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

Developers are reluctant to talk about their sales but here is what PMDG says about it.PMDG's Position on FS2004 DevelopmentAnd Ryan "Tabs" Maziarz, also from PMDG :

... This poll showed a huge advantage for FS9 and when we release the MD-11, the sales were the exact inverse of it - tons of people saying they use FS9, but hardly anyone actually buying the airplane. FSX version outsold it 3 to 1.

A very, very interesting article Jean-Paul. I hadn't seen this before. Thanks for posting this Jean-Paul. Much appreciated.

Thanks BeaverDriver for your response. The last paragraph pretty much sums it up. It is ashame that some of the other members are not as understanding of FS9 users.

No mention of FS9 vs FSX sales but these were the reasons Carenado gave to drop FS9

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

I guess that says it all.

Only one problem, they never did make that annoucement on there web site, just in this fourm. I wonder why? They announce everything else.

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

I was a beta tester for several companies a couple years ago. I regularly talked with developers and got an insight as to what sales were like (that was 2 years ago and FSX was miles ahead). They've not made any figures public like PMDG has, so I can't make them public either.I know this probably won't please you, but it is all I can say due to NDA's and the like.If FS9 were profitable enough, Carenado would still put planes out for it, regardless of how detailed or complex they can make planes in FSX. They are a business.

Seriously?? My honest opinon to people complaining about developers not supporting FS9 is to possible save a bit of money by not purchasing 3rd party add-ons for FS9 and put that money into FSX. Ive had FSX for two years (my first sim), I ran it on a AMD Athlon 2000+ At 2.2ghz, ATI 3650 512mb and 1gb of ram. My FPS were at 15 - you can search any forum EVER, and never find me complaning once about those FPS.FS9 is seriously lacking, compare these two products - the FS9 PMDG 737NG and the FSX PMDG 737NGX, which one is better? IMHO FS9 is a waste of rescoures when better quality add-ons could be produced.Besides, Ive tested something into FSX that can allow me up to 50FPS in the Orbx Lancair IV-P over PNW mountains with most sliders to the right. One of my testers even had the same settings in the default A321 at KSFO and got 89FPS (and his system is an i5 750 @ 3.8ghz, gtx 460 and 4gb ram) . Ill be sure to publish something here at AVSIM once its done. But if you don't want to move to FSX, move to X-Plane - the options are there, you just wont take them.

Besides, Ive tested something into FSX that can allow me up to 50FPS in the Orbx Lancair IV-P over PNW mountains with most sliders to the right. One of my testers even had the same settings in the default A321 at KSFO and got 89FPS (and his system is an i5 750 @ 3.8ghz, gtx 460 and 4gb ram) . Ill be sure to publish something here at AVSIM once its done.

Very interesting, looking forward to read some more about that.