Why so few airport sceneries for FSX?

[Mike... 7]

Small airport, no *squints* AI traffic. And "Sure this is serious hardware (Intel E6700, 4GB, nVidia 8800 GTX, Windows Vista)".I'm not bashing anything, but FSX is more of a spin-off than a sequel. I feel they both cater to a slightly different audience. Most companies have reacted better to that than Cloud9. And that's unfortunate, because you've made some nice sceneries.

[Manny 1,293]

>>>Aerosoft seems to be on the bandwagon for sceneries in FSX,>>but even with their awesome sceneries in FSX, the>performance>>issue still sucks.>>Please, define better "performance sucks":>>http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=12498>>FSX performance I mean. Blurries etc. Not Aerosoft's sceneries.Manny

[virtuali 4,419]

>You and me both know that that is not an airport>scenery in the FS9 sense. I don't see why the fact that it has a city ON TOP of having an airport, should change the fact that IS an airport scenery. Maybe your are confusing with Cloud9 Xcity Rome, that only had a 3d city + some helipads.I don't get the "airport scenery in the FS9 sense". What does it mean ? Only big airports have the right of citizenship for the "serious simmer" ? It's really funny when, couple of years ago, when all developers insisted redoing the same top-10-by-traffic airports (klax, katl, egll, etc.), people complained because they neglet smaller and interesting places.Now, if a developer tries to do something less obvious, like Bergen or Florence, ( that are BOTH International airport with airliners traffic, BTW ), people complain the same, because "it's no an airport scenery anymore".Florence, with its short runway and city approach (you can't say the city it's not useful to the "serious simmer", because it's an integral part of what the pilot will see on final), it's way more interesting, from an aviation point of view, that a boring landing on the 4km+ rwy at klax.>And for people who fly from hub to hub with>the bigger aircraft, Aviation, even commercial airliner aviation, it's not just "hub to hub", the very point of being an hub it's that, once you get there, some other flight will take you to some place else, smaller. I humbly remind you that the Florence airport has just been upgraded to receive A320 and B737, so it's the perfect place for short-range airliners.>For those people, there's also not a whole lot in FSX to warrant a>switch away from FS9, in my humble opinion. The issue it's, of course, what you are complaining. Lack of enough number of 3rd party addons, comparing to FS9.That's nothing to do with FSX being worse or not, or FSX being slower or not. It has to do with the fact that FSX, being SO MUCH powerful, requires WAY more time to create a scenery. Of course, a scenery that will look different from FS9, enough to warrant the developer some income derived by the fact that people would be prepared to pay again for the scenery.The fact a lot of developers haven't switched to FSX, doesn't have anything to do with what FSX can or can't do. FSX can do everything that is needed to create a detailed scenery. Issues like the famous "round earth" problem, that supposely prevented to create detailed ground at airports, are now fixed with SP1. KMCO was using default textures, Bergen used a mixed approach, but Florence has 100% custom ground textures, because it only works with FSX SP1. There's no technical reason, today, not to do a detailed airport.The issue is entirely commercial. The developers are faced with this dilemma:- Just converting an FS9 scenery will result in a LOT of work, but the scenery will look just the same as in FS9, probably with much worse performances, and many users would expect a free upgrade (because it *looks* the same), so nobody would pay for the LOT of work that went into converting.- Redoing the scenery from scratch in FSX will result in a WHOLE LOT MORE amount of work, and then you have to convince users to buying it again.- With a market divided between FS9 and FSX users, offering an FS9 version as well will result in a ADDITIONAL LOT MORE work, and the more the FSX version is "FSX native", the more work is required to offer an FS9 version, and the less the whole business is commercially viable.That's why, for the time being, you'll see airports for smaller places coming out, because those projects are easier and less risky. Waiting for better times, when all the remaining FS9 user will switch to FSX. Surely, Acceleration+DX10 should represent another boost to user migration towards FSX.I hear you, FSX has been out for 9 months, and we still don't have lot of stuff available. Problem is, if 6 months were enough to create a big airport in FS9 (with some projects, like Vauchez's stuff going on for much more time), it's no longer possible with FSX, if you really want to exploit it the way people expect, meaning fully using new materials, new textures possibilities, etc. It's quite obvious that, with a projected developement time of 9-12 months for a big airport in FSX, and with a major update still to come, no sane developer would bank its time/money before at least being sure FSX would be stable for a couple of years. That's why the smaller places first, it's the only thing that make sense.That's why I'll have to wait at least 2-3 years more before being able to play the next Final Fantasy on the PS3...to many FS9 (sorry, PS2 ) users around, and developing PS3 games it's way more expensive the PS2 games, and the users base is still FS9 (sorry, PS2...)See ? It's not that different. Patience it's the key...

