Sooooo, what do we do now?

[Orlaam 315]

Me? I'm sticking with FS9.

[Geofa 108]

Seems kinda obvious to me.Those that like fsx will use it.Those that like both fsx and fs9 for different reasons will use both.Those that don't like fsx will not use it.Those that like fs9 will use it.Those that like xplane will use it.Developers that see a market for fs9 will continue to develop for itDevelopers that see a market for fsx will develop for itDevelopers that see a market for both fsx and fs9 will develop for bothSome developers will stop developing New developers will come alongAll camps will take a look at fs11 and make the same kind of decisions when it comes out.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Paul J 349]

Then do what lots of others have done, Mike - spend a modest $1600 and get a c2d, 2gigs, a decent gpu and you're away to the races. I can tell you - I have got a FAR BETTER SIM than I ever had with a similar "decent" rig with FS9. My frames are 20 - 60: I run the Eaglesoft Citation II and the Coolsky/Flight1 MD80, ASX/G, GEX, UTX and VoxATC: I have TrackIR and a 21" monitor. She's high detail and smooth as silk out of Seattle or LAX. I have no complaints. I don't even have to cool the c2d. You do NOT have to spend five grand on a rig that will run FSX just fine. Anyone that says you do has a gleam in his eye....

[Guest jordanmoore]

Always enjoy your posts Mike.I have both FS9 and FSX installed and running well. However, my preference will be with FS9 for a while.I plan on spending an additional $200-300 in the next 12 months on my FS9 enjoyment. I fly it about 1 hour/day on average. I rarely if ever fly FSX. I have recently made some final hardware upgrades with the first priority being a final performance bump in my FS9 experience. Improving the FSX experience was not as important to me. FSX runs fast enough on my system to be useful (27 frames/sec with good scenery, autogen, weather, etc.), but I just don't find it to be as enjoyable as my FS9 installation. I do not plan on purchasing any FSX specific add-ons in the next 12 months.I also look foward to developing some more add-ons in the next 12 months. None of which will be specific to FSX, nor will any of them utilize Simconnect. (I would prefer to use FSUIPC and try to hit both sim versions). If the things I develop happen to work in both FS9 and FSX that is great, but I think my personal preference will be for FS9 software. Being that I am not motivated by add-on sales, I will enjoy that type of flexibility. However, if I was motivated by sales, I would definitely not take my eye off of the FS9 ball just yet.Jordan Moore

[jrhoads 6]

>Seems kinda obvious to me.>Those that like fsx will use it.>Those that like both fsx and fs9 for different reasons will>use both.>Those that don't like fsx will not use it.>Those that like fs9 will use it.>Those that like xplane will use it.>>Developers that see a market for fs9 will continue to develop>for it>Developers that see a market for fsx will develop for it>Developers that see a market for both fsx and fs9 will develop>for both>Some developers will stop developing >New developers will come along>>All camps will take a look at fs11 and make the same kind of>decisions when it comes out.>>>>>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>Hi Geoffrey,I had to think long and hard about what you have presented here. I also had to bite my tongue (not normal for me :>) What you presented is true, but it also is a bit narrow. (No disrespect intended because I respect you) There is so much more to the equation than this and as a developer, a fellow commercial pilot and an enthusiast I see it a little different. It

[N400QW 205]

Ha Ha, Good job of boiling it down to its obvious common denominator Geof.At the end of the day, folks will have to stop the hand wringing and complaining and either embrace what they like...or not :-lol :-lol

[JSkorna 137]

Hi Mike,We are in a unique environment in the FS world right now. I don't think that in the history of FS have so many users stuck with a previous version of FS for so long. Yes, I know some use FS 2000 and 2002, but mainly, I mean all the FS04 users. The same can be said for add-ons as well.So right now I see 3 main branches of users: the FS04 branch, the FSX branch, and the combination FS04-FSX branch. Each branch has valid reasons for where they are at.As a company we are looking to service as many users as possible, keeping in mind the technical differences and limitations of each version and the marketplace in general. With X Pax (almost ready to be released, BTW) we are able to offer the same software to both FS04 and FSX users in the same package. One installation, same features, for 2 versions of FS.In future products we may be able to do the same, but we just don't know, and we are not telling, yet!!Happy Holidays,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[FTD1949 0]

