Maybe, but they are comparing the same aircraft. If the FS9 version of the same aircraft in FSX had 25% sales, that's a pretty sound number. Actually, I seem to recall that number --or something close to it-- thrown around when PMDG decided to stop FS9 development.

 

Same aircraft true, but the premise still holds to some extent - I'm sure Ifly can attest given the apparently huge success of their fs9 737NG. Even PMDG eventually admitted that it is not necessarily a good idea investing in niche airframes within a niche market, no matter how well built. The 787 is a whole 'nother animal in terms of mass appeal.

 

Having said all of that - I absolutely agree it's their decision and should be respected without rancor.

Though it's disappointing to hear that QW has decided not to release an FS9 787, and accepting that we can't expect payware producers to keep producing new products for a dwindling market, the question I have is this. Why do we feel we need to keep adding new addons to somehow validate our choice to use FS9? I have more FS9 addons than I can possibly ever fully use. I could fly in and out of a different addon airport every day of the week and by the time I was ready to repeat the list, each would still seem fresh and new. I have addon aircraft that I have barely flown, let alone taken the time to really master their systems and become truly competent on them.

 

I get it that part of the addiction is the open architecture of the sim and the fact that we can constantly be improving it. But the reality is that if I did nothing at all to change my FS9 setup from what it now is, it would still be an amazing technological feat and an absorbing hobby. So for me, knowing that another company has stopped supporting FS9 doesn't mean I won't continue to enjoy it for many years. And besides, my credit card could use the rest anyway!!!

 

Cheers

Ian

 

Same aircraft true, but the premise still holds to some extent - I'm sure Ifly can attest given the apparently huge success of their fs9 737NG. Even PMDG eventually admitted that it is not necessarily a good idea investing in niche airframes within a niche market, no matter how well built. The 787 is a whole 'nother animal in terms of mass appeal.

 

Having said all of that - I absolutely agree it's their decision and should be respected without rancor.

Well put Mark - I agree totally

Same aircraft true, but the premise still holds to some extent - I'm sure Ifly can attest given the apparently huge success of their fs9 737NG. Even PMDG eventually admitted that it is not necessarily a good idea investing in niche airframes within a niche market, no matter how well built. The 787 is a whole 'nother animal in terms of mass appeal.

 

I'm not sure if it does, but I can go along with you partly. I'm still not sold that the apparent flop of the FS9 BAE 146 can be attributed to the niche nature of the aircraft. Perhaps a combination of the small demand for the aircraft on top of the fact that the FS9 market demand is waning. That factored with time spent in development (lemon wasn't worth the squeeze).

 

I can see how the BAE wouldn't be a good measurement of "success", though (however we're measuring success). Absolutely.

I think the success of the FS9 iFly 737 lends some support to the idea that the market will respond more readily to a popular aircraft (or scenery) than a more obscure one like the 146/RJ. But Zach is obviously right that no matter what the product is, we are probably getting close to the point where there are no longer enough FS9 users to make producing a complex new aircraft commercially viable. (As opposed to a scenery where existing tools are used) But it's a pity they didn't give the 787 a try - it would have been a unique offering with no competition and I am certain it would have sold far more readily than the 146 did. (And I LOVE their ARJ/146 and have been a vocal supporter since they first released it!)

I have addon aircraft that I have barely flown, let alone taken the time to really master their systems and become truly competent on them.

 

I'm in the same boat Ian and I don't think we are the only ones!

 

Importantly it's not that FS9 users are being isolated from new innovations/techniques. As you are aware NavDataPro now allows the flying of RNP approaches, iFly's autobrake revision etc.etc.

 

I have an absurd number of payware airports all over the world and more are constantly being released.

Therefore I will NEVER be bored and likely flying FS9 until my dying day. And thats MY choice.

 

Blue skies everyone.

I get it that part of the addiction is the open architecture of the sim and the fact that we can constantly be improving it. But the reality is that if I did nothing at all to change my FS9 setup from what it now is, it would still be an amazing technological feat and an absorbing hobby. So for me, knowing that another company has stopped supporting FS9 doesn't mean I won't continue to enjoy it for many years. And besides, my credit card could use the rest anyway!!!

Very well stated Ian! Sometimes it is very hard not to get caught up in the "new new new" that exists not only in the world of flight simming, but computer tech as a whole. I am sorry to see less and less offered for FS9. That however, will not keep me from gaining a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction from the FS9 world I have put together on my HDD. There comes a point I think, where it is best to make the most of what you have and get as much enjoyment as possible from it. I, for one have grown tired of chasing the "latest and greatest". Sure helps where the wallet is concerned as well! Someday I may well move over to FSX, but I don't think that will be any time soon.

But Zach is obviously right that no matter what the product is, we are probably getting close to the point where there are no longer enough FS9 users

Strongly disagree, there's a healthy user base out there.

John Young's fantastic RAF Marham is a beautiful 1:1 example

FS9 downloads: 383

FSX downloads: 493

This is as close to apples and apples as you get....the right product will sell too.

I'm not surprised and do support the decision if it means shorter development times.

Strongly disagree, there's a healthy user base out there.

John Young's fantastic RAF Marham is a beautiful 1:1 example

FS9 downloads: 383

FSX downloads: 493

This is as close to apples and apples as you get....the right product will sell too.

 

Have you seen the latest AVSIM poll on sim choice? As of now out of 340 votes cast FS9 only has 22.9%, That's even less then QW says.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/388792-user-poll-your-flight-sim-of-choice/

Interestingly though, higher than another developed-for sim. Not naming names...

Interestingly though, higher than another developed-for sim. Not naming names...

 

AVSIM is not the primary site for XP users, (They have their own dedicated sites like the .org) so it's not surprising that number would be low. P3D as far as addons are concerned is the same as FSX. I believe there aren't any exclusive P3D consumer addons at this point, so right now there isn't a compatibility issue, so it doesn't really cost any (or very little) additional development costs to produce for it, for FSX native addons.

Have you seen the latest AVSIM poll on sim choice

No... have the FSX gang gone and hijacked it, then??

392 now plays 495 on the downloads mentioned above...

That is 44% / 56% and close to the 40/60 that I believe represents the potential market for the right product.

I have an absurd number of payware airports all over the world and more are constantly being released.

Therefore I will NEVER be bored and likely flying FS9 until my dying day. And thats MY choice.

Thats my impression and my subsequent decision, too.

Especially in 2012, a year which brought us - at least as far I observed - a lot of new add-ons for FS2004.

Regards, Harald

ZachLW

 

I've just noticed your tagline - what is the AVSIM Flight SImulator? I've never heard of it!

 

David

It takes more than 146 and 787 to kill FS9