Drzewiecki Design set to snub FS9

[A32xx 129]

Drzewiecki Design's decision not to develop for FS2004 any more (if that IS what they've decided) has got nothing to do with FSX being newer or better than FS2004, and everything to do with DD's FSX products having higher sales than their FS2004 products.

I don't even have a demo DD scenery in my FS2004 because their sceneries are designed for FSX and later ported over to FS2004, which causes all kinds of problems from low framerates to CTD's.

As an FS2004 user, I avoid Drzewiecki Design products for this reason. I only buy sceneries which are natively designed for FS2004, and there are still hundreds and hundreds of them to choose from, at all the online retailers, so why worry about Drzewiecki Design?

[Wobbie 938]

I agree with what A32xx says. I rather support the freeware guys, the actual backbone of our hobby.

Simming is supposed to be Fun, Factual & Fiction, according to the late Garry J Smith & Ed C Moore, of http://www.ford-tri-motor.net/frontpage.htm fame, of which I have a separate install of FS2004.

 

I have an FS2004 install for Golden Wings, a Ford install & a so-called normal install. FSX, can YOU have that?

 

A toast to FS2004!

[A32xx 129]

Thanks Wobbie, I didn't mention my embarrassing addiction - old Freeware Scenery!

 

My name is Tim and I download old freeware scenery.

 

There I did it! Not that there's a cure. I'm now at the stage where the small municipal airport I'm after has got a dead link, aaarghh!

So I'm typing dead links into the Wayback Machine's Browse History bar every week, and I've found most of them there - if you're in the same boat as me, try the Wayback Machine here:

 

https://archive.org/web/

[Johan_Dees 84]

I think we would be surprised how many still using FS9.

They are certainly not the most vocal, and I expect also not the most wealthy (think of asia, Africa and south America) users.

They buy a lot less, but still are going strong with FS9.

 

Luckily there is so much currently available, that its not a miss.

[Wobbie 938]

And we do not have to buy a new PC everytime we add an add-on to the sim!   :Money Eyes: 

[Skywatcher 133]

Thanks Wobbie, I didn't mention my embarrassing addiction - old Freeware Scenery!

 

My name is Tim and I download old freeware scenery.

 

There I did it! Not that there's a cure. I'm now at the stage where the small municipal airport I'm after has got a dead link, aaarghh!

So I'm typing dead links into the Wayback Machine's Browse History bar every week, and I've found most of them there - if you're in the same boat as me, try the Wayback Machine here:

 

https://archive.org/web/

I didn't even think about the Wayback Machine when coming across some dead links in the best scenery thread months ago. Will have to go back through the thread to see if it is possible to download some of the airports mentioned there that weren't available. I know I missed what sounded like some really good ones. Thanks for the reminder!

[HighBypass 2,339]

My emphasis in italics.

 

 Can FSX have sloping runways or ramps as freeware?

 

Yes, I have some French Altiports including Courchevel (the runway is actually a field texture, but hey it works, it looks great, is free & is in the correct location!)

 

As far as maturity goes, we all know how FSX users spend more time tweaking the sim than actually using it.!

 

LOL! Guilty as charged sometimes!

 

 

Now, let's aviate!

[gaputz 60]

 

 

Drzewiecki Design's decision not to develop for FS2004 any more (if that IS what they've decided) has got nothing to do with FSX being newer or better than FS2004, and everything to do with DD's FSX products having higher sales than their FS2004 products.

 

I agree.  This was more or less stated by Aerosoft.  In a discussion about why a new version of Frankfurt was produced for FS9, Mr. Kok (one of the Aerosoft proprietors) said this: "And from a scenery point of view, FS2004 still makes a lot of sense. The FS2004 version of the scenery looks great, the FSX version does not add a lot. FS2004 was beaten because of the aircraft development where we needed the additional CPU cycles that only multicore support could bring."   

 

That is one point. The other is why many of us stick with FS9.  It is with some irony that I find the same "why don't you move on" argument going on over at airdailyx.net but the subject is FSX.   It is summed up in the thread "Cloud Shadows In FSX? Well I Guess So..." by this comment: " What a patronising article. Exactly what [he] said. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars on FSX only to drop it. You might be able to afford the upgrade, but some of us can't. If devs don't want to keep developing for FSX, that's fine, I understand that will happen at some point. I'm happy enough with what I have already."  

