"I don't understand how the ACES team got FS9 right and FSX wrong. Was the team under pressure to reach a deadline or what?"

 

Historically, I think there was a pattern. FS95 wasn't very good. When FS98 was released it was as though they had taken FS95 and really fixed it. It was almost flawless.

 

Then they went to a very new technology and it came out as FS2000. It was radically different to everything that came before it - but like FSX most people could hardly run it without constant stuttering. That was followed by FS2002 and it fixed FS2000 and added new features like ATC. FS2004 was then based on FS2002 and they really got it right. In a way, it was the culmination of what they started with FS2000...

 

IMO FSX was the equivalent of FS2000 - an almost completely new program with many of the same issues - - way ahead of its time, with enormous potential but not really "finished." (Though Acceleration solved many of those problems) If there had been an FS11 it may well have been the culmination that we all would have embraced as the new standard... In a way, maybe that's what PreparD is doing..... I'm not sure what all this has to do with the release of some new sceneries but the historian in me couldn't resist pontificating. (And probably wrongly!)

 

Cheers

Ian

 

IMO FSX was the equivalent of FS2000

 

Spot on Ian....my copy of FSX sits alongside FS2000 ...both in crisp new dusty boxes.

Yup - me too. I bought FSX the day it came out and it lasted about three months on my old computer. When I purchased a new machine I decided that I could not be bothered with FSX and have happily been ploughing my spending money into FS9. This sim is all I need for enjoyment. :)