>Why? Most of these addons are gauranteed to be updated to>compatability with FSX, right?Well, that's the thing - they're not all guaranteed. Personally, I have halted any payware purchases for FS9 unless it specifically says that the developer will be updating it (for free) to FSX, if needed. Even then, I am doing so with extreme caution, because the developer isn't "bound" to do it, nor do they have to do it immediately upon FSX's release (recall the PSS Airbus 32x debacle from FS2002->FS2004) Unless I *really really* want the plane/scenery, I'm taking a wait and see approach. I have lots to fly in my hanger as it is, so I'm not left wanting right now. -Germ

I meant to get the PMDG 747-400 when it was released in a boxed set on Janurary 22nd, but then the release of FSX was anounced on the 5th, and the screenshots were so impressive that it became an all consuming distraction. But, some five months down the track, and after reading this thread I've decided to go ahead with the purchase. I guess I always wanted to have a look at it anyway, but more importantly I don't want the developers of third party software thinking that the market is going to collapse every time a new version of FS is announced. While MS do a commendable job advancing the host environment from version to version, we all know that it is the third party developers who really satisfy our craving for high fidelity aircraft.I've already had a look at the Operating Manual, and it looks like I'm in for a lot of hard work, but with a sense of how much effort has gone into producing this aircraft I couldn't bring myself to letting these guys down. You wouldn't do it to MS, so why do it to other hard working developers like PMDG?Anyway, I've just got time for one last fling with FS9 before I remove it from my hard disk and make room for FSX.Mike.

I'm with you on that... About the only thing I have bought is the Oahu MegaCity which was $7.50 over the weekend.I have lost so much money on past addons that were never updated or had no upgrade path.Now I mostly stick to FSGenesis Mesh (lifetime membership=guaranteed upgrades), and I was mostly focused on Megascenery but now that the photomapping is able to reach above 1m per pix I'm holding off...The worst one ever was the 767PIC, had to wait forever for it to switch over to being Level D and ages in development.I tend to stick with addons that are aircraft I really fly or my father has flown, or AI aircraft (which are usually freeware)...I tend to go for addons I know will be upgradable :)... I tend to stay away from WX addons because they always become out of date in the next version of FS. Sceneries are another that go out of date fast (unless they conform 100% to SDK's)...About the only addons I've bought for FS2004 are:Aerosoft Beaver :(Ultimate Terrain USA :)Active Camera <- probably will be upgraded but maybe unnecessaryFS Genesis Mesh <- will always be compatibleMegacenery SoCal,NorCal,SFO <- possible $ and time before they release 1m per pix resSo really out of a lot of those addons, only about 2 I'm sure will work in FSX at this point... Haven't investigated the Beaver, Level D, F-5's or Megascnery to know if they have plans for upgrades.

>The worst one ever was the 767PIC, had to wait forever for it>to switch over to being Level D and ages in development.Well, to be fair, the PIC767 was originally a FS2000 title, updated and patched to work in FS2002. That they didn't perform a band-aid update for FS2004 suited me fine - especially considering they lost one or two people from their core development team in the interim.I can see the megascenery titles being updated to higher-res imagery... I wonder if the authors purchased 1m/p masters to work with. If so, it will be a "simple" task of rerunning the creation process, but I'd only worry about the distribution. DVD's for each, I'd presume! -Greg

The source is definitely either 2 foot or 1m per pix, the question is with the water masks, if they cut the water masks on a rendered FS resolution master then they'll have to go and recreate everything from scratch again... That's not so easy to do, but then there's the data sizes etc as well, we're talking Blu Ray or HD DVD discs being needed to hold that sort of information, and that will mean a definite $$$ to upgrade...Good thing is it's not a paradigm shift we'll need to worry about again in future tho... At least not for a while.

The only thing I'm doing FS9 wise right now is taking a few days off. Not because I'm bored with it, but because for some strange reason lately that I can't explain, I'm not doing it 'right'.I bought RC4 last week, and although the first few flights on that went okay, I found my rank on FSPax moving away from the next one up instead of towards it. I kept on throwing points for late/early arrivals, lousing up stuff, collapsing undercarriage, getting hit (yeah hit, not my fault) by AI stuff, although I admit that was FS own ATC that caused that before I installed RC4. Then the last couple of flights with my pilot back at first rank (C0) for those who use FSP I couldn't seem to maintain my altitude, got rapped for that by RC and got the FIS eval .wav when I landed (Twice). So I went out, bought Oblivion and am playing that for a few days.