[Paul J 349]

. . . add to this the fact that many FSX default airports are pretty darned good - take KSEA, for example; I have FT SEA for FS9 - fabulous!, but - to spend another $40 - $50 on an FSX replacement? - no, the existing one is good enough for me, and it's much the same for many others.

[virtuali 4,419]

>Small airport, no *squints* AI traffic. And what, exactly, AI traffic has to do with the scenery ? If a scenery runs at 68 fps with low AI traffic, and 15 fps with AI at 100%, it's quite clear that it's not the scenery that is affecting the frame rate, because that drop would probably be exactly the same even without the addon scenery. What's the point, then, showing a screenshot with full AI, were the fps would have been low regardless of the scenery being present or not ? Anyway, I remind you that Florence, since has been developed by the same guys that used to work with Cloud9 (me and others, before someone will jump stating I'm not indicating my affiliations clearly enough), is offered with the same Try-before-buy option, so anyone can try the scenery on his own machine, with his own preferred settings.Speaking about AI, yes, AI is really heavy on fps in FSX, mostly because MS default AI are using the same ultra-detailed models they are using for user flyable airplanes.BUT, I remember very well that many people were *already* doing this in FS9, first replacing the default AI traffic with more detailed one (like UT), and THEN replacing the models with other more fps-friendly, because otherwise the fps would drop, even in FS9. It's not a new issue.>And "Sure this is>serious hardware (Intel E6700, 4GB, nVidia 8800 GTX, Windows>Vista)".Fact that FSX requires new hardware, it's quite obvious. Like the fact that the E6700 nowadays is way cheaper than it used to be.

[Geofa 108]

Same with me-don't need an add on Detroit or San Diego now-the fsx ones are fine-and there are lots of them!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[lost16 0]

I actually bought Florence and it is a nice little airport(having been there a few times a long time ago. Yes, ACES did create good looking large airports for FSX (lax and ksfo for example). But in FSX, generic looking medium and smaller airports are the rule. With all the extra autogen available I see FSX as more of a regional, small airport sim and as airlines are trying to fly more point to point than hub to hub, this fits right in. Even with Penryns or Barcelonas and nvidia 9 series or ATI r700's, FSX will not be able to max out AI aircraft, cars, ships, weather, lens flare, light bloom, etc. at large airports and large cities. DX10 has more effects like HDR for example that may find its way into FSX. On the other hand, at medium and smaller destinations it will be easier to have an airport and city full of AI and autogen and get decent frame rates which will help make FSX a more immersing experience. Now only if third party add on companies can make realistic regional aircraft that don't suck up 10+fps in VC mode, lol. I would like to see more sceneries in the same 1.2M resolution like the default St. Maarten, Rio and Vegas. Especiallv Carribean islands (there is a lot of opprtunity for third party developers here). For example Tropicalsim has Flamingo Airport for the island of Bonaire (near TNCM). In default FSX, Bonaire is a desert with a few trees, A tank farm, and a generic small airport and no visible houses or roads. This is an example of where an airport+city is necessary.

