FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!

[Dillon 2,198]

GeyerH, on 22 May 2013 - 2:58 PM, said:

After looking at the poll results a while :blink:

2. FS2004 supersedes all sims except FSX as most used sim.

 

 

Regards,

Outstanding point. ^_^ FS9 is getting more use than XPlane, Flight, AeroFly, Flight Gear and P3D combined yet it's considered more of a dead sim than the other platforms. It's literally being judged on it's age rather than it's use. A biased view of those who prefer FSX that also happen to be our top aircraft developers. XPlane/P3D are still in development so there's consideration there but FS9 is still second only to FSX in desktop simming around the world. If a developer can develop for XPlane it makes no since they can't do the same for a product that's getting more use. I found over the years sales lacked for developers because they were creating products they knew darn well their customers didn't want or care for. They turned around and so called punished people with discontinued development for FS9. Case in point PMDG brought to market the MD11 when everyone wanted the NGX. They got mad when the thing didn't sell so they pulled the plug on FS9 development. They turned around and told us the NGX wouldn't sell for FS9 (as their excuse) then along came iFly which blew that statement out of the water. Another example is Quality Wings with their BAE146. They throw FS9 users under the bus because a product that's virtually extinct from the US skies and other places around the world didn't sell. Punishment is we don't see the 787 from them (a product that would sell way more than a BAE146). Many of us support these efforts in vain when the decision has already been made well in advance of the official statement.  I actually loved the BAE146 and the PMDG MD11 grew on me and today I'm glade they did it (they could have brought it out after the NGX).  There's no other excuse to justify not developing for the 2nd most popular sim in the world. Now bare in mind you have to earn our dollars more so than FSX because of the volume of options we have for FS9. We won't buy another 737 if we already have a good one. FSX on the other hand will buy almost anything as the quality add-on options compared to FS9 is still pretty thin.

 

To be clear I get it that Microsoft is a wild card with Steve Ballmer at the helm. XPlane could be the future so developers should gravitate to that platform. Just the same don't kill development on something unless it's truly dead and going by the chart above which was meant to justify why things are the way they are we actually see a number 2 alternative if we go by customer usage. Seeing as we are in flux right now with which way we are headed all platforms of any merit should be fully embraced by this communities developers to support our numbers and keep this hobby alive. FSX is a true problem child for new users plain and simple. Own that fact and develop for everybody not the fortunate few with money and abundance of time on their hands... Some of us are married with kids for God's sake, we need something that just works before the wife and kids start hollering...

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

The main goal is fluid flight and FSX has never been able to do that well on any machine.

That's such a broad statement to make, you have no idea how it performs on my machine or any of my friends machines. Works as fluid for me as FS9 does. The problem you see in the forums with users having problems is usually due them using huge textures for clouds, sceneries, repaints, bad .cfg tweaks, trying to push the sim way to far with sliders, extreme AA setings, and on and on. Too many think the latest and greatest hardware will overcome that and they proceed to push it too far witg extender radius tweaks HD everything and get OOMs and CTDs, then come here wonder why.

 

If people would just run it correctly and not try to push it too far they would be fine like I am. My setup performs like FS9 and in some cases looks like FS9 except that it was higher res ground textures to make it look less blurry and imho better water. Aside from that, not much difference except thay I can buy the latest addons that are produced and get good performance.

 

I think some blame for people having FSX performance issue should also point to some devs trying to push to far, especially scenery devs who use a lot of 2048 and 4096 textures and then the user is left to resize themselves to regain performance. Problem is not everone knows they can do that or know how. They just settle with what they get and complain about performance at a certain scenery, then think they need to buy better hardware or try more tweaks.

 

REX imho opinion should never have even given the option to use 4096 or 2048 textures and the 32bit option either. Too many new usrs

 

Users install that stuff not understanding the xonsequences.

 

Ed Cox (edetroit) said it best and this applies to both FS9 and FSX user, something to the effect of you control the sim, dont let the sim control you. Meaning knowing how addons work so you get performance out of them, not just installing and hoping for the best.

