Someone else mentioned this in the FS9 forum, but one weird thing is that some developers (not all, and not FSDT obviously) bundle their FSX/FS9 products together in one purchase/download, and then go on to say that the FS9 products aren't selling. ?

It's a bit of a strange one. The only thing I can think is that the vast majority of bundled software that covers both is designed for FSX and then a version for FS9 is done as an afterthought and hence,sold as an FSX product.

Came across this on google, interesting standpoint, I must share his explanation! 

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

 

Sorry for the O/T but where are these 1950s era sceneries for FS9 please? .... I'd love to see them!

 

Any links would be great.

 

Thanks

I've read these topics on here before, but it's occurred to me that over the last few years a different sort of division perhaps has developed between FS9 users and FSX users.  There may still be a significant amount of users that predominately (or exclusively) use FS9 for various reasons (freeware, hardware costs, retro scenery, etc), but perhaps the lackluster sales of new addons for FS9 could be partially attributed to the fact that the remaining FS9 users are simply content with what they have - they might not be as hungry for the 'latest and greatest' as FSX users are.

 

Just a thought, I guess it only reenforces the dev comments we read regarding reasons to discontinue development for FS9.

"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."

 

One paragraph! One sentence! However, I did get the message.

There is one single good reason for developpers to stop working on the fs9 platform : with todays's computer, even people with medium specs can have FSX running on low settings smoothly.... And knowing that a low setting FSX is way better than a high setting FS9, there is no hesitation (e.g low autogen n FSX is higherthan high autogen on FS9.... Same for ground textures.....).

Simply put, why work twice when you can do it once and will look and work better. (Period)

 

So, developers are thinking we want our stuff to look better- that is the whole point of moving to FSX. If we were not here for looks we would still be flying in FS98, right?  It tickles me when I read folks saying: "Ohhh, I don't care if it's not eye-candy; I just want an a/c with deep systems"  Aha...Yea Right! :lol:

 

-- Why do we love amazing sceneries or amazing a/c like Aerosoft's Airbus? OR Fly Tampa's Hong Kong, for example? Well, due to the way it looks.. And so many other products...Yes looks is important (or eye candy, what ever you want to call it.)

Sorry for the O/T but where are these 1950s era sceneries for FS9 please? .... I'd love to see them!

 

Any links would be great.

 

Thanks

Calclassics.com have airports and scenery from the mid 50s to the early 70s era.  Get sliverwings mod also to backdate the world and some of the airports like it myself. Gives a retro feel to it. Cuba 1950s or 1960s Phoenix and Vegas early airports.  Fs2004 maybe outdated, but it smooth as butter to fly in all weather conditions. 

There is one single good reason for developpers to stop working on the fs9 platform : with todays's computer, even people with medium specs can have FSX running on low settings smoothly....

 

Yeah but it looks really bad.

 

 

 

And knowing that a low setting FSX is way better than a high setting FS9, there is no hesitation (e.g low autogen n FSX is higherthan high autogen on FS9.... Same for ground textures.....).

 

Not really. Have you used FS9 with good addons? Still looks loads better than a low quality FSX. 

 

I actually made the switch back to FS9 from FSX. I spent more time configuring FSX to run and look great than I did actually simming. With FS9, I can still get it to look really good (right, not FSX/ORBX med-full autogen good) but still nice and believable enough until I can afford a new rig. I can install any addon and not have to worry about the FPS.

I deleted FS9 when FSX was released even though I had a large investment in it like many others and have had no regrets. I fly in DX10 mode only and enjoy many of the features that are FSX only, namely much higher photoreal resolution, cockpit shadows, etc. I totally agree that payware developers should not develop for FS9 for one simple reason, taking time away from FSX development, plain and simple.

Yeah but it looks really bad.

 

 

 

 

Not really. Have you used FS9 with good addons? Still looks loads better than a low quality FSX. 

 

I actually made the switch back to FS9 from FSX. I spent more time configuring FSX to run and look great than I did actually simming. With FS9, I can still get it to look really good (right, not FSX/ORBX med-full autogen good) but still nice and believable enough until I can afford a new rig. I can install any addon and not have to worry about the FPS.

 

If you are are comparing FS9+addons to default out of the box FSX which had major land class problems, then yes I agree with you. Replace the land class with a 3rd party like FSG or Cloud9, not so much! Replace base scenery with UTX + GEX then there is no comparison, even with Autogen at low levels,it's much better then FS9 scenery. Unless you think 4m resolution textures, look better than 1 meter textures (Or better). That's not to mention Orbx!

Yeah, I was comparing to default FSX. Otherwise I agree.

FS2004 is overall user friendly compared to fsx. FSX can't have multiple copies to run different flying eras. FSX looks way better than fs2004, but it poorly coded program and need overclock if you want to use complex aircraft or big airports. Developers won't develop for fs2004 it's business discision. Still, fs2004 will run well on average machine and feel of it seems like was an era the user could tweak around with it. All keep fs2004 as love I 1960s Vegas and Phoenix. Then you have earlier era like 1920 flying where you dead reckon follow lights. Still, fly fs2004 as bygone era feel to it like feels 1950s telecaster.

FSX looks way better than fs2004, but it poorly coded program and need overclock if you want to use complex aircraft or big airports.

 

FSX is based on the same engine as FS2004, so if FSX is poorly coded, (An argument I disagree with) then so is FS2004. It's just that scenery density/resolution  is a faction of what FSX is capable of, that  the hardware has already caught up to it. Try to remember how FS2004 ran when it first came out. It took a little longer for the HW to catch up with what FSX is capable of putting out, mainly to the switch by Intel from progressively increasing CPU speed, to a multi core structure. Now with the I5's and 7's that can be highly overclocked, that problem is a lot less of an issue.  Even without that you can get decent performance in FSX, if you don't go crazy with the settings. My system specs are alongside which are no where near what can be achieved  with today's HW yet I can still get acceptable performance (albeit not great) even with the NGX. Take a look at my videos below.