>With the final update for FSX out in the wild and FSX in its>second year, what do we do now?>>A year and a few months ago, many of us felt the initial pain>of the transition to FSX. A year and a few months ago, many>of us were not exactly convinced that FSX was business as>usual and it would be all better in time. Indeed many of us>remember FS2000 and remember that the final fix for that was>FS2004. >>A year and a few months ago the uproar at the release of FSX>somehow felt a bit different than the usual pangs upon a new>FS release. However, we were all told to stop whining and be>patient: surely the hardware would catch up and any FSX issues>would become a thing of the past after a SP or two (and DX10>would usher in a new era of performace and graphical beauty). >Now that we have had a service pack or two and a year or the>PC fastest processors deluged upon us from a triumphant>comeback from Intel the magic bullet never came. DX10 was and>still is just a dream and the potential and exuberance of FSX>has become somewhat tranished (in my eyes...I try to speak for>no one).>>Now, the most trusted, respected and admired giants of the FS>3rd party development community are raising concerns of>incompatibilities, poor FSX sales, unsatisfactory hardware>performance, SDK issues, SP2 breaking their software, et al.>The last service pack for FSX has been released and this is a>bad situation. Can anyone still say that FSX is business as>usual? Can anyone call Flight1, Flytampa, Eaglesoft, et al>"whiners"? Is there a VALID belief now that maybe something>is amiss and the only way out of this quandry is as a unified>and cohisive community in addition to a massive does of help>from Aces? >>I have had FSX from day one and it ran poorly from day one. >SP1 and SP2 where no joy. I am building a new PC, however,>from the responses here, I will not get all sliders to the>right even with the fast processors and video cards available.> That means that maybe I'll get what I am looking for in the>next year or two with a new batch of video cards and>processors...just in time for FS11...and most likely have to>do it all over again? So, 2 to 3 years to get what I have in>FS9 now? I'm worried. The PC I'm building now will cost>upwards of $5000 (probably over $8000 if I purchased it from>Alienware or such) and it WILL be the PC that I will be most>likely be using when FS11 is first released! SO, that means>that I will NOT be able to run FSX at full potential with my>upcoming purchase! That probably also means that I will not>be able to run FS11 at full potential either, but that is 3>years away and I expect it. However, that leaves FSX>gathering dust on my self.>>God has blessed me with the modest financial resources to have>been able to purchase every conceivalbe add-on that I desired>for FS9. On the other hand for FSX, I've only purchased ASX>and FSX has only been used as a one off curiosity every now>and then. In the last year I've spent the least on FSX than>any other version of FS since the advent of an abundance of>add-ons for FS...at total of about $80 vs the thousands I've>spent of FS9. I WANT to support Flytampa, Eaglesoft, PMDG,>LDS, Flight1 and anyone else who can deliver a droolingly top>notch product for FS, but I cannot since I don't use FSX. I>can say with total confidence that I am NOT in the minority.>>After all, look at the freeware releases still streaming in>for FS9. Its almost as if FSX doesn't exist! Almost none of>the sceneries that I have for FS9 is available in FSX and>add-ons are still very scarce with no sign of the deluge that>we have seen, and continue to see, for FS9. Again, my>friends, I am worried.>>Unless something drastically changes over the next 2 to 3>years in FSX or until FS11 (and assuming that FS11 gives>FS2004 performance on the lastest hardware at release), I>can't see making any more purchases except on new FS9>releases. >>So I ask, what do we do now? What is the gameplan from a>developers standpoint? What are other's in the community>thinking post FSX SP2? >>Regards to all. >>(soapbox mode: off)>>Mike T.>> If developers want to develop for FSX then they will do so; simple as that. If there were so many insurmountable problems with FSX as far as the developers go then how do you explain the developers that have released products so far? Real Air, PMDG, Wilco, Flight1 PC12, and the list goes on.> Since you said "I don't use FSX" I don't understand why you even asked the question to begin with. By all means stay with FS9 if you're happy with it but don't pose rhetorical questions about a product you profess not even to use. Craig

[Guest JoeInCT]

I've been flying Flight Simulator since the original Bruce Artwick/Sublogic version for the Apple IIe. I've been like a crack addict since - flying at least a few hours every week since the 1980s. I've had every version since, and without exception for me, the migration to the new version has been the same: each new version seems far from perfect (especially at first), each requiring better hardware. I can't tell you how many PCs I've built soley to run the latest version of Flight Simulator. FSX has been a little difference however. I have to say, though I do need to build a new PC, FSX is reasonably usable with my 3 year old hardware -- even with a AGP video card, a TripleHead2Go at 3840x1024. So perhaps in that respect, FSX has been an easier upgrade than previous versions for me because at least it is usuable on old hardware. I've just had to keep the sliders to the left and put up with occassional 12fps in heavy weather.Sooooo, you asked "what do we do now?" I would say, give careful thought to when to upgrade hardware. I've been reading the board regarding Vista, DX10 & multi-core machines. I've decided to wait until at least the fall 2008 to upgrade (if not winter 2008-2009).Given my experience however, I think users will find themselves using FSX more and more over time, and FS9 will fade just like the previous versions. Is anyone using FS2002 because they have awesome add-ons and frame rates? lol. I think more and more add-ons will be updated for FSX. When FS11 comes out, FS9 will be dead and most users will stick with FSX for 18 months after 11 comes out -- and all will have nothing good to say about FS11.I just don't see the majority of users willing to stay 2 versions behind. I think 2 years (max) is the tipping point.

[Geofa 108]

Actually-I am not a 100% diehard at all. I do consider fsx with all of its warts the best sim available right now. However, I have a whole list of dislikes. For instance-I actually agree that the idea that breaking things that were working in the middle of a release is not the right tack. It will not be such a problem for the savy user such as all that frequent avsim, but I have great concern about the less savy user. I think dx10 was/is poorly done and feel for those that spent based on expectations that were given-I also worry again about the less savy user who will run dx10 mode as presented and get a bad taste. I think the fact that reinstalling Vista on my brand new computer required two weeks of constant catch 22 problems, and daily technical support is horrible-and wonder what a user a little less on top of computers would have done.I also wasn't happy when my Baron's 1 year old engine developed a cracked crankcase and had a three month down time-first flight again this week. Working with the situation to make it best and work was the only option-I think the same applies to this sim. Like our Baron which is not perfect-I think it still has a lot to offer and the positives outweigh the negatives by far. I do find this sim a substantial improvment-admittedly more for GA drivers than heavy metal. In a like vein-if fs11 contains improvements mostly for heavy jet drivers I will probably be less enthusiastic-but I understand a sim that tries to please everyone can't always do that. I can assure you though if I didn't consider fsx an improvement and find it useful, I would not be using it. I did abandon the fs series from 1998 to fs2002 for this very reason. I agree somewhat with the gamey critic as far as autogen goes, which is why I usually turn it off or use only the tree autogen. However, other things that some may consider gamey such as car traffic, wildlife, and missions I find only increase immersion factor for me-I think things like gamey, serious, and reality are always in the eye of the beholder-and that is the service that 3rd party developers like yourself provide happily to us.The third party utilities have already made this sim into something even more realistic and I have experienced sim flights that have taken my breath away -if my breath is being taken away I see this as a good thing.I don't think my list above is narrow-I think it is simple and to the point. I have for instance bought many versions of several competing sims, given them tries, and then discarded them because they didn't serve my purpose. I simply set these titles aside-but may give future versions of them again if I see something that looks appealing. Obviously, fsx is not for everyone-user or developer. Either has been any sim, xplane,fly,pro pilot, fuIII, On top, elite etc. I don't really find anything unique or new here with fsx. I personally hated fs'98. I have jumped ship before when something better appeared-I have a record! :-lolRight now I haven't seen anything better. I am enthusiastic to have so much fun and reality in a sim for the price of taking my Baron around the pattern once or twice. I am grateful that we have a presence from the MS team finally to hear our comments and communicate theirs, and I worry greatly that some of the behavior that happens from time to time-especially after a new release (and in this case a second free patch) will drive them away. This would not be helpful to simmers in the long run.Thanks again for your talent and terrific contributions. I am so glad to find the Cherokee 6 is still available-any chance to talk to the powers that be to keep a permanent link for it?Best,Geofhttp://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest fundies]

Why does everyone seem to think that this sim can't be enjoyed unless all sliders are to the right. My Specs, Pentium D 945 @3.8ghz, 2 gb ram, 512mb 7900 gs, xp, and I'm having a ball with most sliders toward the right.

