you a much better feel for the aircraft.Lastly, eventually all things evolve. True the learning can be a bit painful, but the end gains are nearly always worth the short term pain. FSX definitely falls into that category and I've never been sorry at upgrading, and I don't have a full blown gaming machine. At some point, the developers need to move on as well as it becomes very frustrating and unrewarding to try and build in certain features that the earlier software just can't handle. The developer can't live up to their potential, which often as not ends up in complaints from the customer about why they didn't do this, or include that. Case in point - just call Microsoft and ask about how to fix a problem in Access 97. Their answer (which I can tell you from experience) is, "Sorry, that software is no longer supported. Please consider upgrading." Well, Carenado, and many others have done just that. Maybe it's time for the community to follow suit?Thanks for listening.

Hi BeaverDriver, Honestly - my intent of this post wasn't really to debate whether one Sim is better or worse than the other... Both have their fan base... It was more along the lines that some poor choices regarding FS9 product development - on products they did release - may have given Carenado some artificially low sales numbers in which to base their decisions... I don't expect old products to be supported forever - however - there is still a very large and viable market for FS9... Just look at the files being released in the FL - while they might be outnumbered - FS9 releases are not very far behind FSX releases... Not true for - LOL - Office 97... :( The day someone can point me to a machine that is capable of running FSX with all sliders maxed - with all the usual ground/sky/environment add-ons - complex aircraft with realistic ATC - into a class Bravo airport - with realistic levels of AI traffic - and do it well - that's the day I'll go buy the hardware and make a real attempt to move on... The FSX hardware issue is being discussed over at the other place now... http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?224806-can-anybody-beat-this-or-is-there-no-hope-at-all Totally off topic - how did you like the Beaver ??? I recently read an article about Harrison Ford and the Beaver he flies... He has a fleet of helicopters - jets - and - planes... His comment was he would sell them all before the Beaver...Regards,Scott

Hey Scott,Oh for sure, there are probably still more releases for FS9 than for FSX. It's the sim that doesn't want to go away, and maybe for good reason. Your points are well taken and some are hard to argue against. As to running with the sliders maxed, I've never been able to do that with any version. Are you able to run full out with FS9 now? If so, it's likely that FS9 simply doesn't have the graphics and enhancements that FSX does. If that doesn't matter to you, then I do understand why you'd be reluctant to switch. However, developers are discovering the additional capabilities with FSX and I suspect as much as anything, they want to expand their horizons as well. FS9 is rather limiting in that regard in comparison. I do fully agree with Office 97 releases being "lower now" <LOL>. I guess for good reason. But you are right - I know of no one who can run FSX full out. You pick and choose what is important (I have 2 setups - 1 for high and fast IFR and 1 for bush flying - both are better in their respective areas, but I can't run my bush setup for the high and fast and expect to not have some bad stuttering on departures and approaches). I do hear what you are saying though. I just think that as developers do more and more with FSX, they will develop better and more efficient coding which will allow one to run with higher settings over time. I'm just not sure that "looking back" will permit them the time necessary to learn better coding in FSX as well.I loved the Beaver (don't still fly them unfortunately). It was like a big baby after the 185. The 185 is kind of a "Ford Ranger" whereas the Beaver was big and sloppy. But, it sure did perform! I had to go in and out of some lakes at times that weren't much bigger than mud puddles (or so it seemed), and take a load doing it. You do have to be careful with it though. It's nowhere near as forgiving as the 185, and mistreat it and it will bite you - hard! All the machines I flew were working ones, so they didn't have much in the way of interiors. Ford's is "somewhat better" equipped :(.Good debating with you Scott. It's an interesting topic and one that does resurface frequently. There are arguments to be made on both sides for sure :(

Hi BeaverDriver, Same here - sir... All to often conversations turn into a free for all - just because two people don't necessarily see eye to eye… I always make an attempt to treat my posts as if I was actually having a conversation with someone face to face… With FS9 – I’m maxed – and – have my frames locked on 30… I’m running an older Conroe 3.0Ghz Duocore overclocked to 3.5Ghz which seems to handle it very well… I do mess around with FSX on the machine – although I haven’t invested in the massive software expenditure to purchase all the necessary add-ons… I'd love to try some bush flying and Beavers seem like the best way to do it... Workling on my instrument rating now... Have a good day... :( Regards,Scott

I don't expect old products to be supported forever - however - there is still a very large and viable market for FS9...