[Mike... 7]

>I don't get the "airport scenery in the FS9 sense". What does it mean?It has to do with scope. The focus has clearly shifted from larger projects to smaller ones. From say EHAM and the city, huge. To Florence, much smaller. I'm not talking about Cloud9 per se, but overall. As you indicate later in your post as well. It's just the way it is. Some people will be okay with it, others won't. Maybe it'll stay this way, maybe we'll see some bigger airports as well in the future.> (you can't say the city it's not useful to the "serious simmer", > because it's an integral part of what the pilot will see on final)I never said such a thing, I was just noting my personal preference and that of a lot of other people.>That's why, for the time being, you'll see airports for>smaller places coming out, because those projects are easier>and less risky. Waiting for better times, when all the>remaining FS9 user will switch to FSX. Surely,>Acceleration+DX10 should represent another boost to user>migration towards FSX.All the remaining users?! There are still people using FS2002 and previous incarnations, don't expect everyone to switch. ;-DBut the rest of that comment is I think the first honest word we've heard about the matter. These are unsure times. The community is still hugely divided. And not as eager to migrate as some say. In the past you and Cloud9 were much more optimistic. Now you're waiting for better times... KMCO was released rather quickly, it may have been the first FSX scenery. But it may also have been a bit presumptuous. You won't admit it, but your comments speak for themselves. I feel maybe just a little vindicated. ;-p > If a scenery runs at 68 fps with low AI traffic, and 15 fps with >AI at 100%, it's quite clear that it's not the scenery that is>affecting the frame rateIf only it were that simple. It's not a question of what's to blame. At the end of the day, I (and I assume I'm not alone) would rather get rid of one small scenery or not buy it, than to say goodbye to AI that populates the entire FS world.

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi Simmers :-) From a developer point of view, I could put here an extended text, full of explanations, but instead of this, just some remarks:- FSX Demo just released:We tried it, as we had a TNCM scenery then, and for our surprise, it looked ok over that demo terrain, just needing some small corrections. We were happy then, the idea was to update every single one of the 90 FS9 sceneries we had done so far to show perfectly at FSX, and at no cost to our users, as we did when we changed from FS2002 to FS2004. Of couse, we spread this intentions up, for the happiness of our users.- FSX about to be released:About one/two months before the release date, the add-on market virtually stopped, for almost everybody. No one was ordering FS9 products, as everybody was eager to have FSX as soon as possible, as FS9 seemed sentenced to death and to be forgotten as an "old stuff" and only FSX "would be able to make everybofy happy" as it represented the progress, the innovation, and things like that. Who would still order FS9 products, if FSX was already almost at our doors and soon there would be tons of FSX adds, as happened when FS9 took FS8's place?Can everybody figure how developers faced this scenario? A breaked market, FS9 projects still under constructions brought to a full stop, FSX products being planed, and no one sure about nothing?- FSX released:Needs no comments about what happened to us all, right? :-roll Developers faced the hard reality, eerything changed, even that demo looked so strange now... where has compatibility gone? Why everything that worked so nice at FS9 has become so useless on FSX? What to do?We spent days and nights working full time here to discover how to plant a scenery in a decent way on FSX. It was very hard, for sure! Is this a complaint of just someone who has not been successful? No. We did it, but at what a cost. We managed to be the first ones with a native FSX scenery on the market, after a very hard work. Soon 6 other sceneries followed this first one, all then working fine, done from scratch, from zero. They were not updates, and we did not charged old customers of previous versions for them. They all had a nice discount or even a free upgrade on some sceneries.- FS9 not died yet?:As FS9 turned again to be the main sim for a (very) large number of simmers, developers became divided again.....what to produce? Still FS9 products? Just FSX new adds? How to do them nice? And the time going by...What to do?- Yes! FS9 still alive:Another surprise for developers. FS9 products starting to sell a lot again...disgusted FSX users giving up, heading for FS9 once more, and ordering (a lot) of FS9 only products. Another factor helping this: the fear (sometimes not real) of performance hit of FSX adds, as the sim alone was already scaring for the majority of us. And the add-on market upside down again. Do everybody think that is easy to project and plan something on a scenario like this?- FS9, FSX on a split world:We took the decision we found to be the finest one: keep producing native FSX sceneries, reworking then to be FS9 fully compatibles too. Every single release of a scenery we have done to FSX had an independent FS9 installer included on the pack. This way, we pleased both FS9 and FSX simmers that use our sceneries. An extra work? Yes, of couse, but a manner to let every sinlge user happy, for sure. This was the best solution for us, I can't say if it's affordable to other devs, as each one has his own working procedure.- FSX SP1 released:Another nice surprise x( After installing it, we discovered that every single FSX scenery we have done, and that used to work so nice, started to have strange ground issues...like floating ramps, txws, lines, a crazy thing... An there we go again....another set of full day and night work, tests, tentatives, searches, and suffer to fix something that was already nice, but was killed by SP1. Thank god we manged to do it one more time, and have just released a banch of updates, covering all 9 FSX sceneries we have done until now. But it was really painfull to do. The strange thing (FSX is full of strange behaviours) is that some procedure that fixed a pos-SP1 issue on a scenery, does not work for another scenery, done exactly the same way of the other one....so, for each of the 9 sceneries a personal correction update, done in a diferent manner, as if the location of where the scenery is, had some influence for that. Very strange thing.It's hard, dear friends, to work like this. Developers, like me, are having a very turbulent life since FSX was released.Everything changed. Making sceneries used to be a very pleasent and enjoyable art. I can't say, right now, if it still is.Ahh... almost forgot: and about that solution of 100x100 meters max grounpolis that seemed to work?Very nice :D We have just done the huge Rio's Intl' airport for FSX and FS9...take a look at the airport area alone at Google Earth, note the size of those runways....very cool to reproduce all that amount of ground using just 100x100 meters squares, doesn't it? :-cool The worst part is that, in 2 or 3 years from now when things become tamed with FSX looking great full of adds like FS9 is now, with everybody flying a lot and having fun (the very way FS9 is now) there will come FSXI and everything will be upside down again :( Excuse for my bad English and long text, but I needed to say this from a long time, I'm really better now. It's finally out of my throat.My best regards,Carlos Pereira.www.tropicalsim.com