 

Edit as was meant as continuation of last post.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Dillon, on 22 May 2013 - 7:14 PM, said:

Dillon, on 22 May 2013 - 7:14 PM, said:

Dillon, on 22 May 2013 - 7:14 PM, said:

Outstanding point. ^_^ FS9 is getting more use than XPlane, Flight, AeroFly, Flight Gear and P3D combined yet it's considered more of a dead sim than the other platforms. It's literally being judged on it's age rather than it's use. A biased view of those who prefer FSX that also happen to be our top aircraft developers. XPlane/P3D are still in development so there's consideration there but FS9 is still second only to FSX in desktop simming around the world. If a developer can develop for XPlane it makes no since they can't do the same for a product that's getting more use. I found over the years sales lacked for developers because they were creating products they knew darn well their customers didn't want or care for. They turned around and so called punished people with discontinued development for FS9. Case in point PMDG brought to market the MD11 when everyone wanted the NGX. They got mad when the thing didn't sell so they pulled the plug on FS9 development. They turned around and told us the NGX wouldn't sell for FS9 (as their excuse) then along came iFly which blew that statement out of the water. Another example is Quality Wings with their BAE146. They throw FS9 users under the bus because a product that's virtually extinct from the US skies and other places around the world didn't sell. Punishment is we don't see the 787 from them (a product that would sell way more than a BAE146). Many of us support these efforts in vain when the decision has already been made well in advance of the official statement. I actually loved the BAE146 and the PMDG MD11 grew on me and today I'm glade they did it (they could have brought it out after the NGX). There's no other excuse to justify not developing for the 2nd most popular sim in the world. Now bare in mind you have to earn our dollars more so than FSX because of the volume of options we have for FS9. We won't buy another 737 if we already have a good one. FSX on the other hand will buy almost anything as the quality add-on options compared to FS9 is still pretty thin.

 

To be clear I get it that Microsoft is a wild card with Steve Ballmer at the helm. XPlane could be the future so developers should gravitate to that platform. Just the same don't kill development on something unless it's truly dead and going by the chart above which was meant to justify why things are the way they are we actually see a number 2 alternative if we go by customer usage. Seeing as we are in flux right now with which way we are headed all platforms of any merit should be fully embraced by this communities developers to support our numbers and keep this hobby alive. FSX is a true problem child for new users plain and simple. Own that fact and develop for everybody not the fortunate few with money and abundance of time on their hands... Some of us are married with kids for God's sake, we need something that just works before the wife and kids start hollering...

It's literally being judged on its age rather than its use. ------------an excellent point, Dillion, and I absolutely agree. If Microsoft had continued support with Service Packs to mature FSX, or had come out with FSXI, then I most likely as well, would have mainly-per-week-usage, migrated from FS9, as I also have Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited 1 and 2, FS98, etc...and have not touched them for years. Microsoft abandoned FSX in a 'Beta State' as far as I am concerned. It still is Beta, Heck, users never even had proper DX10 support that their cards of the day had onboard. So Beta it is, Beta it stays. That leaves the last, true and mature Microsoft-based flight simulator software...which is of course, either FS2002, or FS2004/FS9. So, if there is no fully stable (can run for hours without CDT and O.O.M's on 100 percent of any system built in the last 7 years) Microsoft FS product past it...to me, FS9----- is the most CURRENT, STABLE, RTM Microsoft Flight Simulator. The fact that thousands of hours of research, testing, and tweaking, STILL has not produced a hours-stable FSX (without folks,...without dumbing down the experience within critical rendering masks, to try and stabilize the flight session.... so let's not go there....) experience, or the 99 percent probability that with user add-on's ...you will see the numbers at the end of a real time 3 to 5 hour simulated flight, truly, again, makes FS9 not old in the slightest, but very much alive, very much still supported by those that seek a stable, modern platform, that can simulate basic, right up to most complex aircraft, and their myriad of systems, and sub-panel systems. FS9 can, will produce, and most assuredly---get you to the 'far numbers' in the likes if the 737 iFLY, etc.

 

FS9, old? FS9, by the date of its RTM, no longer Developer relevant?---YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, typed, and stated to anybody that holds this opinion, as of May 23, 2003~

 

If you choose to, then I will respect it, and log it as another's take on the matter. But for the foreseeable future, there is nothing out there, that can match it for code-stability, total coverage of all simulated events and happenings, (ATC, sub-system support, main systems support, etc) and with the last 'minor', what I will call the 'Groovin 4 line tweak', as a reference to the poster that supplied the lines, I have the most realistic rendering of what the world looks like at any FLXXX and up.