Is this your OPINION or do you have FACTS to back it up?FREEWARE doesn't matter here. Carenado SELLS products to make a living. They are not a non-profit.I'll say it again, there's a REASON payware developers have left FS9 behind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Hell, a high school economics class, or even having a brain (and then using it!), is enough.It is not OUR problem that you are obsessed about running every game "maxed out". You have the "slider high" and need to get over it. IT HAS TO BE MAXED OUT! IT HAS TO BE MAXED OUT! NO IT DOESN'T!!! FSX is absolutely outstanding with *******'s tweaks. You can enjoy your 8 year old game, I'll enjoy ORBX scenery with thousands of autogen, HD textures, and FPS locked at 35. If your computer doesn't meet FSX's actual requirements, that is not the developers' problem.You think iFly's sales are good? LMAO. Wait for the PMDG NGX. When that plane is released, the AVSIM forum WILL crash (like it did when the FSX MD-11 was released). There's no way it will be able to handle that kind of traffic. It is going to be absolutely ridiculous.In the end, your letter has no content, and is just a bunch of opinions. Carenado and many other developers have already heard it a million times. If you can provide proof that FS9 has a worthwhile ROI, I'm sure companies would be interested in seeing it. Don't try too hard though, companies have already done these analyses before. That is why they are still in business.These kinds of posts pop up all the time in various sections and the OP's never provide any evidence other than their emotional opinions on the matter, or the "freeware" argument.Oh and if this were "face to face" I would still say it. It is simply the truth.

All to often conversations turn into a free for all - just because two people don't necessarily see eye to eye

Sadly, very true. Seems like it's starting to happen now, but not between us. We share differing opinions, but have enough respect for each other to realize that is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's a shame that everyone can't treat it like that. The poster above seems to think that you need to have hard facts, and that "opinions" are a bad thing (if I read the tone correctly). I would submit that a forum is all about opinions, and that I have learned more things from other peoples' opinions than from any other single source. Anyway...That's very interesting that you've been able to max FS9 and keep a smooth flow going. It does show how far CPU's have advanced over the years I guess, and I have to be honest - stutters kills my "fs mood" faster than anything else. It is something that FSX can be bad for, and I do seem to spend a lot of time tweaking to find just the right compromise. Funny I just read a review of a Mach 3 system by Hypersonic over at flightsim.com and even with a $5,000 system, he got a few stutters in FSX. Mind you, with what he was running, I'd be DOA in my system probably <LOL>. We have a couple of folks at Bushpounders who still run FS9 and one who even still runs FS2002, and still have fun. I guess in the end, it's whatever gives you the greatest pleasure in this. Otherwise, why do it. The only drawback to staying with the old systems is a reduction in add-ons, but as you have pointed out (and I've seen myself), that's not too much of an issue with FS9. At least, not yet. I admit to remaining unswayed and will stay with FSX, because I've seen the added benefits/enhancements, but I can see your side of the issue as well. So what the hell - we can BOTH be kept happy, at least to this point :(. By that same token though, I guess it is Carenado's perogative to put their efforts into the newer systems to maximize their potential, and if we are allowing each other to agree to disagree, we have to give them the same courtesy (which I have no doubt you do, even if you don't necessarily agree with their decision).Yes, that IFR ticket :(. Never did get mine, but I wish I had. I was a bush pilot by trade, which is mostly (or was!) VFR. The only "IFR" I did was "I Follow Railroads" the odd time I came across one. As for the Beaver, you'd probably start with something smaller first. Bush flying is a whole other world and what looks easy usually isn't. The 180/185 or even a Super Cub is where a lot of folks start, then after 500 or 1,000 hours or so, you move up to the Beaver then the Otter after that. As I say, the Beaver (and the Otter) are very unforgiving, and you are operating in an unforgiving environment to begin with. Things can get away from you in a big hurry and experience is the only real teacher "out there" I'm afraid. That said, there is no life like it, and once in, a lot of people are very addicted to it. Me being one of them, and I never had any great desire to leave it for the airlines, even though I had the chance.How are you finding the IFR training? That's about as challenging as it gets from what little experience I have with it. I love doing it in the sim, and my uncle used to fly me around in his Aztec IFR so I got to see the system up close which was really cool. Are you doing yours on a single or doing the twin rating at the same time?Later Scott.

Ah ! Another "FS_ vs FS _ all sliders must be maxed" thread... :( For GA flying (that's Carenado's market) and particularly with Orbx sceneries, FSX is LIGHTYEARS ahead of whatever FS9 can offer, even on my now 2 year old PC (with most sliders maxed @30fps locked :().I perfectly understand Carenado's decision to drop FS9. Why invest time and money in dumbed-down models for a shrinking market ?

The poster above seems to think that you need to have hard facts, and that "opinions" are a bad thing (if I read the tone correctly). I would submit that a forum is all about opinions, and that I have learned more things from other peoples' opinions than from any other single source. Anyway...