[virtuali 4,419]

>All the remaining users?! There are still people using>FS2002 and previous incarnations, don't expect everyone to>switch. ;-DYes, there are still percentage of users still using Windows 98 + IE4, statistics prove that. This, of course, doesn't mean developers should still make software or website compatibile with such standards.>The community is still hugely divided. Yes, but the percentage of *how* much is divided, it's not what FS9 users THINK is. Really, it's not.I keep reading comments about "90% of the community is going back to FS9", without, of course, having any solid evidence. I guess, if *really* 90% of the users went back to FS9, we should have seen it on the actual sales, since at Cloud9 we had 11 products for FS9 and 3 for FSX (not counting the XClass series), with one being the same offered in both versions (Bergen).Don't you think that, if REALLY 90% of the users were going back to FS9, anybody, regardless of his initial expectations and announcements, would already have changed his FSX-only plans ?No, the issue is the community IS divided, but it's not "going back" to FS9. Right now, I'd say it's probably 60%-40% pro FSX, and it slowly improving, towards FSX, of course. The trend is clear, but is not going as fast as we would like, because that is *precisely* the worse situation a commercial developer could find himself into because is still spells clearly "no FS9" anymore, but it's not yet fully geared up for FSX.>In the past you and Cloud9 were much more optimistic.Yes, but this doesn't change a bit the fact that it was right to support FSX, regardless of how fast the transition is happening, there's only one direction to go, and it's not backwards.>KMCO was released rather quickly, it may have been the first FSX>scenery. But it may also have been a bit presumptuous. KMCO is still an important airport and it's FSX native,(and, hopefully) will sell, even in 3 years from now. Being the first FSX scenery, of course, means only that others will eventually outdone it, and that's quite normal. Being an FSX scenery with plenty of lifetime ahead, means also there's still time to eventually improve it.>won't admit it, but your comments speak for themselves. I feel>maybe just a little vindicated. ;-p I don't see how, you are probably going too far, there still no going back to FS9. Rather the opposite: some publishers that initially were devoted to FS9+FSX, are now announcing new products for FSX only, and they are also getting their share of flak, just as Cloud9 last year. This only means we were right from the start, perhaps with *too* much advance, because users complaining for a developer switching into FSX-only mode are far less than last year.But believe me, switching to FSX-only last year, has also brought us some advantadges, regardless of the sales, because we are already doing easily now things that others developers are just starting to grasp (Bergen was the first FSX addon scenery that uses fully customized jetways with inverse kinematics, just like the default ones, Florence it's using 100% custom ground textures, but with FSX effects and materials on top of it ), so I considered it a good investment, and I'd redo it again, if given the chance.>At the end of the day, I (and I assume I'm not alone)>would rather get rid of one small scenery or not buy it, than>to say goodbye to AI that populates the entire FS world.It's exactly the opposite: the AI-induced fps drop it's just the same, regardless if the scenery is active or not. You don't have to get rid of the scenery to enjoy better fps with full AI in exchange, because it's the AI that already did the damage, deleting the scenery will not help at all. You wouldn't expect, I hope, that an addon scenery would auto-magically fix all the default AI and *improves* their performances. That's a job for AI packages, and I always had the impression that people prefer to use dedicated AI packages rather than sceneries that comes with their own AI.Anyway, since the scenery is available as Trial, the whole issue is meaningless, because anybody can try it with the FSX settings he likes more.

