So, was FSX successful after all?

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Hello everybody,First of all, I didn't know if this would fit in the FS2004 or FSX forum, so I'll post it here in the hangar instead.I was just browsing this week's files in the library when it stroke my mind. After about two years from its release was FSX a success compared to previous versions? And by that I mean regarding the amount of add-ons, freeware, shareware or commercial, released for it in the same period of time, that is within two years from its release.I don't know if AVSIM has an official way to tell how many files exactly were uploaded in a period of time for each FS version, but from what I see, FSX is way behind when compared to the amount of add-ons released for FS2000 or FS2002 or FS2004 (always at the same time span).There are still hundreds of freeware bits and pieces uploaded every day (thank you all!), and the majority of them, probably more than 70% is still for FS2004, while the majority of the left-over files are AI repaints! I haven't seen a decent freeware scenery for FSX in quite a while... Is there any? Everybody is doing commercial scenery nowadays?No, I'm not complaining or anything. I was just wondering why.If we put aside the performance issues that FSX had (and for some still has) during the first year out, what other reasons make the authors refrain from working with FSX?It's my opinion that the lack of good (preferably freeware) tools and the difficult to understand SDK are a couple of the major reasons.A while after FS2004 SDK came out we saw some great utilities released which helped the development of add-ons. From scenery design, to taxiway signs placement, to aircraft design and mesh terrain creation...This is not the case with FSX. Sure there are some commercial utilities available, but they don't seem to do much and don't allow easy file sharing.Do you think that anything will change next year when FS11/XI/2010/whatever is released?Do you think that FSX was a successful successor to the previous versions or will it be remembered in FS history as the black sheep?I would love to read some opinions, no flames please.George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[rightseater 0]

For what little it's worth, my opinion is that the success of FSX can not be determined by anything other than each end-user's opinion. I tried it out for awhile, but went back to FS9. With GE Pro, Active Sky 6, Flight Environment, and a ton of outstanding aircraft and scenery files, FSX doesn't have anything to offer me that I can not get in FS9 with much better performance. The exception is the missions, which I really did enjoy, but were not worth staying with FSX for. I am not interested in buying a new computer to run FSX just to find out that I will need to buy another one for FS11. My machine is modest, but it can run the PMDG 744 with full autogen at 25 fps, and that is all I care about.

[january 19]

George- I have not attempted an upgrade to FSX. From following the many forum threads over the past two years, I conclude that one must be highly computer savvy- perhaps a qualified TECHNICIAN- to make X run satisfactorily. And then only on an expensive state of the art computer. My computer "know how" is limited to annually removing the side panel to blow out dust and even then I usually get all sweaty! I haven't a clue as to esoteric stuff like overclocking and one video card versus another.Unfortunately the era of simming for the enjoyment of learning to fly seems to have ended. Our hobby is now all about trying to get the sim to run properly- forget the joy of flight.So I'll be sticking with reliable FS9, running on my 5 year old hardware with never a crash or hiccup and savoring the 150

[Guest RonB49]

Well I don't have any, "esoteric stuff like overclocking and one video card versus another." I run FSX on the same 3 year-old computer that I've used (and still use) for FS9 and I'm just amazed by the improvements provided by FSX. It is interesting that Alex, that you used a picture of Seattle because I was flying there this afternoon in FSX.I was trying out the default G-21C Grumman Goose practicing water landings as well as landing this BIG taildragger on KBFI's runway. The active environment with moving boats, ships, and freeway auto/truck traffic was awesome. The GEX textures make stunning scenery for this beautiful area. I find FS9 to be visually boring nowadays.I run two monitors (19" CRT for FS view and 17" LCD for 2D panel) on an ATI X1300 Pro.R-EDIT -- to correct name/number of the Goose. R-

[Geofa 108]

