"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."LOL, you must work for MS Marketing! Pass the burden of performance onto the addon guys....nice. " FSX is quite usable for most of us" - Really???? Must be my 'ancient' rig that I just purchased and built then......"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"Please let us know what these 'effective programming changes' are. Only evidence I am seeing so far is addons that drag FSX down to 8-10FPS. What can addon devs do when the base they have to work from is already taxed to the limits? They can't ADD framerates to a base product that already has none to play with. Sure I can move sliders even further left, but what's the point when it then looks like FS98 but with 1m ground textues? None really......I see you are another one of these 'hardware needs to catch up with FSX' types. There are plenty of threads (some comment in this one actually) about future hardware roadmaps. Please enlighten me on where the hardware to improve FSX is coming from?

"Eaglesoft released their addons even though they run pretty bad in fsx....."Dave, a blanket statement is bit unfair...we have a LOT of users who are quite satisfied with our Liberty XL2, Beechjet/Hawker 1.5, Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus SR22 for FSX. We will soon have a brand new 3D Studio Max Columbia 400 with FSX bells and whistles and the rest of our line fill follow the same track.True we have FEW users who experience lower performance in FSX and as you know, everyones mileage varies in either FS9 or FSX.It's still too early to tell what may happen with Aces and FSX or what may happen with hardware/DX10/etc. so please let it all play out before making blanket statements:-)

>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'.>>Mike, they are using defaults not because of performance, but because there is simply no way to add custom versions of things like ground textures, jetways, etc. The FSX engine does not allow the cheats used in FS9.There is a big topic on flytampas forum about this problem, and it looks like one of the reasons why OSS might be going away

I think that is pretty much common knowledge. I think Mike is just highlighting what the problems are with FSX.After being treated to FlyTampa stuff in FS9, default taxiways, runways, jetways and ground textures etc are just not going to cut it, certainly not at $25.99 USD!!

Just to be clear, we're not going away because of the FSX scenery issues, which, we hope will get cleared up soon, but simply because we can't produce right now. It has nothing to do with MSFS.When making add-ons and doing it from a business standpoint with more then 3 people in your company, it's all about the dev time. For us it's about the dev time "while" maintaining a very high quality standard, which we can't do at the moment. We said from the start that we would never short cut quality and would rather go off the radar until we can do it right. Maybe we're just asking to much, who knows.We may return soon, hopefully.

Alex-Well then, that's even WORSE news. Holding back because of performance is one thing because you can always go further once hardware catches up.Holding back because FSX forces you to and being forced to use the FSX default airport items just puts another nail in the coffin for me. I hope that there is enough of a FS9 following to keep Flytampa and OSS in business because their loss would be devistating to the community.

>>LOL, you must work for MS Marketing! Pass the burden of>performance onto the addon guys....nice. " FSX is quite usable>for most of us" - Really???? Must be my 'ancient' rig that I>just purchased and built then......Any "add-on" is just that, an add-on, and as such obviously has to be designed to work within its entended frame work. FSX is very resource intensive, and as such this needs to be taken into account when programming add-ons, but this certainately doesn't mean that add-ons are not an option.>>>Please let us know what these 'effective programming changes'>are. Only evidence I am seeing so far is addons that drag FSX>down to 8-10FPS.Well for starters, I have MyTraffic has come up with one which actually gives me a frame rate boost over default traffic. As far as add-on planes are concerned, It's too early to tell. Ask me again in six months.> What can addon devs do when the base they>have to work from is already taxed to the limits? FSX is full of compromises. I'm sure airplane add-ons will also be designed with that in mind. >They can't>ADD framerates to a base product that already has none to play>with. See MyTraffic. It does infact do just that.>>I see you are another one of these 'hardware needs to catch up>with FSX' types. There are plenty of threads (some comment in>this one actually) about future hardware roadmaps. Please>enlighten me on where the hardware to improve FSX is coming>from?Mid-high to high end equipment already runs FSX quite well, if you don't expect it to give you the moon :) My P4 running at 3.4Ghz gives me 10-15fps on the ground and 20-24(locked at 24) when in flight with most sliders at or near full. Faster mashines will do even better.>>>>

