Why developers shouldn't further development for FS9

[6FingerSays 99]

I was reading over on the Fsdreamteam forum, when I came across Virtuali's (Admin) statement on WHY they quit developing scenery for FS9.

 

I really like it, and it basically summs up to me why they stopped, and hopefully it will sup up to the others.

 

]since FSX users are the VASTLY OVERWHELMING majority right now, developing to be still compatible with FS9 means we have to limit the FSX version in what it can do, which instead IS a "great offense" to FSX users, because by keep using FS9 methods and technologies in FSX, we undermine the quality of the FSX version of the product, and we are killing our future, because we can't keep innovating with new stuff because, if you haven't noticed, with *each* new scenery we added a new feature, which is constantly putting away from FS9, at to the point that with CYVR, there's now way we could do it in FS9, other than redoing from *scratch*, as if it was another separate product.

 

And, when we made the last try with FS9, with KLAX, it took us lot of pain to convert it for FS9, and the result wasn't nearly as good the FSX version, because textures were 4x less resolution (since FS9 doesn't support 4096x4096 textures) and frame rate was WORSE than the FSX version, because in order to replicate some of the detail that was added in FSX with Shaders, we had to increase the polygonal complexity, with additional workload added because we started to exceed the maximum amount of polygons FS9 can display for an object.

 

And since we released KLAX for FS9 after two months, we had a REAL statistic about how big (or I'd rather say, small) the FS9 user base is right now, since KLAX for FS9 sold less than 1/5th of the FSX version.

 

This was 1 year ago. The only thing we were able to observe during last year, is that most of those that stuck with FS9 until 2012, after the failure of MS Flight, which might have allowed them to jump directly to it, skipping FSX, have now come to their senses and either switched to FSX (since MS Flight failed, it's clear that FSX is here to stay), or to Prepar3D, which IS basically FSX, but is still under development, so it has a future.

 

Of course, being testers for MS Flight, and having seen it with more than a year in advance, we knew very well how it was, and we were sure it would have been a failure the moment MS sent an email to every 3rd party developer they cancelled the developers program.

 

 

It was at THAT time that we decided to stop working on FS9, we just gave it a last chance to it with KLAX, but that only gave us the final evidence we needed to assess how small the FS9 user base became.[/b]

[squerble 300]

They're all fair points and I'm surprised developers have carried on for so long with FS9 considering the limitations. More and more developers are dropping 2D panels now because of their additional development time. At the end of the day, they are businesses wanting to make money, even the ones like FSL and PMDG who go to the nth degree in their products.

[PCAviator 37]

It makes sense from a commercial point of view of course. I am sure freeware developers will continue to develop for FS2004 in some capacity as sales volumes are not going to be a factor.

[UR67393 0]

By the way dear FSDreamTeam`s developers- I think Outerra has a future too. And if it will so- I`ll glad to see famous FSDreamTeam`s sceneries at graphical engine of Outerra. Sure- another users too. Best Regards!... MsFS2004 user(which going to migrate at Outerra).

[tf51d 284]

By the way dear FSDreamTeam`s developers- I think Outerra has a future too. And if it will so- I`ll glad to see famous FSDreamTeam`s sceneries at graphical engine of Outerra. Sure- another users too. Best Regards!... MsFS2004 user(which going to migrate at Outerra).

 

You do know Outerra is a graphic engine, not a sim? True they used a plane to demonstrate it's capabilities, but the only way you will be able to "migrate" to Outerra, is if a developer, chooses to build a base flight simulator using to it. To date, I'm not aware of any, unless you know something we don't?

[HighTowers 1,436]

I think Ryan alluded to this issue in his last interview. Mentioned that developing for FSX AND FS9 is extremely costly because of the differences and capabilities. When it costs that much and the FS9 user base is that small its not worth it. Many FS9 users cry wolf, but the time and resources needed for both platforms is just feasible and profitable.

[dermot5746 0]

I agree entirely. I have been using FS9 since it came out and invested a lot of time and money in it over the years.

