pay a fair price for a decent product? who is to say what is fair or not? just because that person has an uneducated opinion on what price they should be paying does not make it correct. the amount of hours programming and testing just to upgrade products to FSX with the same functionality is extremely time consuming. and the market for fs addons is so small compared to other software markets, expecting to pay a handful of dollars for a product with double the features is not remotely possible.

Good, so let's expand that train of thought and make sure that Aces TOO get's rewarded for "the amount of hours programming and testing just to upgrade products".FSX Performance Upgrade $69.99FSX DX10 Upgrade $69.99FSX Dual-core Upgrade $69.99I would assume that you have no problem with that right? Surely, Aces deserves the same concern for compensation for their "extremely time consuming" work as anyone else, especially since the market for MSFS is small compared to other software markets.Furthermore, I expect everyone who reads my reviews to pay me $10 so that my time and effort is rewarded. And Tom A and all of the Avsim staff deserves at LEAST $1,000 per year for EACH of the users of their service.Of course I am being facetious. It is not always as cut and dry as those of you lamenting the OP make it out to be. Is the expressing of one's opinion so distasteful if it differs with yours? Is this what this community as come to?

Were the OP's assumptions correct, then the conclusions reached could indeed be considered reasonable. That is simple logic.However, if the starting assumptions are fallacious, that is another matter entirely. Or, stating it in ancient computerese: this is a prime example of "GIGO" at work.In spite of ACES's good intentions and best efforts, the sad fact is that "backwards compatibility" is mostly a hit-or-miss proposition in practice, even for models that were built 100% compliant with the FS9 SDK specifications. This is entirely self-evident by the number of reported "issues" with FS9 models that've simply been "ported over" to FSX, such as "invisible windows," "missing parts," "non-functioning gauges," "landing/taxi lights missing," etc. There are plethora examples to support this observation.For the very first time in the life of the FS franchise, not one single thing in any development area has remain untouched! As a result, there's a very HUGE difference between "FSX Compatible" and "FSX Compliant," the former of which merely means "will work in FSX - mostly..."Consider for a moment each of the FIVE disciplines that comprise a complete FS "product."1) Modeling: a completely new modeling paradigm is in place. "Partname based" animations no longer work. Instead, all animations must be key-frame animated, then associated with XML code using the new Animation Tool. Conditional "visibility, mouse actions, attached effects, etc." must be associated with individual parts or control nodes using the new Attachpoint Tool. Exterior models and interior models are now completely separate .mdl objects. This complicates the model building process by making it twice the effort to keep duplicate parts "harmonious" between the two models. Any change to a part used in both models must be done twice; once for each model. These are just a few of the changes. There are many, many more that must be taken into consideration, not the least of which is the completely new "lighting system..." ;)2) Textures/Graphic Arts: in addition to the new compression schema used DDS vs. .BMP files, there are now Fresnel Ramp, Specular, and BUMP textures to be specified, created and tested. Adding to the complexity, there are no less than fifty new "sliders," and other "options" from which to choose to use - or not - as the case might be.3) Gauges: more than a few "fixes" have been provided by ACES for formerly "broken" key_events, the net result of which is that actions coded (or more correctly, "coded around") them no longer work. All of these must be found and corrected. For XML gauge programmers, the syntax has completely changed, and worse XML tags have become case-sensitive. This means a nearly total rewrite of existing XML code if one wishes to remain fully-compliant. For both C/C++ and XML programmers, completely new substitute "nighttime bitmaps" must be created and added to the gauge(s). This latter change is required by the aforementioned "new lighting system."4) Flight Dynamics: Rob Young has already covered this adequately, so there's really nothing more of value I could add. Attempting to do so would only serve to reveal my own abysmal ignorance of this "black art" in any case... :)5) Sounds: sounds are now recorded in 5.1 "Surround Sound" so if one wishes to be fully compliant this requires all sounds to be re-recorded, sampled and then incorporated into the new sound.cfg file format.Hopefully this brief dissertation will serve to educate everyone on the challenges faced by all developers, whether they be freeware or commercial.Now, taking all the above into consideration, weigh in Rob's entirely correct observation that FSX hasn't created a new market, but in fact has - thus far at least - only served to divide an already miniscule market into two sharply delineated markets. Developers must now do more than twice the work if they wish to service both markets... :(

I think there is a valid point about paying full price for an FSX upgrade.One could state the effort details for a whole host of items related to FSX changes etc, etc, etc, but in most cases it still won't be the same effort as was needed to develop the product from its original conception to its first release.Myself I find very little justification for charging full price to current customers of the previous version of same product for its upgrade to FSX.But as others have alluded to expecting a free upgrade not considering the transition efforts that may require some productsto be upgraded would be unreasonable as well.Regards.Ernie.

Bill:To quote Spock in the episode "Amok Time": "Logical...flawlessly logical".But this serves to show that at this juncture the perverbial 'party' is over. In that I mean, the developers may well find themselves in survival mode having to develop twice to serve a split community while still trying to reap revenue that makes it possible to even stay in business, much less enjoy a profit (which is the reason to be in business in the first place). This is where the understanding and indulgence of the community will be vital to keep us from finding that many of the developers with whom we do business are no longer there.The developers are frustrated and the community is frustrated and it is a double edged sword. Ergo, comments like the one from Eaglesoft won't help them because they will need EVERY source of revenue and it will not serve to lose even one (and apparently they have). Apropos, we need the developers to continue to release their high quality wares or the FS hobby will become a bleak place with only a handful of products available - despite Aces thinking that the movement of sliders will keep FSX fresh, which it will not. We are inexorably linked like it or not.Personally, I don't have a problem helping the developers though, what could be, a very trying financial time. Similarly, I expect the community will be shown the respect it deserves as any business that expects to keep its customers should (yes, warts and all.). FSX has inadvertantly caused a VERY interesting and unexpected dynamic and like it or not, we ALL have to toe the line TOGETHER for lack of cooperation will surely be detrimental to this hobby.

