Again, the fact is that Eaglesoft made the FS2002-FS2004 transition free of charge. Eaglesoft based its FS9-FSX discount policy on work required for each project to transition to FSX.Fact, each project requires a different workload based on too many factors to mention. Other developers who offer free FSX products may or may not face the same challenges on their projects as we do.We fully expect that many developers will offer FSX products at either discounted rates or full price new product to cover their costs.Again, our decisions are based what we feel is needeed to cover our own costs.:-)

>Again, the fact is that Eaglesoft made the FS2002-FS2004>transition free of charge. I believe you did for the beech jets. For a product at that age, you should charge for FSX update. But the Liberty is very new in that sense.>Eaglesoft based its FS9-FSX>discount policy on work required for each project to>transition to FSX.That's totally fair. And we know FSX is a huge leap forward in terms of the new technologies adopted compared to 9. However, that's directly relevant only when you are actually adopting those new technologies in your update. The original post said the FS9 liberty works in FSX only except for the GPS. And I guess he was really just asking "what am I getting for $16 besides a working GPS?" and ever since the question the answer has been how much time has gone into the upgrade.Those who don't own the Liberty and want it in FSX will still buy it. It's a very good price. It's only for the exsiting customers to figure whether it's worth it to pay 70% of the full price to have a product they already paid full price for to work in FSX.Some said it's a "new product". I don't think it is when it's the same plane flying in a newer sim without any significant new features or improvements. It's a compatibility upgrade to an existing product. And I think that concept is universal.

>>>That is true, they never said it was going to be free.>>>>How much discount did Microsoft give you when you "upgraded">>to FSX?>>Basically irrelevant. A short arguement like this may often>sound very smart but that's about it. Is it really? Please elucidate further to illustrate precisely how it is "irrelevant..."I've ready many posts from "gurus" who've loudly proclaimed that FSX is nothing more than FS9 with some few added "features". If that were true, then in "fairness" the consumer should only have to pay for the additional features, rather than having to repurchase the product!No, my statement isn't "irrelevant," but rather points to the basic illogic of the initial premise... *:-*

>That being said, it would probably be a wiser choice to first>just get it running in fsx properly and offer the free update>to all who already purchased, and then later on add all the>true fsx features and call it a new product and charge>everyone the full cost at that time, afterall this is what the>market has come to expect and support as well.I disagree, it takes little knowledge to port your existing aircraft into FSX to see if it works, the developers have enough to do working on the fully featured version. As for what the "market has come to expect and support", not from what I have seen. There are plenty of examples of posters screaming because they had to do some work getting an addon to work or if lacking in percieved features (remember the FMC fiasco with the CitX??)If you want to talk business sense, IMO it makes more sense to get your fully featured file out ASAP since you know we will be expecting it and ESDG have done just that. If they went the route you suggest, it would mean more hours working on getting the existing file into FSX, the support that comes with it and the lack of sales due to many not getting the new version due to performance issues.Bottm line is ESDG are going to do what they need to for their business model AND to keep us happy, as has been proven many times over. Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

"The original poster said the FS9 liberty works in FSX only except for the GPS"With all due respect, the "original poster" is not an Eaglesoft Spokesperson and has no knowledge of the inner workings of our products.We suggest that claims made by those who have no knowledge of what is required to make an FSX aircraft and its FSX Avionics should be taken with large portions of salt!;-)

With all due repect everyone knew that FSX was coming so purchasing any FS9 compatible product prior to the release of FSX was done with the knowledge that it may or may not work totally in FSX. To expect all developers to provide free upgrades for the next generation of FS is not realistic. Pretty much like saying that you should receive a free upgrade from FCOF to FSX because you allready own it. Craig

>Nick, thanks for the support. We appreciate folks who>understand the workload involved in all of this and the fact>that those who do that work must be paid and paid fairly:-)>> Your welcome Ron, though the name is either Pike or Matt, depending on who you ask....;)

Sorry for the mixup. Drop me an email please:-)

review here --> http://www.avsim.com/pages/0606/XL2/XL2.htm

RonThe use of "FSX Certified" was not intended to start some form of program. If I accept an offering from a developer that chose (if this is possible) to not update certain functionality available in FSX but rather port it, as is, because FSX allows for legacey code, resulting in lesser quality in some form or another. So the question is whether or not a developer has the option to still utilize legacy functionality if the so choose? Ron, I have purchased almost every aircraft Eaglesoft has produced. I have never been disappointed! I am looking for a little education here and that is all. If my message previously gave you the idea that I was attempting to point my finger, please forgive me as that sincerely was not my intention.ThanksBob