[Mike... 7]

>>At the end of the day, I (and I assume I'm not alone)>>would rather get rid of one small scenery or not buy it,>than>>to say goodbye to AI that populates the entire FS world.>>It's exactly the opposite: the AI-induced fps drop it's just>the same, regardless if the scenery is active or not. You>don't have to get rid of the scenery to enjoy better fps with>full AI in exchange, because it's the AI that already did the>damage, deleting the scenery will not help at all. Again, overall. If given the choice beween getting rid of AI or some scenery for that extra boost, I at least would opt to get rid of the scenery. So, screen shots without AI are completely useless to me. Even if the AI lowered the frames more than the scenery, if the combo of scenery and AI is no good, then the scenery would go or would not be purchased.Anyhoo... How about that PS3, huh...

[virtuali 4,419]

Carlos,I'm sympathetic with you, because of course problems are always the same, for any fellow developer.But (there's always a "But"... )It looks to me you had a lot of troubles in the process, way more than you should have, and I'm trying guessing an explaination.Reading your account, it looks to me that you weren't fully sure what to do. Yes, listening to users is nice, but, as you found out, you can't *plan* anything, if you are keeping changing your strategies, depending on how much in fashion is FSX this week, or if a new fantastic tweak came out of nowhere, and improve the fps.Reading forums *too much* is dangerous, you really risk losing sight of the reality, because forum users are passionate, they care about their toys much more than the average users. For example, retail market, is entirely different. I'm not speaking about big chains (they don't care about flight sim), but specialized retail stores, like the one I'm also running for the latest 14 years, do not have the luxury of online sales, were you can be very quick to upgrade, patch, offer discounts to registered users and such. Retailers have to PAY for the stock they are carrying, and the very moment a new version of FS is announced, this stock is immediately worth less than half its value. Developers who have access to retail market, in this case, are feeling the pressure of two opposing forces: the online users, passionate, dedicated, with a big investment in existing addons, that would like to keep the old version, but retailers that REFUSE to take *anything* that have something to do with the old version. That's plain and simple a business decision: nobody is happy to put things in the bargain bin and losing money. Retailers could care less if FSX is slow today. They care about how much their existing stock will be worth next year.That's the commercial side of it. Speaking technically, I see you had problems. First, a foreword: I would really like you to take this *very* friendly, please. I'll talk of a very old product of mine, which I don't have the slightest interest promoting it, also because I think Lago stopped paying me royalties on that one a long time ago (the fact I don't even fully remember, should tell you how much I care for it, right now). So, I hope you take it in the right way, as a friendly advice.You said you produced some FSX scenery. I'm having a look at an area that I'm familiar with, Punta Cana, because that was one of the first scenery I did for FS2004.This is what your Punta Cana scenery looks in FSX:http://secure.simmarket.com/online/tropica...mdpcx/fsx10.jpgIt's not bad, but does it really looks like an FSX scenery ?This is how my Punta Cana scenery ( released in January 2004, that's more than 3.5 years ago ) looked in FS9:http://www.simmarket.com/online/lago/punta...50_LAGO_s_4.jpg(I'm sorry for the different-sized pictures, but these are the ones posted on Simmarket, so I guess you should have been happy