Opinions are NOT a bad thing. I too have learned much of what I know from them. What is a bad thing is betting the future of your company on them. You don't determine what you sell based on what you feel. You sell what there is a market for, otherwise you go out of business. This isn't about opinions, it is about sales facts.A forum is about opinions, and it should be that way. Economics and Accounting is about numbers.You have to have hard facts when looking at your own company. If people want to persuade payware companies to start making FS9 addons again, they are going to have to provide hard evidence that they will sell. In most cases when a developer HAS done a FS9 version, it hasn't sold half of what the FSX one has, and in some cases has had a negative ROI.It gets tiring seeing arguments for FS9 that don't actually have any arguments except "I want" or "It would be nice".

If you remove the last line in your most recent, you make a very convincing argument with a lot of merit. I agree with you on all counts, and I suspect most others with business sense would as well. Carenado appear to have come to the same conclusion (not sure if the road to there was the same as yours, but the end result is the same). Good comments/debate.I mentioned the last line in your post. The short and swift answer to that is, don't read them. Certainly don't post to them because it only expands such a thread. Let others who are interested or have something to say on that subject post to them. It's not your thread nor your forum, so if Scott wishes to express an opinion, he's perfectly entitled to do so. This is the beauty of an online forum - you don't have to participate if you don't want to. In this case though, not having your input would be too bad. I found your comments interesting, insightful and presented the opposite side of the coin. I'm glad you did comment.

The only real problem I have with what the OP said is that it is the same thing that every other FS9 user says in these threads. The same thing over and over and over and over again. It is fine if that is his opinion, and I respect his opinion, but it won't be an opinion that is going to change Carenado's or any other company's mind about FS9. I too used to be a FS9 user, having spent thousands of hours in it. I too would be frustrated that my sim wasn't being supported much anymore, but that's just how things are. Stuff changes and progresses.There's really nothing new to say about the matter. If a FS9 user has compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it!Think that covers just about everything...

The only real problem I have with what the OP said is that it is the same thing that every other FS9 user says in these threads. The same thing over and over and over and over again. It is fine if that is his opinion, and I respect his opinion, but it won't be an opinion that is going to change Carenado's or any other company's mind about FS9. I too used to be a FS9 user, having spent thousands of hours in it. I too would be frustrated that my sim wasn't being supported much anymore, but that's just how things are. Stuff changes and progresses.There's really nothing new to say about the matter. If a FS9 user has compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it!Think that covers just about everything...

You may be right, but like me, he may not get on the forums that much so missed all that's gone on in the past. In any event, just like you, he has the right to express his opinion, and you have the right/option to pass it by. It should be no skin off your nose if he (or anyone) posts on this topic yet again. There is no header at the top of the thread that lists acceptable topics, so the floor is open :). Freedom of speech, as they say, and in this case, it's not harming or infringing on anyone else's freedoms. As you say, that just about covers everything :).

I would like to second Scott's request. Should be a good test of the FS9 market. To the people that use FSX, why would you care if a company makes FS9 products? If they make products for your chosen platform, then what diffirence does it make to you if they make them for other platforms?Phil

Hi Phil,I can't speak for others, but for me I have no objections whatsoever if they do FS9 as well. In fact, if they have the resources (manpower, etc), and if it's profitable for them, then I think that would be a better way to go rather than limiting themselves to a single (or two - Xplane and FSX in this case) version. If resources are tight though, and it sounds like they might be, considering how many planes they are doing and at the rate they are doing them at, the division of already tight resources may lead to inferior (rushed) products for both. Nobody wins in that case.All that said, it does sound like for business reasons (as kiwikat suggested) or some other reason (greater potential of simulations found in FSX), Carenado has decided to "fine tune" their products to the two lines. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the two sims (FS9 & FSX) differ considerably in how add-ons are programmed and Carenado may simply be in the position where they can only afford the time to do one. Of course, that whole argument gets blown to kingdom-come when you think about how even-more different FSX is to Xplane :(, so my argument there is rather full of holes. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that FS9 is very limiting in terms of features when compared with FSX and Carenado doesn't want to accept those limitations. But, that is pure speculation on my part and nothing more :(.Anyway, ultimately I certainly have no objections to them doing both FS9 and FSX versions, as long as both are done well and as bug-free as possible. Hopefully my posts don't read as though I have anything against FS9 or simmers that continue to use it.

... In most cases when a developer HAS done a FS9 version, it hasn't sold half of what the FSX one has, and in some cases has had a negative ROI.

Do you have any hard facts to back that claim up? Or are you doing exactly what you criticise others for?