I'm finding out that many simmers are disappointed in the fact that so many great programs didn't emigrate to FSX. Wow...what an eye-opener for me. However, if you never used many of those programs, then it didn't affect you. In my case, it didn't. However, in many cases, it was truly a loss.Stan

I'm finding out that many simmers are disappointed in the fact that so many great programs didn't emigrate to FSX. Wow...what an eye-opener for me. However, if you never used many of those programs, then it didn't affect you. In my case, it didn't. However, in many cases, it was truly a loss.Stan

Both the amazing FS Navigator, and LAGO FSE were never programmed for FSX, mainly due the a number of negative/nasty remarks at the time, aimed at the programmers, in the Site Forums.......a good reason for NEVER incorporating a "Forum" in your Site!...Most dedicated On-Line Multiplayer Flight Simmers use both FS 2004 and FS Navigator together.FS 2004 is also infinitely easier and quicker to connect to Multiplayer (drop-down Menu) via FS Host, than FSX incorporating the dreaded GameSpy!Paul...FS 2004 + FS Nav...G-BPLF Multiplayer.... ...!Multiplayer Flyer since the old Dial-Up Internet days... ...!

The same philosophy will apply to MS Flight when it is released. I have spent a reasonable amount of money on scenery and payware aircraft addons for FSX, and it all works superbly now that I have an i5 2500k system to run it. The simple fact of the matter is.....if these addons are not compatible with MS Flight, then it is highly unlikely that I will be purchasing it. I have also taken the time to set up a couple of hundred landing approaches in several different aircraft, and I really don't want to have to do that all over again!

-----------------------------------------------------------With the cost 'as peanuts' for hard drive real estate today...why not leave a both well developed (third party integrated) FS9 and FSX? Again with personal opinion in mind, I think there is nothing better for FL flights in commercial aircraft, then FS9. The color pallets are much more real-world. At altitude, in the FL's that is. Now...if VFR...you can simply find nothing better than ORBX-loaded FSX. Only most recently have I finally put the FSX CTD curse to rest with a new sound driver for my Creative sound card product. I am enjoying long cross-country ORBX flights in all the regions I have purchased. That being said though...I have comfortably found, that I click on FS9 for the Heavy Iron, and FSX for the low and slow. Again...unless there is a data storage issue...why in the world delete the FS9 product and its entire data base? It has its immense capabilities to this day, and always will! You only have to allow each platform the (user) respect of its production era...and then, merely enjoy each. My four cents....Mitch

Mitch, exactly my thoughts too. I use FS9 for airliners and some add-ons that are not available for FSX. Also, since I do most of my flying on Vatsim with Squawkbox I usually end up with FS9 since Squwkbox is much more stable in that environment. I'd love to fly the PMDG737NGX in vatsim but I've never managed to finish a flight yet since SB4 crashed constantly...But when I want to fly low'n slow, I'll jump into eg the A2A cub and fly in Orbx territory. Looks marvellous. Then again, FS9 with ASA, REX, some airports from FSDT, Fly Tampa! etc looks pretty darn good too!

Krister has a good point about add-ons that are not available for FSX.One that comes to mind is the AVIANO AB with Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) scenery by Cloud 9 at the time simulated an approach system I have only used in real-life and have yet to find any updated capabilities for FSX.