 

I held out switching to FSX originally for stability reasons as well as a lack of new FSX software.

 

Was waiting to see how MSFlight would shape up and when it bombed I switched to X-Plane 10. I hated it and decided that my future lay with FSX.

 

I still sometimes use FS9 as I am slowly building FSX and learning all about FSUIPC but am glad I switched and really appreciate how similar it is to FS9. Also I have been able to load a lot of payware software that I bought for FS9 as most of the later ones released both versions on the same disk or download..

 

Dermot

[wizzards 99]

QW developed and released their new Bea 146 for Fs9 before Fsx ,i asked why they had done this and was told by Avsim members there was plenty of life in Fs9 ,well QW did not get the sales they needed , they stated that only having sold 25% of what they believed they would sell they would not develop for Fs9 any longer ,seems like its down to Fs9 users to purchase the products produced for there sim of choice

[metalmike 34]

I'm an FS9er but I agree that it makes sense from a commercial point of view. But I'm still plenty satisfied and occupied with what I already have in FS9, not to mention all that's available for it that I'll probably never touch, even if I stick with FS9 for years to come.

[6FingerSays 99]

You do know Outerra is a graphic engine, not a sim? True they used a plane to demonstrate it's capabilities, but the only way you will be able to "migrate" to Outerra, is if a developer, chooses to build a base flight simulator using to it. To date, I'm not aware of any, unless you know something we don't?

 

Haha that would be cool!

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

FS9 1950s era scenery add ons that alone makes me keep FS9 in my harddrive.

[kd7lqw 0]

I have FS9 in my drive as well but only till I figure out where I laid my FSX software. The issue was always hardware and at the time, I was having a much better experence on FS9. Last week however has chaged that with the purchase of an Asus "gamers" laptop with a Gforce 660 and 2gb of native ram on the graphics card. I think I will now be finally able to take full advantage of this dynamic scenery and stuff. So go ahead devolpers, crunch out the FSX stuff now that the hardware is catching up.

 

Mark

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[6FingerSays 99]

an Asus "gamers" laptop

 

I have found that laptops arn't the best for FSX. Do report back on well FSX runs with complex addons though. Mainly for me, I would never get a laptop, because the screen is usually very small.

[FloG 148]

Do report back on well FSX runs with complex addons though.

I'm not sure which complex addons you mean, but I run FSX on a laptop, and it runs quite well. Of course, cooling can be a bit hard, especially in the summer, but I haven't had any other issues so far.

I can run ORBX Seattle area at settings that are higher than FSX's "normal" settings, nothing maxed out (except for detail radius), but at pretty high mesh settings and 4096x4096 texture resolution (not the clouds, though). With default/Carenado planes that is. When using the PMDG MD-11, I have to turn down my sliders in that area, but it works really well outside Seattle area. I also run a lot of other addons(see the "My Simulator" tab for some examples), which don't make a lot of problems at my settings.

But there are some addons I don't even dare thinking about buying, e.g. the NGX, because I think it would kill my performance, judging from the system requirements. I also don't run FSDT's Vancouver airport scenery, as I run Vancouver v.3 and PNW at the same time, which will probably end up in a 1.5 FPS slide show, however, I'll give the demo a try as soon as my holidays are over and I'm back to university.

 

I'm sure that I could run FSX better on a PC, but I can't afford that, and if my simming experience would improve even more, I'm afraid that I wouldn't study that hard :rolleyes: .

 

Regards,

Flo

[maiden757 1]

I revisited FSX for the first time in about three years last week due to not having the hardware to run it properly before and despite having upgraded my pc still found it wanting (12 FPS) so that's that. Car boot sale it is lol. From a developing point of view it makes perfect sense to not bother with 2004 anymore as like any business,they have to move with the financial times but with freeware developers still bringing out new models/sceneries and folk like myself painting said models the future of FS9 is in pretty good shape!!! After all is said and done it's about the flying at the end of the day and to be honest,when I did manage to get a half decent frame rate in X the 172 handled just like the 172 in FS9 anyway so for me at least....the future's blue. :-)