with yours)I remind you again: *please* do not take it as a comparison for the sceneries, that one is history for me, and it's not the point I'm trying to make.I'm saying: the main reason of all your troubles, with FSX first, then FSX+SP1, like being forced to redo all patches, and personalized upgrades, it's probably due to the fact that you tried to force something that was initially thought for FS9 into FSX, and getting burned in the process.That was my point, when I was saying "switching to FSX-only had its advantadges". We never had *any* of the problems you had, when FSX SP1 came out. KMCO, ENBR and Rome were already fully compatible, no problem at all when SP1 came out, BECAUSE they were 100% FSX native sceneries in the first place!ACES worked a *LOT* to fix stuff for legacy scenery in FSX, that's why those who produced FSX scenery with FS9 techiques were burned when SP1 came out. We played it safer, for KMCO we didn't do any custom ground stuff, because *that* was a problem in FSX pre-SP1. What's the point trying to force the engine doing something is not designed for ? That's was I always said: a 3rd party developer have to *adapt* to the platform is using, not the opposite! FSX pre-SP1 WAS different comparing to FS9, so no point trying to force FS9 stuff in it.But ACES, being the good chaps they are, listened to complaints, and did everything that was possible to do to improve compatibility with old design methods in SP1, within the feasibility limits of a Service Pack, of course. This had the side effect that pre-SP1 sceneries who used FS9 elements, got completely screwed up with SP1, because that was an area of major change.That's why we waited, and now, with Florence, we have an FSX scenery that still looks as an FSX scenery should, but with SP1-only tricks, that make the famous "custom ground that people wants" possible.Really, I think you really care for your users, and tried to make everybod happy, something that is very difficult to do, since there will be always people complaining, regardless of how good you try to be. But, if you were a little bit firmer on your strategies, and not trying to chase a moving target, you'd saved a lot of trouble in the process. You and I know very well that nobody will get rich making sceneries for FS, the N.1 drive will always be the fun factor, there's no reason to suffer that much...

[virtuali 4,419]

>Again, overall. If given the choice beween getting rid of AI>or some scenery for that extra boost, I at least would opt to>get rid of the scenery. So, screen shots without AI are>completely useless to me. Even if the AI lowered the frames>more than the scenery, if the combo of scenery and AI is no>good, then the scenery would go or would not be purchased.I'm saying the fps drop is NOT induced by scenery+ai, like if you had a choice of one over the other. I'm saying the fps drop is 99% because of AI. Meaning, the scenery do not contribute at all to fps "loss". There's no such thing of the AI lowering the fps "more" than scenery. The scenery is not lowering anything! I would go as far as saying that the scenery, alone, even IMPROVES over default. And for a very simple reason: the 3d City, that every "serious simmer" seems to hate, because it's just eye candy, is done in a way that actually *increase* fps, comparing to the same area in the default scenery.And why is that ? Quite simple: having a full 3d city, allows to get rid of the city autogen (still one thing quite heavy in FSX) entirely...I suggest you to download the demo and see for yourself: the fps when looking Eastwards, with the whole city is in view, is HIGHER than the fps looking Westwards, were there's no city anymore, and default autogen comes out again.Of course, if you set all AI traffic to 100%, you maybe miss this improvement, because you'd killed the fps already.

