I have been wondering where are all the addons for FSX that made FS9 so enjoyable . I read for instance that the F1 ATR was done except for the configurator but that was posted weeks ago.My theory is why add fuel to a roaring fire.The deveolpers of the payware addons we loved in FS9 are more than aware of the issues with FSX, so why would they take a good or even a great product and destroy its reputation with a flood of "I cant us this" complaints when utilized in FSX. My FSX is shelved until a patch and some of the payware addons that we all know are great are released.Released:ASV6MYTrafficCS 757 Waiting For :PMDGLDSUTrafficF1 ATRDF 727 all GAAW kingAirF1 Super80FlyTampaImagingeSimulationFlightSceneryCloud9DA CheyenneAndy

FSX was released on Oct 17th. It hasn't even technically been a full month. Cool your jets.

>FSX was released on Oct 17th. It hasn't even technically been>a full month. Cool your jets.My Jets are cooled and it has been much longer than a month. The SDK was released b4 the product and there are products such as the ATR that have been ready for weeks.If I was a publisher I would not give an update to a platform that is this tarnished.

Eaglesoft released their addons even though they run pretty bad in fsx. I think we will see them soon. People have either accepted that this game runs slow and will probably always run slow, or they have moved on.I am lucky to work for a major system that has direct access to MS and Intel and we have our own reps assigned to us that communicate with my group and discuss future plans 3 or 4 times a year. A few weeks ago our intel rep showed us their processor development cycle for the next 14 months and there is nothing in that time frame coming out that will eclipse what we have now. In other words, there will be no performance increases from hardware for at least 18-24 months and probably not even then as multi-core is where they are headed. It's up to MS to fix this problem in software and not keep to their old mainstay of the game was made for future hardware. Well ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the roadmap for future hardware and believe me when I tell you that there is no cpu on or near the horizon that will be of any benefit to this game in its current state.

Andy:The performance issues with FSX are still being worked on by Microsoft and by the community here. With no less than half the community unable to run FSX out of the box the way they want to, I think that complex add-ons like LDS, PMDG, et al are a moot point.That's like worrying about why your home builder didn't paint your attic azure blue, like your old house, but they are still having problems pouring the concrete for foundation! Let's get a solid foundation poured first and let's start with the first floor and see how that goes. Painting the attic is a LONG way away!All heavy complex addons exact a framerate penalty. THEN who wants to fly into a beautifly rendered FLYTAMPA airport with 2 planes parked at the jetway because turning on more would cause you to fly your approach at 10 FPS?No my friend let's get FSX working so that EVERYONE (no not just the "hey I'M happy, so why isn't everyone else" crowd) can begin to enjoy FSX they way I believe Aces meant the sim to be enjoyed.Additionally, the developers would be absolute fools to make FSX only products (aircraft / airports, textures are exempt since they can only be an improvement over the default) right now due to performace. Most people who are blubbering with happiness with their "smooth" 10 FPS will blame the developers, not FSX, when they end up with 5 FPS and the developers will end up taking the blame.Besides, how many people are willing to drop another $50 for a LDS 767 that they can barely fly in FSX after they just dropped $50 for FSX and they can't even use it!Complex addons for FSX right now would be like putting a screen door on a submarine...useless.

Dave,Quite correct, and anybody with half a brain can pretty much find out the same kind of information from the roadmaps at the Intel and AMD websites.It seems 90% choose not to listen though and keep harping on about "hardware catching up with FS(X), just like it has always had to do in the past"Well, guess what? The game has changed. Hardware turned left and FSX turned right. Thankfully, it appears that the Dev team at ACES are listening and a suitable patch will be forthcoming. I hope they take as long as they need to make this right....

This is exactly my opinion too.

And mine. To which I would also add y9u only have to ask the develoeprs why they haven't released their products. Most will say that they did not - coud not - rely on incomplete beta code or SDK's they have to wait for thr RTM.Next, when potential customers can't get FSX to run, what is the point of releasing addons that can only further deplete the fps? It may be best for the aftermarket to wait until the patch situation is much clearer as I would not want to go to all the trouble of re-developing my complex product because the goalposts got moved between FSX1.0 and FSX1.1And finally, it takes much moer than a month for these things to actually happen. Come back in six if nothing has changed and you might find people agreeing with you. Allcott