 

Greg

[Johan_Dees 84]

Fluidity is the most important part, one cant fly in a sim with stutters and 10fps.

And since its all visuals what we do as simmers, a nice look is what pleases the most, above fps.

And not all have the money for an expensive pc. Hence the 'third world' simmers who are there too.

Thats reasons why FS9 is still going strong.

 

We can understand the developers. Its about revenue.

And I personally dont give about accurate scenery, if it looks like Frankfurt, it is ok. New runways ? I dont need them to enjoy.

[bonchie 2,305]

I always thought that when people bring up how old FS9 is I thought it is a stupid argument. FSX is a 10 year old sim (or is it 11?) does that mean in 2 years will developers backing away from FSX stuff?

 

I stopped using FSX years ago so your point falls on deaf ears here.

 

And no they won't because FSX was the end of the line so a different dynamic is at play. It was also much more capable than FS9 in several important areas for developers. Specifically with ground texture resolution, simconnect capabilities, cpu usage, and the SDK.

 

But that same point about being old can be turned around on those making it. FSX is 10 years old. Are some of you really so poor that 13.5 years after FS9, you still haven't upgraded your computer? And if you are, I can sympathize with that, but you can't expect developers to develop for a 13.5 year old platform forever. The further you get from 2003, the less acceptable 256 max ground resolution becomes for example. It looks like a blurry mess.

 

It's not like there's a shortage of already released FS9 products out there for you. Plenty to keep you guys busy without bashing companies that make logical moves to cut production eventually.

[vector 7]

You can't expect a developer to keep spending resources on developing for a sim that fewer and fewer people are using. I'm sure their sales of FS9 addons have shown them that it isn't worth the time and resources for the return they are getting. They have a business to run too.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself if I tried.  Just a pity that lots of other people can't seem to get their head round it.

 

Dijvid

[Holdit 551]

 

 

Simming is supposed to be Fun

 

That's crazy talk.

 

:wink:

[Johan_Dees 84]

"Simming is supposed to be fun"

 

WHO SAID THAT ??

 

//graphic removed by mod -- offensive language

[scianoir 610]

I agree.  This was more or less stated by Aerosoft.  In a discussion about why a new version of Frankfurt was produced for FS9, Mr. Kok (one of the Aerosoft proprietors) said this: "And from a scenery point of view, FS2004 still makes a lot of sense. The FS2004 version of the scenery looks great, the FSX version does not add a lot. FS2004 was beaten because of the aircraft development where we needed the additional CPU cycles that only multicore support could bring."   

 

That is one point. The other is why many of us stick with FS9.  It is with some irony that I find the same "why don't you move on" argument going on over at airdailyx.net but the subject is FSX.   It is summed up in the thread "Cloud Shadows In FSX? Well I Guess So..." by this comment: " What a patronising article. Exactly what [he] said. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars on FSX only to drop it. You might be able to afford the upgrade, but some of us can't. If devs don't want to keep developing for FSX, that's fine, I understand that will happen at some point. I'm happy enough with what I have already."  

 

Greg

There is also the point that Frankfurt V2 runs quite well on FS9, whereas it tends to bring FSX systems to their knees! Although I mainly fly FSX now, I still have a large FS9 set up on my system which I regularly use for airliner flights, where the state of the art ground scenery available in FSX is less important. With regard to Aerosoft FRA V2 however, I am now contemplating uninstalling it from FSX and reinstalling my old V1! So FS9 users don't be too unhappy - FSX may be a step up but everything out there isn't quite as rosy as it seems!

 

Bill

[HaraldG 559]

Good post, bonchie.

 

 

 

Are some of you really so poor that 13.5 years after FS9, you still haven't upgraded your computer?

 

No. Perhaps we are just too lazy to abandon the thrusted and reliable Sim installation we built up for 13.5 years now. But:

 

 

 

It's not like there's a shortage of already released FS9 products out there for you. Plenty to keep you guys busy without bashing companies that make logical moves to cut production eventually.

 

And that is really true. Going to fly now.

 

P.S: To be honest, DD has made some extraordinary pieces of FS2004 sceneries with good FPS and without CTD, I think of the Polish ones as well as Tallinn, Baku, Chisinau...