[Mike... 7]

Read my post again. I say "or some scenery" as in "a" scenery. Not this one specifically, which actually improves frame rates, I got it. Just generally speaking, no specific scenery, no specific sim even. Let's just leave it at that.I would download it, if it wasn't for the fact I haven't got FSX installed. Nor have I any plans to that extent. I'll wait for FSXI, but won't buy that one on the first day, like I did with FSX, that's for sure.It's not performance related at all for me. No financial reasons either - having to buy everything anew (including PC...). It's just that, there's nothing in FSX that I'm interested in, that isn't already in FS9.So for me FS9 is very much future proof. And worth the continued investments.One last thing, if it's not worth it to produce the same product for both sims, why not produce different products. Instead of Airport A for FS9 and FSX. Why not Airport A for FS9 only and airport B for FSX only. No upgrades, no backwards compatibility. Two separate products, full price.

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi Virtuali, how are you? :-) No problem at all with your post. I understand it and have no personal feelings on what you've said, but allow me to help direct you exactly on what I wanted to express.I don't know about the working system you participate (Cloud9 I guess?) and sincerely, I'm not looking for geting rich making sceneries, of course, but yes, there is indeed a reason for suffering that much: I support and mantain my family, my daughter, with my work and this is what I do for leaving.Any sudden change on the market, any new engine change on FS, any new tool or technique needed to be used or any new FS version is a very very sensitive matter for me.This is why I'm so careful with my clients, this why I want to solve their problems so fast and in a propper way, this is why I want they very happy using my sceneries and this is why I take this stuff so seriously.We are not a strong and healthy US or European add-on development Empress hiring devs to make our sceneries and build a nice yearly profit merge (nothing at all against them, please) and releasing super mega complete THX sceneries :) using the ultmost new tecnologies. No... we are just two third-world guys, trying to maintain our families doing what we have always liked: making sceneries.How can we make ourselves survive in the middle of so many scenery aces out there on the market? Simple: offering honest products, with the minimal possible frame impact, reproducing the real airports archtectures in the best way, maintaining ourselves concentrated on the airport areas only, not trying to reproduce adjacent regions nor cities, and mantaining a support service of excelence, fast, helpful and dedicated to our users problems.We may have been doing the right thing, as we are in the market since late 2002, with a vast list of habitual clients that is growing at every release. We don't care to be the best nor the worst ones, just to offer this kind of stuff, keep caring our clients the way we do, and trying to make better sceneries at each new release.Excuse the explanation, but this is why I take it so seriously and suffer that much when things don't work the way they should.From the releasing of FSX we were not fully sure on what to do just on the updates procedures. We did imagine that we could get a way to update our FS9 sceneries to our customers in a way that would not be expensive to them. Soon we realized that it woud not be possible, so we decided to go on making FSX sceneries, as the first ones were ok on that round earth, by the new way we started to make our custom ground.That way worked nice, as there were no ground issues on our sceneries, even using customized ground on them. This rounded earth question was not a problem for us, after we discovered a way to take care of it.After SP1 things changed, and we managed to fix them once more. It was a hard task, but it worked again.The way we understand to make a scenery is to release it to our customers bug free, smooth on frames, free of ground and structures issues and with an improved visual, working nice on the sim it was intended for. The way we do them, we can manage to redo somethings after all, and let it full FS9 compatible too.This take us time and extra work, as I said before, but let our clients happy and we could not afford to stay tied on developing full FSX sceneries only, waiting for the market to reorganize itself around just FSX. My family could not afford waiting that much.I really understand that switching to FSX-only is an advantage and you are not wrong on choosing this way, but we can't do it right now. We still have an average of six FS9 sceneries orders between ten for our sceneries. It's becoming more well balanced now, but about two months ago the reason was seven FS9 sceneries and three FSX for each ten sceneries ordered.My dear developer friend, If you take a look at our FSX Rio's/SBGL, you will notice that it looks a lot more FSX scenery than the others before, as this is our most recent work we we have improved ourselves a lot since last year. FSX users of this scenery are sending very nice feedbacks on it and this is a great incentive we take after so many turbulences and shocks we passed by since FSX appeared.I hope we all (developers and simmers) have a smoother sky to fly from now on. No matter if it will be a FSX sky.My best regards and success on your projects.Carlos Pereira.www.tropicalsim.com