Blaster, let it go...you've had your attention fix by now right?If you wish to make pricing decisons on an FSX product it is suggested that you immediately begin to put together a team of developers and release your own product at whatever pricepoint you like.

>Blaster, let it go...you've had your attention fix by now>right?>>If you wish to make pricing decisons on an FSX product it is>suggested that you immediately begin to put together a team of>developers and release your own product at whatever pricepoint>you like. Way to respond to customers positively and professionally.Good job!

>If my (deleted) 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? You've missed the point. Many other FS9 SDK Compliant aircraft cannot be "run on both FS9 and FSX" without modifications.1)FS9 SDK supported Material Color & TransparencyFSX SDK does not - which is why so many a/c have no "glass" and or parts have suddenly disappeared.2)FS9 SDK animations were mostly based on "stock animation names"FSX SDK animations are 100% XML driven events, requiring a lot of additional work. Not all animations are 100% backwards compatible.3)FS9 SDK pivot points "inherited" global coordinate system properties from the parent nodes: exterior and interiorFSX SDK pivot points do not, each must be set individually.4)FS9 SDK VC mouse points function 100% with no additional effort.FSX SDK VC mouse points are INOP if a "Scale" has been applied and not "Reset" explicitly.These are just FOUR of the instances where "backwards compatibility" has fallen on its face.I'm not even considering the "broken landing & taxi lights system" or "INOP Rain Effects" in FSX...Spend a few days hanging out in the various developer forums and get a real sense of the amount of work involved! You don't have to take my word for it... :)

Hey...... I'm one of the injured parties here.:) I purchased the Liberty for FSX and I can't fly it. There is so little headroom on my system in FSX that the frames are 10 to 12 FPS. Now, I have two choices:1. Request a refund from Flight 1 and move on.2. Keep it and after the first of the year hopefully acquire a computer capable of using FSX with add-ons. This free will stuff is neat. Why do so many of us try to think for every one else? If you believe that the additional cost is a ripoff then don't buy it. I'm going with option 2 and head for Tongass Fjords in Fs9 for the winter. I have a small cabin and you are welcome to visit. Cold beer, fresh baked (sushi is bait) salmon and a warm stove. :) Bring a lemon.Bob...

Thanks BillThis is just what I needed to understand. It seems based on what you are saying, that every plane built for fs9 would need some modification in order to avoid some undersireable effect.Bob

test...test...I wonder why people can still post to this thread when it has been locked? :)

...perhaps they used the wrong key :D

It is because not every post in a thread is 'locked' even though the whole thread is locked. The reason why it can happen is the timing issue - when someone managed to post just at the moment the thread was being locked. The locking feature is simply poorly designed in this particular forum software.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif

Bill Leaming said:>You've missed the point. Many other FS9 SDK Compliant aircraft > cannot be "run on both FS9 and FSX" without modifications.Bill,Thanks for the nice, profession response.

>Thanks for the nice, profession response. Er.. that should read Thanks for the nice, professional response.

Bob,Now i'm really worried (######). I have a P4 3.0GHZ HT and I held so much hope that upgrading my cpu to a 3.6 was going to make a difference. Your 10-12 FPS along with other computer spec-to-FSX performance non-correlations that I've read about leave me clueless about what to do next. I've got to get off of this "buy new computer with each FS release" wagon though, that's for certain! I never could understand (accept?) why there were still so many people out there uploading FS98 files to the libraries.This Eaglesoft scenario (thread) has kept me entertained for days just watching from the sidelines! Payware is an addiction that many will have to find their own tipping points to be able to kick. I'm definitely going to commit to giving it up after the ungodly amount of money that I spent on FS9 add-ons! I don't fault Eaglesoft here. I don't fault the strong opposing opinions here entirely either. I just realize that we all are in control here as customers! If it truly takes the effort, incurred costs, and subsequent prices charged to create these products, then expect to pay, or expect them to go away as that business proves to be unprofitable. Learn from experience and move on. Just before FSX, I passed on purchasing an add-on because this same scenario happened with that developer when FS9 came out. What's problematic, if emotions aren't kept in check, is the close (familiar) relationship that users and developers have in this community. On one hand there are many benefits and on the other hand there comes expectations and let downs. I don't think there's any way around it, honestly...especially if you always expect a free lunch as a customer, or smiling happy customer faces as a developer operating a business. Just expect to lose some and to win some and make future decisions based on experience. FSX only recently came out, there is plenty of time to get even - users and developers. - (Here's where you feel extra greatful for all those generous freeware developers!)

>Bill Leaming said:>>>You've missed the point. Many other FS9 SDK Compliant>aircraft >> cannot be "run on both FS9 and FSX" without modifications.>>>Bill,>>Thanks for the nice, profession response. >Yes,Bill's response was a model in transparency - Bill is right, backwards compatibility is not fully realized in FSX.FSX was released before it should have been...

Hey guys,Questions are good, I'm very proud owner of the Citation X, I think Eaglesoft has some very nice stuff. I had to buy FSX at the regular price although I have every version of MSFS that there is. I'm going to try and wait for version 2.0 if I can control myself and wait. I have 1150 hours and more by the time this is read in combined MSFS and 185 in real time. I had ABACUS Corp. Pilot with CX part of it (thats where I discovered that the CX is my favorite plane to fly), and they had an free patch for change over FS2K to the FS2002 but not to FS9, but not a big upgrade that is planed for the Eaglesoft's CX. I will pay for the upgrade since I know that there is lots of hard work that goes into the aircraft. It's much cheaper than 49 Million for a real one. If you don't feed the animals they will go extinct and we will miss them, so to speak, LOL.Have fun and go fly, Scot Mason

testing

>Bill Leaming said:>>>You've missed the point. Many other FS9 SDK Compliant>aircraft >> cannot be "run on both FS9 and FSX" without modifications.>>>Bill,>>Thanks for the nice, profession response. You are most welcome... ;) I'm in the process of completely rebuilding the virtual cockpit on the Citation II SP/2, and have spent a lot of time (re)building and further optimizing the gauges, as well as adding some unique, zoned gauge lighting options.While doing this, I'm incorporating new and improved techniques that will greatly enhance the entire package. My time investment thus far is just shy of eight, forty hour weeks... :-abduct