 

My current usage:

 

1. FS9 and all the 3rd party programs purchased, or freeware downloaded: Commercial Flight Operations and FL's.

 

2. FSX and 3rd Party add-on's, etc, for all my short (1/2 to 1 hour) low-level VFR flights.

 

3. XPX for below the FL's To the airport, from the airport, and any set-up approaches. There is NOTHING on the planet that will even come close to a simulated night environment when flying in a G.A. format. Nothing. XPX 10;21 holds the crown, supreme!

 

So, no need to delete anything, or to stop using any of the three (3) aforementioned platforms----pick your flight, decide on its operation mandate, and then go and fire up one of the above, to achieve it. Unless you have limited hard drive space, for the life of me, I don't understand why anybody would delete their FS9,FSX, XP(whatever) setup---even if you might wish in a month or three, to take a plane out into that simulator's environs! It cost you nothing to keep that three-sim option open.... My way of thinking upon this matter, as it stands this morning.

 

Cheers!

 

Sesquashtoo/Mitch

[Krister 51]

Mitch, I aboslutely fully agree with every word you said. Well, except that I think it holds true also 23 May 2013, not just "as of 23 May 2003"!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Krister, on 23 May 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

 

Mitch, I aboslutely fully agree with every word you said. Well, except that I think it holds true also 23 May 2013, not just "as of 23 May 2003"!

Good catch...please fill in that pesky '1', lol. Of course you knew that's what I meant....early morning typing, typo, also, 'cost', should have been 'costs'. C.D.T, of course, should have been C.T.D. (oh boy....) I have a few others, I'm sure....... LOL! Too bad there is a limit on the EDIT feature for any post created.

 

Cheers!

[gwillmot 31]

Are we there yet?  Seems like we've been meandering for quite some time now.  I need a pit stop.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Are we there yet?  Seems like we've been meandering for quite some time now.  I need a pit stop.

We're there...just landed an AirTran A320 from KFNT, to KMYR...man, it was soup on the ILS 18 approach, right until about 1,200 feet.  Thrill ride.

 

[Eric Tomlin 10]

 

 

If people would just run it correctly and not try to push it too far they would be fine like I am.

 

But that's kind of a broad brush too, isnt it? I mean, FSX has been out for what, 6 years now and folks should be careful to run it "correctly"? How about it having been coded "correctly" from the beginning? Or at the very least, had another patch to go back and fix a few performance issues?

 

Listen guys, two really good and irrefutable points here:

 

1) The poll numbers do not lie- There are more FSX users that took this poll than FS9 users and anyone can be intellectually honest and see that yes, FSX is a more widely used sim than FS9 in all likely hood. It's the nature of humans to want the latest and greatest (at least until they realize sometimes that the grass is not always greener on the other side)

 

2) If the statement that FS9 is in use more than all the other non-FSX sims combined is true, then that is a very strong testament to the franchise and especially to the still-viability of the product and I agree that 3rd parties should consider the data.

 

Lastly, please do not give Tom Allensworth a hard time. The man has created, with a great dedicated team behind him, the best desktop simulation site in the entire World. He's only trying to help with all of the polling, etc.

 

I for one am really thankful for these demographic studies because as a panel manufacturer, it really was nice to see that Business Aircraft/GA was far higher than I expected (that's what we specialize in).

[Bjoern 1,158]

I agree with the premise that you have here, but it should be noted (not that this helps the FS9 vs FSX customer base issue) that the polling here only represents a portion of the FS community. I've been a member of AVSIM for years, in fact for 15 years (since 1998). Even so, I do not recall participating in the poll presented here. The relevance of my comment is to point out that I would be willing to wager that most quality 3rd party devs sell far more than only ~300 copies to FS9 users and ~ 900 for FSX users.

 

Yeah, but my point about the returns still stands.

 

Why develop for FS9 when you can make at least twice more money with FSX?

 

 

Cross-developing for FSX and FS9 is an option, but it adds considerably more overhead to any development process.

 

 

 

After looking at the poll results a while :blink: and reading the todays posts, especially these about the commercial considerations, I have to wonder:

1. I wonder why anybody develops for X-Plane. But there are developers who actually do a lot of new products for X-Plane....

2. FS2004 supersedes all sims except FSX as most used sim.

 

1. X-Plane is still quite unspoilt by payware. Lots of new land to conquer and exploit.

2. MSFS/P3D is the longest running and most user-accessible civilian flight sim series out there. X-Plane is probably just taking off, FlightGear will always be a programmer's sim and the rest is too specialized/limited to make an impact.