>I disagree, it takes little knowledge to port your existing>aircraft into FSX to see if it works>If they went the>route you suggest, it would mean more hours working on getting>the existing file into FSXas you can see, you are contradicting yourself...if its that simple then why wouldnt they offer a quick ported installation routine for free?...if its simple then it wouldnt be worth charging for now would it :-)...and that doesnt make for a good business model now does it :-)...this thought process is obviously not one of the consumers, nor is it one of a company who cares about its customers IMO. Bottom line as far as good business modeling is that if you can make yourslef look good to the customer at very little or no cost then you do it, period. Its good marketing sense (which btw builds on customer trust and loyalty) which in this case ES was lacking...its all in how the public perceives the offer, how its carried out and presented. They had a right to do it anyway they wished...but they could have done it much wiser.>There are plenty of examples of posters>screaming because they had to do some work getting an addon to>work or if lacking in percieved features (remember the FMC>fiasco with the CitX??)in business you will never be able to satisfy everyone, BUT...i bet an inital offering for a free of charge porting install with a promise of fully featured fsx version later on at additional cost would have been more widely accepted and exepcted by the majority...i may be wrong but i seriously doubt it.>>Bottm line is ESDG are going to do what they need to for their>business model AND to keep us happyIt is strictly my own opinion that this statement is only half accurate :-)Dave

No offence taken Bob and non intended by us:-)Our response was intended to illustrate the difficulty involved in such a program.:-)The simple fact is that FSX allows a certain amount of "backward compatibility" and we see that as a good thing from not only a development view but also for the consumer. To go into more detail is beyond the scope of what developers are willing to discuss.

Hi Bill,It's a different product by a different company with a diffrent life span, redistribution span and customer base (being much bigger and diversified), with obviously very different level of innovation involved, etc. It's not irrelevant on a very general level but as the dicussion goes into specifics and details it does become more and more irrelevant. And that's just my own opinion. Someone could have answered you "no discount and it's ok because it's Microsoft." and I bet many would laugh and say "that's true." and others say " that's bulls**t and here is why."Short arguements almost always leave a big margin for discussion and it's often not very productive. That was kinda my point. Didn't mean to offend you. When I said it sounded smart I meant it. And my reply was also a proof of my own point. It sounded like I tried to be smart yet it left a lot of room for counter arguements.

Bill Leaming said:>How much discount did Microsoft give you when you "upgraded">to FSX?That's an apples and oranges argument. I purchased Office 2000 to run on Win98. When I upgraded to WinXP, I could still run Office 2000 because Microsoft made it point to be backward compatible to previously purchased software. WinXP and FSX are platforms for running other software products.I think this is a tough call here. MS went to a lot of trouble designing FSX to be backward compatible with preexisting FS9 add-ons giving everyone the expectation of being able to run their previously purchased products.If my Eaglesoft product cannot run on both FS9 and FSX because of some variance from the MS SDK who's fault is that? Why is it other add-ons can just be dropped into FSX without another thought? It seems to me that if an Eaglesoft aircraft doesn't run in FSX that it needs to be repaired to be able to run in FSX and that constitutes a free fix rather than a paid upgrade.If Eaglesoft creates a new FSX LibertyXL with pixel shaders, shadows and all the other new features, great

>If my Eaglesoft product cannot run on both FS9 and FSX because>of some variance from the MS SDK who's fault is that? Why is>it other add-ons can just be dropped into FSX without another>thought? It seems to me that if an Eaglesoft aircraft doesn't>run in FSX that it needs to be repaired to be able to run in>FSX and that constitutes a free fix rather than a paid>upgrade.You must be fairly new to MSFS because otherwise you would not be displaying this level of ignorance regarding this subject. It has been known for a long time and this has been a common practice for *some* aircraft developers to bypass SDK (or go outside of it if necessary) because otherwise they could not deliver state of the art aircraft simulation. This is the case for example with such award winning simulators like the PIC-767 and the PMDG's 747. Those aircraft could not have been done properly (to satisfy the most hard core sim market) by staying within the confines of the FS SDK. So yes, there are always issues (in case of PMDG's 747 it happens to be a 5-month effort) in moving such software to the next version of the FS. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif