fsx content

[simman 0]

Kind of unbelievable. I just went to the library and brought up this months hot content and there is 1 (one, ONE) fsx plane and that's IT !! What is it about fsx that nobody wants to make anything for it?Don

[bonchie 2,305]

Most FS2004 planes (just the exterior and 2d cockpits) will work in FSX, so whats the point? Noone but payware companies are going to make an actual FSX native model and VC.

[scott967 62]

I'm not sure what it means, but hot downloads for the month used to be a very good indicator of the state of addons. Now almost all are WoAI packages. I guess this must say something about WoAI, but it reduces the value of this screen. I would like to see a listing with all WoAI removed. The guys at PAD, at least, have been cranking out a steady stream of FSX compat aircraft.scott s..

[1mikel151 71]

Keep in mind, there is more to development for FSX than in FS9 (thanks to simmers higher expectations!), especially when it comes to aircraft. keep in mind that the rules kept changing up till SP2, which gave a stable platform to design on.Also keep in mind, that this community, which isn't that big, is divided between FSX users and FS9 users as well as developers, it's not an easy task to design for both sims, so many pick and choose (like myself, FSX only)As for PAD, I just checked one of their "FSX" models and it's an FS9 port, not a true FSX model, which could explain them cranking out the designs.you want to ensure the growth of FSX addons, support those (freeware and payware) that do exclusive native FSX addons, it's what I do.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Guest JIMJAM]

IMO alot blew their cash and hope on a dx10 hardware solution that would tame fsx.It never happened.Its been years and still guys with 3-4 ghz proc,gig cards accept 20 fps as "acceptable".FSX is not aging well where as FS9 is.When the new fs is released, unless it is a total mess, IMO FSX will become the forgotten version.Some reaons why there never was a real flood of quality addons was partially caused by sp1,sp2,dx10.Instead we have been given a steady diet of ports which when added to a already finicky FSX, often resulted in dissapointment.At one time I would buy and try just about any addon that looked good but with the US$ as it is and $40 to $60 being the norm, I do go for many hail mary,s as I did.With FSX there is just no headroom for much either.A plane MUST be a good performer and alot of the ports are not.I at one time after sp1 had both FS9 and FSX running well.FS9 was loaded with ALL the must haves,FE,GE,UT ect and every major airport was Flytampa,modded ect.I had a Raptor HD fly apart and decided to let FS9 go.BAD MISTAKE.With all the above addons and seeing that most FSX addons come in both flavors, there are some good reasons to choose FSX but not overwhelming.I am heavily invested in FSX but the thought of reloading FS9 and rebuilding it to its former glory still is in my head.If I see any more downloads for Chile, it might just push me over the edge :-lol

[Guest SteveS_FSD]

Interesting discussion.Hardware that will run FSX "ok" is becoming more affordable. Nowadays under $2.5k AU will build a multi-core PC that will run it acceptably if not exactly well.Developers are users too. As a developer I can't help notice that there's very little freeware aircraft content for FSX for a host of valid reasons. You'd have to ask if driving developers away was intentional goal for MS, for that has unquestionably been the result. Many devs I've known for a decade have - with the advent of FSX - said "Format C:". Who amongst the long list of talented freeware devs can afford 3DSMax as a design tool with a sticker price circa $3.5k ? Whilst students can do a deal for under $500, a budding (or otherwise) dev can't. >FSX will become the forgotten version.Forgettable maybe, but with the amount of work dumped on developers by FSX's moving goalposts it's not ever likely to be the forgotten version.>we have been given a steady diet of ports >which when added to a already finicky FSX, >often resulted in disappointmentThink developers don't feel disappointed ? What has happened with FSX RTM, SP1 and SP2 is precisely what devs were assured would NOT happen. Ports worked fine for the most part in RTM, and SP1 but SP2 busted a heck of a lot of stuff and sent all devs back to square 1, again, after they'd been specifically told over the course of 2007 that this would not need to happen. >With all the above add-ons and seeing that most FSX add-ons come in>both flavours, there are some good reasons to choose FSX but not>overwhelming.There's just too much work to develop complex aircraft for two different sim versions nowadays, it just isn't economic. Our JetStar II is over two years behind, ditto the MU2 ... and whilst both were all but done for FS9, the arrival of FSX SP2 demanded such extensive redesign of bloody near everything that the FS9 versions got dropped. We are presently redesigning our products less than a year since we last redesigned them for FSX RTM, and we have engaged the professional services of two very capable designers to help us with that large undertaking. As for FS9 ... there are so so many great products available for FS9 from so many developers, and most of those (if you don't have them) have been marked down in price. Getting quality FS9 content today is pretty affordable, and if you have a spare 20 Gig and a lazy saturday afternoon I'd say go for it.There are many sound reasons to ditch FSX, which in some ways to me is like a gorgeous blonde with a dark heart :-) Some devs have had enough of this b1tch, and won't come back. That's partly why the lean times exist in the freeware side of FSX. On the other hand, some major scenery and environmental works are emerging and FSX does absolutely shine in the scenery department with the right add-on's that remove deserts from temperate urban areas and remedy other FSX "scenic wonders" (a.k.a. rubbish). What I miss the most of all since FSX arrived is no longer exchanging notes with some old faces and friends, some who have been lost to the hobby because of FSX (yes, very sad) and a couple of whom have sadly stepped off this mortal world for the next for other reasons. >I am heavily invested in FSX but the thought of reloading >FS9 and rebuilding it to its former glory still is in my head.Bite the bullet, mate ! I've kept FS9 alive for the wealth of content it offers. FS9 is still a perfectly viable simulator and with some well chosen environmental enhancements it still stacks up pretty well against FSX's terrain options. A year our from FSX's release, whilst the aircraft choices on offer might be pretty lean there's some absolutely fantastic scenery (FTX's Australia, for example, plus FS-ADDON's "VANCOUVER" and VICTORIA") that makes FSX shine. Sometimes it's worth the hassles of FSX to see and enjoy that part of it, to try and offset the overall disappointment of FSX.Best, Steve.....http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[JackD 0]

Hi Steve,Once again you've expressed it dead on! The add-ons you've mentioned are superb and keep FSX in use. Along with some help from FSD, PAD, FSGenesis and a few others.It is sad that we seem to have lost some most talented developers, yet most fortunate that the FS world has retained some of great talent. (Yourself included)Our glasses are 3/4 full and we have plenty to enjoy now and to hope for with the next sim edition.Best regards,JackD

[John F 2,403]

Very interesting post, Steve, and always enlightening to hear your thoughts. Too bad about the MU2, though. Been watching for that one for a long, long time (for FS9).John

[n4gix 4,947]

>Many devs I've known for a>decade have - with the advent of FSX - said "Format C:". Who>amongst the long list of talented freeware devs can afford>3DSMax as a design tool with a sticker price circa $3.5k ?>Whilst students can do a deal for under $500, a budding (or>otherwise) dev can't.Hi Steve.While I heartily agree with most of what you've written, I am puzzled by the above quoted remark.GMax v1.2 remains available, and ACES did release an FSX specific gamepack for it......so that seems to be a "red herring," excuse wise! ;)I have had Max8 for several years now, yet I still continue to do 90% of my work with GMax, simply because (a) I am more comfortable with it, and (:( in many ways I prefer the UVW Editor to that used by Max8/9.Microsoft has recently acquired Caligari, and they have now released TrueSpace as a free, 3d modeling program. While the GUI is wholly dissimilar to that of Max or GMax, it is nearly as powerful as Max.Possibly this will become the replacement for GMax as the freeware dev's 3d modeling program for the core platform... :-smile12

[Guest SteveS_FSD]

G'day Bill,Of course Gmax can still be used for now and happily (from my perspective) I don't have to mess with it ... The point I was making (unclearly, sorry) is that superior results are achieved with 3DSmax so if you want smoother curves as a commercial developer you need to make use of it. But this is only a minor point of discussion. What I was simply saying was that in my opinion there's still a lot of life in FS9 yet and no reason to embark on an adventure with FSX. Too many good (and I mean REALLY good, decent people) just can't be bothered creating content for FSX - on any level - simply because creating content has finally became too hard.I recall discussions right here in this venue, in far more colourful and heated terms than mine, that expressed developers views about the shifting goalposts of FSX. FSX Freeware Libraries are all but empty shelves with a few exceptions like nice Navions, Fokker DR1's, LUBLIN RXIII's and a few nice helo's like that Piasecki H21C, and that suggests something has changed and likely not for the better. As to the reasons why so ... I'm sure you'd remember certain heated discussions started by F1's Steve Halpern some months ago voicing developers frustrations at the hand of cards they (we included) were dealt, and that isn't where I was going tonight :-)I still miss the old hands who have decided to quit in dismay, though. Certainly Ron Freimuth's passing was a tremendous loss not to just the community as a whole, but to his friends as well. I have mountains of memos from that extraordinarily capable man, who was so generous of his time. His passing was a huge loss of friendship to many, including me, and whilst his passing was completely unrelated to this, I'm sure those whom he repeatedly locked horns with at MS were glad to see him go.Vale Ron F. A good friend who is sadly missed, and not forgotten.Best,Stevehttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[Guest SteveS_FSD]

John,Ah ... the pocket rocket. One of my all-time favourite projects !Unfortunately the MU2's future is unclear right now as there's virtually nothing of it that can be used in a new FSX native model, and as there's still a fair ways to go for it to be finished for FS9. As a consequence we're undecided as to it's fate. It's like it's straddling a barb wire fence.It's not as if we would have liked things to be as they are with the MU2, mate, for we have all invested a lot of work in it that's for sure. It certainly is an interesting little ship to drive Time will tell ... we haven't abandoned all hope yet.Best,Steve.....http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[N562Z 4]

Wow, I have been following the development of the FS9 MU-2 since it's inception and now, hearing that it likely will not be released for that version of the sim saddens me. I grew up in the Chicago area in the 70'2 and 80's, watching MU-2s come and go from Meigs field. I always wanted to own / fly one, and even if that wasn't going to be possible in the real world, I was tremendously excited to learn that at least I could fly one in FS9.....but well, Steve said the future of the FSD MU-2 is uncertain for FS9, so who knows.My frustration with FSX has varied over the past year: from despising it to liking it and now back to being ultimately frustrated by the combination of fantastic scenery potential and jerky performance, now even in some of my less-demanding GA aircraft. I had thought that FTX / Orbyx would be the saviour, but even though performance is better in those areas, I can barely get a smooth flight in the default cessna despite all manner of tweaks, defrags, new hard drives and the like. And the G-1000 panels, which I had looked forward to for so long, are just impossible in terms of their effect on performance.So, while I will keep FSX on my system, tweak it from time to time as new discoveries and tweaks becaome available, and buy a few inexpensive add-ons to support the developers and my own curiousity, I have stopped frustrating myself with trying to get it to work, and have gone back to flying FS9 most of the time.Regards,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[bob.bernstein 0]

Steve, I suspect the notion to eliminate backwards compatibility from the overall concept of fs and its future has cast a bit of a chill on some folks. Its a lot to expect folks to base their entire production period, including a substantial learning period (at least for fsx), into only the time between rtm and the following version release.Devs were demonized by the time it took them to provide 3pd models after fsx came out, now their demonized by the fps hit their ports have caused. Looking at Bill Womack's new release, it does warm the heart of this old scenery designer. I agree that fsx can display scenery beautifully, when well designed. Almost makes me want to start a project! Of course, this is the wrong time to start a project because the liklihood of it being usable in the next version is small.I didn't stop developing becuase of fsx, I decided to go to graduate school, which has been all consuming. If, as advertised, the next version is not backward compatible, and if, as hoped, much improvements are delivered in the base product and development tools, then starting again with the next version will be as economical as starting now. Absense of backward compatibility may be a wise choice for MS, certainly users have begged them to stop supporting older versions. I am just disappointed because it reduces the period of value for developers.Best,Bob Bernstein

[PhilTaylor 45]

>>you want to ensure the growth of FSX addons, support those>(freeware and payware) that do exclusive native FSX addons,>it's what I do.>this threadhttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=57005references >30 FSX freeware aircraft last time I counted them up:1)F-5A Freedom Fighter2)C177RG3)OV-10 Bronco4)Hondajet5)Mitsubishi T-26)Howard DGA-15P7)Piper Archer-III on AVSIM8)Grumman OV-1 B/C/D Mohawk9)Piper PA-28-RT Turbo Arrow III10)North American Aviation: Navion11)Lublin R.XIII 12)Saab J-29 Tunnan13)RWD-14 Czapla 14)Curtiss Jenny 15)RWD-816)Boeing F4B-416)Boeing P12-E17)Bristol Beaufighter18)Yak 14119)Yak 13020)BAC 16721)Aerospatiale Gazelle22)Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet23)Aeronca Chief24)RNZAF CT-4E25)Stinson 10826)707-42027)Gee Bee Model Z "City of Springfield"28)Spartan Executive29)Monsted Vincent MV130)General Dynamics A-12 "Flying Dorito"31)Bristol F2-B "Biff"32)N2056's Pete33)Piasecki H12C34)Bell 41235)Dh89a Dragon Rapide 36)PC-7I went thru that list quickly, so I may have mis-copied. and some entries in the thread are not clearly labeled. but you get the idea there is quite a bit of FSX freeware.most of which are not on avsim. perhaps the OP needs to cast a wider net to see what is really available for FSX.

[N400QW 205]

With all due respect to customers and friends in the third party development community.It is no secret that development for FSX/SP1/SP2/DX10 Preview compliance has presented tremendous challenges to us all. For us at least, it has at times seemed that those challenges would/could not be overcome.It seemed good to us at the time to have two specific product catalogs in order to "bridge the gap" during the painful transition from FS2004 to FSX. We made that decison and included a proviso that we would build/support for FS2004 for a period of 18-24 months and then re-evalute the situation.I'm happy to report that with the nearly completed for release Free Upgrades to our FSX SR20 and SR22 that our FSX General Aviation Catalog contains only FSX Certified aircraft.The same is true for our FSX Corporate Aviation Catalog with two exceptions. They are our CX1.0 and Premier1 aircraft. Those two will NOT be given the full FSX treatment in favor of FSX CX2.0 and other projects.Why post this here you ask? We are glad you asked.If it sounds like marketing then you've missed the point altogether...What this post represents is the TREMENDOUS amount of work done by this Team over the last 24 months in order to provide the best of both worlds.We still have a few unfinished projects that will be made available for FS2004 but after they are completed one should not be surprised to see us cease FS2004 development in favor of FSX and FS Next.Gentlemen the development challenges are not going to away for FSX and FS Next so there is little to do but take the "bull by the horns" and set to doing your very best to overcome those challenges:-)