>I think there is a valid point about paying full price for an>FSX upgrade.I do not disagree with this at all, which is presumably why some developers offer discounts for current owners of their products.OTOH, if the release is quantitatively more than a "simple upgrade," but indeed is a complete rebuild, that's another matter entirely...My "laundry list" of differences between FS9/FSX modeling paradigms was meant merely to inform, not justify... ;)

Mike,you pretty much summed it up and I am thankful for this thread, because it cleared up a lot of my own misconceptions about porting add-ons to FSX. However, from an end-user perspective I am still having a hard time to justify a full price tag for a port. For me as the end-user, the FSX product is hardly any different from the FS9 product. I know it is harsh of me to dismiss countless hours of work from the developer to make it FSX-compatible, but fact is that it is the same product.Rob Young's excellent post has given me a lot of insight and, yes, I have been disappointed by others, whom I have supported and praised publicly for a long time. I wanted to spark a discussion and not a controversy, but it has been viewed by most posters that I sounded completely unreasonable, which I still think I am not. I do have funds to buy all the add-ons I like, but I simply refuse to support any entity who does not value me as a customer. On the other hand, I honor developers who have taken the time to enlighten me - this alone would have been enough reasoning for me to justify an upgrade/update.A compromise would be to offer new functionality in FSX upgrades. Create a simple mission, some extended manual, more liveries, more fluid gauges, FMC functionality - anything. Or bundle different minor versions together and sell them as an FSX upgrade bundle for the price of one. Just give me a reason that there is an added value.Thank you again.

You didn't list RealAir in the rant, although he DOES program & use his "many years" of expertise for "other" 3rd party vendors, that you might want to check into. I don't believe he'll want to re-program their upgrades for "free" either!And Mike T, just does not like FSX, and constantly goes out of his way, to fall over, on the negative side of the line! Bottom line, you started a rant, while admitting to knowing little background information. "I" already knew it...BTW --- glad you noticed that most replies here, offer little support! Have you noticed that the majority of retailers are changing the rules on Christmas returns this year? Well, they have to! The "customer is always right" slogan is from a bygone era! That's right, many of today's customers tend to take advantage of the retailer, far too much! Kind of like typing out a "rant" with little background knowlege, and then wondering why the particular vendor that you just slandered doesn't value you as a customer! And that's not the worse part, as you tend to farther slander the vendor as an excuse to justify yourself!L.Adamson

I have another reason to stay away from fps eating addon aircraft: fps. I have little overhead to spare with FSX.

He pays the bill. It's his &^mn money so let him rant. Indeed, he doesn't have to be an expert to tell you that the substantial core of the program - FSX - is ready made for addons. These are ADDONS. Not programmed as novel games from scratch. They wouldn't exist without FSX. So his opinion is that while there may be some rewrites of a plane he bought it's still an addon. All he's seeking as a customer of an addon is some break on pricing.

"And Mike T, just does not like FSX, and constantly goes out of his way, to fall over, on the negative side of the line!"What's wrong with you? May I suggest you stop mountain flying and fly a little closer to sea level because obviously your unpressurized cabin is causing you harm. WHERE did anyone say anything negative about FSX and what does my unhappiness with FSX have to do with THIS thread????And since you brought it up, I'm a grownup and don't need your permission or approval for my points of view, you may want to save that for your children. And if my opinion of FSX differs from your "almost flawless" (your words) view of FSX well, you know what, HOMEBOY? Tough.

"If Ron Hamilton from Eaglesoft would have stated something similar in his post and would have taken the MINIMAL effort of an explanation....Ok, I've been up since five this morning, driven over 250 miles to support my wife at the hospital while her mother is treated for heart trouble. Frankly there are a few more important things in life than whether you feel our products are unfairly priced. Educate yourself about what is required to produce and distribute these products before you rant about what others do or what price they should charge.We repeat, our products take months and even years to produce and we will charge what we know the product is worth and you as the consumer get to choose whether you wish to own it or not.What you do not get to choose is what WE decide the price will be. Clear enough?:-)

Sorry that I am not as smart as "you" are and don't know EVERYTHING about FSX like you do. Let's just assume that I have posted this with a pure malicious intent. I am sure "you" have created some of the most admired add-ons for FSX and looked directly in the source code of any major add-on - yet you're simply a "pretend" and an end-consumer like myself. There is absolutely no need to talk down on me - at least not in this fashion.I started the thread, because I was unhappy with some upgrade pricing - some people, like Rob Young and Mike have given me a great insight without taking sides and personally attacking me. However, you seem to be active in any thread where people just like to state their opinion and don't respect someone else's. I have yet to see one helpful word out of your mouth, yet you accuse me to post an unreasonable rant, in which my views have changed and lot of misconceptions have been cleared up. You are so single-minded that you cannot acknowledge that some of my views have changed during this thread. Some for it I apologized, some I did not.Have I been totally out-of-line or a 100% unreasonable? I think not.You are present whereever there is a multi-page thread about something to argue or insult and turn you head exactly where is it the most covenient for you with little merit or value to add to the discussion, whether it be here or the X-Plane forums.

From our own forum on this subject....If we could we would....provide free upgrades that is:-) I wouldn't even think of asking these team members to work months and months for free and am always surprised when customers expect them too....

>yet you're simply a "pretend" and an end-consumer like myself.What does "pretend" imply?