I bought one aircraft, and consequently even though I have a high end system, there was no pleasure. I will wait. Without average frame rates with average eye candy I will settle for a Carenado level aircraft. Even the 172 with the Garmin does not do it for me. I cant settle for just the experience of smooth gauges and an excellent flight model, I have to have the 360 deg experience. Others really dont care if the scenery looks like mush they only care about the flight model and systems complexity and capability. I wish I was like that. Still flying and tweaking though. :-jumpy I would think that many 3rd party devs are also waiting in the wings. I personally would be very hesitent to put too many development hours into a product right now, unless I had confidence that Ace was going to come through with a fix.RegardsBob

it isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and making things work. aircraft addons are more complex than ever and they would require months of testingregarding the scenery there, well I have bad news for you, Andy. Expect nothing like FS9 airport scenery. There is no way developers can quickly create custom ground textures and are stuck with default everything except buildings that can be custom designed.So if you want flightscenery, imaginesim, flytampa, make sure to keep FS9 on your system.besides the obvious framerate issues if you have anything besides a coreduo processor and the most expensive video card, the problem with custom ground scenery is going to keep me from FSX for quite some time. I cant even imagine building a system that can handle the custom 10000% AI, scenery and complicated airplanes like FS9

Whoops. Spoke too soon. Cloud9 just released FSX ONLY Orlando.If this were for FS9 also I would have snapped it up faster than you can say go because I LOVE Cloud9 products, imho they are even better than Flytampa and are the top of the heap.Unfortunately, its for FSX only. *Sigh* I was really looking forward to Orlando since my Simflyer's Orlando is getting a little long in the tooth. But for the first time in history, I am NOT going to purchase a title a badly want. Just no sense in running it in FSX right now no matter how pretty it looks.:-(

Mike I am still laughing about the screen door analogy. My point was directed to the folks who get 10FPS and stutters or the ones that get 20FPS no stutters but FSX looks like FS98.These are the people who are content, so I was really throwing the addons in as to why not have em if you are so so happy with this piece of crap. I indeed have FS9 installed with all of its addon and it smokes.After ths snafu I am losing faith in MS BIG TIME. BTW Cloud 9 just released their "native FSX" Scenery for KMCO. Now why would I spend extra $$$ for a default airport with pretty buildings ??? If people would just look at the KPDXKPVD release from FlightScenery they would never even consider FSX. The KPDX release is breathtaking , imagine the world utilizing his talents that should be the standard for the future of FlightSimulaion.Andy

Interestingly enough, if you check out the Cloud9 website you will see that Cloud9 (again who I think make the best sceneries I've seen) are reduced to default jetways, default ground textures and default airport vehicles in their Orlando product for FSX. :-(There seems to be very narrow confines for custom development in FSX right now because of performace. And I can tell you that any payware mfg using default items in their sceneries in FS9 would be run out of town if they charged for it...even with more customized buildings. It seems that the FSX "step forward" causes even the BSST of the scenery designers to take a "step back".As Spock once said; "No, it is NOT fascinating. But it is....interesting'.

"Interestingly enough, if you check out the Cloud9 website you will see that Cloud9 (again who I think make the best sceneries I've seen) are reduced to default jetways, default ground textures and default airport vehicles in their Orlando product for FSX"$25.99 as well!!!I think 3rd party developers are going to have a tough time for the next 6+ months........

>Andy:>>The performance issues with FSX are still being worked on by>Microsoft and by the community here. With no less than half>the community unable to run FSX out of the box the way they>want to, I think that complex add-ons like LDS, PMDG, et al>are a moot point.I wonder how many people were able to run FS9 'the way they want to' when it first came out... Probably not too many.>>>No my friend let's get FSX working so that EVERYONE (no not>just the "hey I'M happy, so why isn't everyone else" crowd)>can begin to enjoy FSX they way I believe Aces meant the sim>to be enjoyed.Considering how much more FSX has over FS9 I think it runs quite well.You can't expect to have all the extras FSX offers and still retain the same frame rate preformance as FS9 using the same hardware.If you want all the extra eye candy and bells and whisles you gotta pay the piper.>>Additionally, the developers would be absolute fools to make>FSX only products (aircraft / airports, textures are exempt>since they can only be an improvement over the default) right>now due to performace. I'm confident that whatever performance hurdles FS programmers face with FSX that they will be effectively addressed in the following months.>Most people who are blubbering with>happiness with their "smooth" 10 FPS will blame the>developers, not FSX, when they end up with 5 FPS and the>developers will end up taking the blame.Possibly... but it will depend on the situation. Oh, many of us are quite happy with FSX, no blubbering required :)>Besides, how many people are willing to drop another $50 for a>LDS 767 that they can barely fly in FSX after they just>dropped $50 for FSX and they can't even use it!FSX is quite usable for most of us if you are resonable with setting the silders and other options, and I'm sure the people at LDS will come up with an effective way of porting their 767 over, they're a pretty smart lot.>>Complex addons for FSX right now would be like putting a>screen door on a submarine...useless.Nonsense, it's just going to require some time on the developers part to come up with effective programming changes and techniques. FSX is a whole different animal.>>Regards,Mark