I think the continued "doom and gloom" about complex airport add-ons in FSX will soon be proven unwarranted. Besides, even if "the round earth problem" weren't fixable, there are still other ways to accomplish exactly the same type of detailed scenery (a la FlyTampa) that we had in FS9. I know this is a pretty bold statement, but here goes:Some well known developers seem to have tunnel-vision...focusing only on trying to make "old" methods work in FSX. If instead, they took to time to tackle the problem from another angle, the solution would be quite simple. Alas, they have generated panick all across the forums.Regardless, as I said at the top of this post, I suspect we'll be able to use the "old" method again soon.Nick

BTW, the "final" SDK's have still not been released. There is no way to use GMAX at this point, and the SDK's to use 3dsMax are not complete at all - we're all waiting for the update. In October MS said they would be released the first week in November, two weeks ago they said last week, this week they are saying??But I hope they will wait until they get them bug free, so developers can start creating right away and not spend hours figuring out why things in the SDK don't work.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Nick,And you got this information from where? I guess you have some inside information we don't? ROFL.

>I think the continued "doom and gloom" about complex airport>add-ons in FSX will soon be proven unwarranted. >>Besides, even if "the round earth problem" weren't fixable,>there are still other ways to accomplish exactly the same type>of detailed scenery (a la FlyTampa) that we had in FS9. >>I know this is a pretty bold statement, but here goes:>>Some well known developers seem to have>tunnel-vision...focusing only on trying to make "old" methods>work in FSX. If instead, they took to time to tackle the>problem from another angle, the solution would be quite>simple. Alas, they have generated panick all across the>forums.>>Regardless, as I said at the top of this post, I suspect we'll>be able to use the "old" method again soon.>>NickAgreed Nick, we'll have to wait and see.It's truly amazing how many 'rely" on 3rd party addons to make or break their experience. Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

>>I think the continued "doom and gloom" about complex>airport>>add-ons in FSX will soon be proven unwarranted. >>>>Besides, even if "the round earth problem" weren't fixable,>>there are still other ways to accomplish exactly the same>type>>of detailed scenery (a la FlyTampa) that we had in FS9. >>>>I know this is a pretty bold statement, but here goes:>>>>Some well known developers seem to have>>tunnel-vision...focusing only on trying to make "old">methods>>work in FSX. If instead, they took to time to tackle the>>problem from another angle, the solution would be quite>>simple. Alas, they have generated panick all across the>>forums.>>>>Regardless, as I said at the top of this post, I suspect>we'll>>be able to use the "old" method again soon.>>>>Nick>>>Agreed Nick, we'll have to wait and see.>>It's truly amazing how many 'rely" on 3rd party addons to make>or break their experience. >>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>

Asus A8N32-SLI>Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Jeff are you still planning on releasing Kansas City Intl. and KOAK for FS9??? There will be a market for some time to come in the FS9 environment. Please don't give up on the FS9 platform. Vista/DX10 may not be the saving grace for FSX nor the Aces patch (remember FS9's patch that left allot to be desired). Once this fact is realized by most even the most hardened FSX holdouts, FS9 will be more of a main stay than it already is... :-(

Nick:The actual developers tend to differ from your statements. There is no problem with being optimistic as long as you have facts on which to base your optimism. The developers are not as optimistic as you and maybe its because they have the FSX SDK and have been working with the Aces team for months? I'm sure they would rather be releasing products and making money instead of "doom and gloom" as you say.Of course, if you know something that they don't please share. Sorry, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you cannot fly no matter how sure you are that you can do it. There is blind optimism and there is just plain old blind.

Not any time soon, sad to say. The reasons are internal for us and not FSX related. Schedules just aren't allowing it anymore. So close but so far. We'll see what happens though.