[Guest TheSidewinder]

SNIP>However, I have a whole list of dislikes. For instance-I>actually agree that the idea that breaking things that were>working in the middle of a release is not the right tack. It>will not be such a problem for the savy user such as all that>frequent avsim, but I have great concern about the less savy>user. SNIPI'm glad to see someone else thinks that breaking things mid-cycle is not good for business, all around.SP1 was definitely an improvement in some ways, and you're correct that most problems have workarounds.But one (IMHO the worst) bug introduced by it isn't repairable (The "W" Key views issue) so it won't help if you're savvy. And we know that they won't release any more Service Packs. I'm still sort of dumbfounded that they have no plans to fix what they broke.I'm *really* hoping this gets addressed. A hotfix maybe? And please, before someone says go uninstall SP1.. I have to use SP1 since it DID fix a couple issues I had with FSX right out of the box. Can't win, it seems. ;)

[Guest DreamFleet]

Well, I may not be one of:"the most trusted, respected and admired giants of the FS 3rd party development community"However, I do agree with what Steve Halpern, Ron Hamilton and Jim Rhoads had to say about this, even though they may find that hard to believe. ;)But I saw it way back, and decided not to "play" until FSX settled down. This time I did not jump on it when it came out as I had with past versions of FS. I just had a suspicion, even though I respect and admire the folks at ACES. It sounded too good to be true.I figured that I could spend the time/money producing stuff for a "moving target" (and I expected such), only to have to spend time/money again to fix my products, while having certain customers blaming us, the developers, for issues (note that thread about Carenado at this forum, and they deserve better than some of what was said there), or, I could just wait it out and let the dust settle. I dare say that with the free release of SP2 that the dust has settled, FSX is complete, for better or worse, and that I now have a steady target to develop for.I recall posts where folks said that it was a "shame" the the DF Beech A36, etc. was not in FSX, well now it will be, as we know what to make it in to, and can accomplish this faster than one might think, even though it remains lot of work.In the mean time we are being bold enough to offer (upon completion) both our Piper Dakota and Piper Archer III as FSX products, with fully compliant FSX models for free for those who bought the FS9 versions. Another gamble I am taking.I'd rather sell a product that I know will work, rather than one that works, breaks, works, breaks. It does not help you, the customer or us, the developer. While it was not perhaps the most financially beneficial year for us, it was also much less stressful too. We did not have to hear:"I installed SP2 and now your Piper Archer III has a big hole in the floor", or something like that. Then we have to go sort it out, issue patches, etc.As developers we all make decisions on how to proceed, and this time I decided not to follow the usual course of just jumping in with both feet at the start. It was a strategic decision and a financial gamble.Now, I am not saying what other developers did was wrong, not by a long shot, but I am happy that we did not have to endure the stress over the last year.You know what I did today?I installed FSX. That's right. Last time FSX was on my machine it was in beta, and I saw it then, and made up my mind then that I would wait and see.We'll see if I made the right decision. I think I did. ;)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[David Roch 1,982]

QUOTE:Well, I may not be one of:"the most trusted, respected and admired giants of the FS 3rd party development community" END OF QUOTELoooooooooooool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!For years your aircrafts have been the most beautiful contribution to our hobby and a reference of quality, innovation and pleasure. So was your serious and friendly support to customers.I remember when upgrading from FS98 to 2000, 2002, 2004, my first concern was to check if Dreamfleet's aircrafts were compatible.I am so pleased to read that you will now jump into the FSX market.Despite all FSX issues I like this sim.Even if sometimes I think it was a big mistake I have deleted FS9 and XP from my HD for months, the day I switched to Vista. I like to look forward, I like new technologies and even if I am missing FSNav, Fly Tampa, Flight Scenery great sceneries and above all my cherrished Dreamfleet aircrafts, I enjoy GEX, FEX, ASX, UTX much more than their FS9 versions.OK, I spent a lot of money + time to make FSX flyable and enjoyable and yes, I'll have to eat only spaghettis for the next months but I know I couldn't enjoy FS9 anymore today.So welcome to the club Lou!BUT please, don't forget that most of Vista's users have a 64bits OS to take advantage of 4Gb of RAM and I really hope Reality XP and you will find the way to make the Dakota and your future products compatible with it.Greetings from Jerusalem my friend,David Roch

[Geofa 108]

David-Agree totally-frothing about the Baron..Now a naive question....I have vista 64 but have not installed and I have 4gb ram.Afraid that tracker ir , goflight lgt along with a few other necessary items won't work.Will they? When I got my new computer 2 weeks ago it took many days and daily support from ms just to get the %^$^^ vista 32 reinstalled. Odd as my 4 year computer had no problem with the initial-you would have thought it would work the other way.Another possible nighmare to go to 64 or smooth sailing? I don't mind nightmares but it is a little too soon...I have great performance now but like most wouldn't mind more....http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/