 

 

Now bare in mind you have to earn our dollars more so than FSX because of the volume of options we have for FS9.

 

And that's why no one wants to commercially develop for FS9.

 

 

Also, the pretense of a "new payware"-deprived community would not hold up all the way. I bet that, if someone did a 787 or similar for FS9, the nitpickers would start tearing it apart because it's lacking in "quality".

 

 

 

 

 

By the way: Has any one of you ever thought of taking up development for FS9 if you still think that [aircraft you care about] is missing? At least just to experience that making an airplane is effin' time-consuming?

[Eric Tomlin 10]

Yeah, but my point about the returns still stands.

 

Why develop for FS9 when you can make at least twice more money with FSX?

 

 

Cross-developing for FSX and FS9 is an option, but it adds considerably more overhead to any development process.

 

 

 

 

1. X-Plane is still quite unspoilt by payware. Lots of new land to conquer and exploit.

2. MSFS/P3D is the longest running and most user-accessible civilian flight sim series out there. X-Plane is probably just taking off, FlightGear will always be a programmer's sim and the rest is too specialized/limited to make an impact.

 

 

 

And that's why no one wants to commercially develop for FS9.

 

 

Also, the pretense of a "new payware"-deprived community would not hold up all the way. I bet that, if someone did a 787 or similar for FS9, the nitpickers would start tearing it apart because it's lacking in "quality".

 

 

 

 

 

By the way: Has any one of you ever thought of taking up development for FS9 if you still think that [aircraft you care about] is missing? At least just to experience that making an airplane is effin' time-consuming?

 

I honestly do not disagree with any point you made here. 

[Reason 20]

Yes, the demographic polls are briliant. I am more aware of what this hobby and particularly AVSIM are all about although there is perhaps a small bug, the country where I live in is not on the list, I'm pretty sure I voted. Didn't I?

[Dillon 2,198]

By the way: Has any one of you ever thought of taking up development for FS9 if you still think that [aircraft you care about] is missing? At least just to experience that making an airplane is effin' time-consuming?

I've had my had in the FS development world many times over the years, it's not my forte (at least in the world of FS). I've been on more than a few beta teams over the years as well. I've been a tester on almost all Feelthere's products outside of the latest FSX offerings. Same thing with Dreamfleet. I worked with Bill Leaming (of Eaglesoft fame) to further develop an exiting Gulfstream IV but we didn't get the chance to finish it because of his busy schedule and mine. I know full well what it takes to bring a product to market and then support it past that.

[Eric Tomlin 10]

Hi Dillon

 

There's a small problem here- Somehow when you quoted me above it attributed "By the way: Has any one of you ever...blah blah". That was not me saying that. Somehow you quoted me, Quoting Bjoern. I would not personally say "effin' time consuming and didn't want his quote attributed to myself.

 

Thanks. 

 

AND, I think I will bow out of this discussion for now too as bottom line for me, FS9 is still awesome but FSX can be awesome too as can other sims and I'm just so tired of the bashing by all sides. Enjoy them all for what they can provide folks, and quit getting so uptight over a hobby. There's so many more important things out there in life than fussing over which platform is better.

[Dillon 2,198]

Eric Tomlin, on 23 May 2013 - 1:08 PM, said:

Hi Dillon

 

There's a small problem here- Somehow when you quoted me above it attributed "By the way: Has any one of you ever...blah blah". That was not me saying that. Somehow you quoted me, Quoting Bjoern. I would not personally say "effin' time consuming and didn't want his quote attributed to myself.

 

Thanks.

 

AND, I think I will bow out of this discussion for now too as bottom line for me, FS9 is still awesome but FSX can be awesome too as can other sims and I'm just so tired of the bashing by all sides. Enjoy them all for what they can provide folks, and quit getting so uptight over a hobby. There's so many more important things out there in life than fussing over which platform is better.

Corrected.

 

The original topic was FS9 being #1 for airliner flying which is very true in the year 2013. We also discovered it's a solid #2 in the world compared to all other civil simulation offerings thanks to Tom's survey. We've helped a few realize FS9.75 and had a healthy debate. This has been one great thread so far.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Yes, the demographic polls are briliant. I am more aware of what this hobby and particularly AVSIM are all about although there is perhaps a small bug, the country where I live in is not on the list, I'm pretty sure I voted. Didn't I?

 

What country?