Well to be honest, I'm not quite done with FS2004 just yet.Right now I have it running on such a slow system that unless it's on 600x800 full screen, it will lock up in mere minutes. Of course the FX sliders are anywhere between all the way to the left and somewhat in the middle (on the left side). I've been running FS like this for over a year and despite the frequent stutters and empty scenery I was happy with it.But now I have a new system on the way. After I've put it together, I'll be able to run FS2004 with all the sliders maxed out (or nearly maxed out). I think the change for me will be similar to your expectations of FS-X. Yea I've seen the screenshots and movies of FS-X and they look stunning. But to have it look like that we'll need at least a new graphics card which doesn't exist yet, a new OS which doesn't exist yet and oh yeah... FS-X which (to us anyway) doesn't exist yet.By the time I'm tired of FS2004 a couple of years from now, everything will have become stable, bug-free and affordable enough for me to make the change. But I'm not even thinking about that yet.:)

Couldn't disagree more... My FS9 with add-ons is great, I've no need whatsoever for FSX. Some features I do want, which is why I'll buy it...But at this point, FS9 has so much going for it, that I doubt I'll be stopping even once I have FSX.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

Hi John,<>Perhaps you could post details of the problem in our forum and we could help. If you haven't had to use Transition Altitudes and Transition Levels before it can be confusing. Fortunately the solution is very simple so post the problem and we'll be on it :-)Cheers,

>Yea I've seen the screenshots and movies of FS-X and they look>stunning. But to have it look like that we'll need at least a>new graphics card which doesn't exist yet, a new OS which>doesn't exist yet and oh yeah... FS-X which (to us anyway)>doesn't exist yet.How can you form such a conclusion, given that all the screenshots and movies were made on contemporary computers, using WinXP and DX9.0c???

<Because that's what MS says, don't they? Best play under Windows Vista with DirectX10 compliant hardware. I don't plan on ever going back to what I am looking at now, which is what I described in my post.

><screenshots and movies were made on contemporary computers,>using WinXP and DX9.0c???>>>>Because that's what MS says, don't they? Best play under>Windows Vista with DirectX10 compliant hardware. I don't plan>on ever going back to what I am looking at now, which is what>I described in my post.WHIZZ!!! (that was the sound of my point flying past you)...What you would "see" is precisely what you've seen in the screenshots and movies posted, using your existing computer and video card...

There is a LOT of life left in FS2004, and most users have it running very smoothly on their current hardware. Whilst I am salivating at the FSX screenshots and videos that have been shown (and will buy it on day one), I am still very much enjoying racking up plenty of hours in FS9, thank you very much.

>Couldn't disagree more... My FS9 with add-ons is great, I've>no need whatsoever for FSX. Some features I do want, which is>why I'll buy it...>>But at this point, FS9 has so much going for it, that I doubt>I'll be stopping even once I have FSX.But Daniel, what if the majority of your addons are ready for FSX when it is released? From what I understand things are being done differently this time around in terms of the SDK's, so we may not see the same issues as previous upgrades...Anyway, just going on what has been posted in the forums by the Dev team about the SDK's etc..

>><>screenshots and movies were made on contemporary computers,>>using WinXP and DX9.0c???>>>>>>Because that's what MS says, don't they? Best play under>>Windows Vista with DirectX10 compliant hardware. I don't>plan>>on ever going back to what I am looking at now, which is>what>>I described in my post.>>WHIZZ!!! (that was the sound of my point flying past you)...>>What you would "see" is precisely what you've seen in the>screenshots and movies posted, using your existing computer>and video card...Honestly, I doubt that. The water effects for instance has been said to be a DX10 thing. And I'm 100% certain it will not run like those screenshots and movies on MY computer, not even the new one I'm about to get.It might come very close using current top-of-the-line hardware (which I know I'll never be able to afford anyway) but for the real eye-candy that FS-X is being advertised for, you will most certainly need DX10 and everything that comes with it (hardware, Vista etc.)Regards,Sander.>>>>>>>(on a side note: I now find myself in a discussion about something that I marginally spoke of in my first post in this thread, when the main thing that I was trying to say is that I'll be using FS9 for a long time now that I can finally get more performance on my new system. Murphy's Law in action :) )<> ;)