"was FSX a success compared to previous versions? And by that I mean regarding the amount of add-ons, freeware, shareware or commercial, released for it in the same period of time, that is within two years from its release."I think the answer is right here in your post. If that is your definition of a success then the answer is no.If the definition is the number of sales for MS (which according to them was hugely more for this version than any in Ms franchise history-what I am sure is Ms's definition of success), or the fact that the majority of users have no idea what an add in is, the answer might be different.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Totally agree. It may be a success release for MS in terms of sales.The non-success I talk about is the support it got from the users and authors, mostly of freeware addons.On one hand the performance issues kept a lot of those authors away from FSX, which led to minimal freeware add-ons, which in turn led another good number of simmers away from it.Add to that the 'not so good' SDK, and you get a simulator that only has some expensive add-ons, or default ugly/wrong scenery, both with performance issues on a 2 year old PC.I would call myself a hardcore simmer, as I have build external hardware for control (an MCP and pedestal for now) and want to get the most out of FS.I got a new computer back in February so performance should not be an issue, but the lack of freeware add-ons, especially sceneries, still keep me away. I would need to spend a lot of money to buy all those nice (but pricey) sceneries just to bring FSX to the level I have FS9 now with all those beautiful freeware airports that I have installed.So, as said in my original post, I think that FSX was a total failure on that department.From what I understand from the replies until now, is that this chain reaction started with the performance problems FSX had/has.To that I will add the bad SDK and lack of tools to enhance the sim.Georgehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[G7USL 117]

>>If the definition is the number of sales for MS (which>according to them was hugely more for this version than any in>Ms franchise history-what I am sure is Ms's definition of>success), or the fact that the majority of users have no idea>what an add in is, the answer might be different.>>Geofa>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Geoff, this is the first flightsim, I ever heard of people getting there money back because it was a slide show on their machines.

[Geofa 108]

I guess you were not around when flight unlimited III was introduced-the first sim with sliders which everyone immediately turned to the max and then asked for refunds. They went out of business.But as they say, history repeats itself...GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Geofa 108]

The number of simmers who use add ons-both freeware and payware is a minority of the total market, so once again I think you have to follow your criteria which is those who desire a quantity of add ons-freeware and payware are perhaps disapointed.I would call myself also a hard core simmer -as I also have extensive hardware and have been simming with every available sim since 1981. But I am not interested at all in flying a quantity of different aircraft, but just simulating my rw aircraft. I am interested in add ons that enhance this experience however, and fsx has plenty of those-therfore my needs are met.Different strokes for different folks-as it always has been and should be.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest Eek]

>The number of simmers who use add ons-both freeware and>payware is a minority of the total market, so once again I>think you have to follow your criteria which is those who>desire a quantity of add ons-freeware and payware are perhaps>disapointed.>>I would call myself also a hard core simmer -as I also have>extensive hardware and have been simming with every available>sim since 1981. But I am not interested at all in flying a>quantity of different aircraft, but just simulating my rw>aircraft. I am interested in add ons that enhance this>experience however, and fsx has plenty of those-therfore my>needs are met.The number of simmers who use add ons may be a minority, but I suspect it is a rather large minority, indeed, a signifigant minority. Add ons are nothing new to gamers who have been playing other titles. When you add those gamers to the hardcore simmers, I'd bet it's a fair share of the market. Two years in to the cycle (more than enough time for projects that were in the pipeline upon release of FSX to be completed), and the majority of uploads to the library are still for FS9. From the standpoint of add ons and interest in the sim, this far in, I'd say FSX is a complete flop.I know there a some people who are flying happily with FSX. If you're one of them, good for you (We know you're there... save your fingers). But, for the rest of us, it just isn't worth the headache of tweaking, prodding and beating the computer in to submission, or laying out a small fortune on hardware, just to get a sim that didn't improve any of the features many people were asking for, and adds performance robbing eye candy that doesn't add much to the realism.Missions? C'mon. I can get that in other games. What I can't get in other games is flight simulation (that is, after all, what we're trying to do, right?).While FSX may be a success in terms of sales, you have to wonder how much damage was done to the future of FS. How many people bought FS for the first time, only to be turned off by it's poor performance? Most people are going to avoid being bitten by the same dog twice.As for the sliders, they stay all the way right, all the time, in all games, including FS9. I don't have a beast of a computer, but it's sufficient to run everything I throw at it, except FSX apparently. The way I see it, the sliders are for people with crappy computers, so they can play too. They aren't there for the sole enjoyment of the rich and guys with computer engineering degrees.And here's a newsflash for Microsoft... If FSXI looks like it's more of the same, I won't be buying it, either.EwingKATLAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a store, not a government agency.MSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Opteron 185 2.6 Ghz Dual Core2GB Kingston HyperX (2X1GB) Dual Channel DDR 2-3-2-6 @ 1TXFX nVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256MB DDR3 AGPSound Blaster Audigy LSSilverStone Decathlon 750W +12v@60A +5v@30AFS9.1 on WinXPPro (SP1)

[spilok 1,132]

If you have the right machine...FSX CANNOT be beat. I love it, and FS9 looks "old" to me.

[rightseater 0]

"If you have the right machine...FSX CANNOT be beat. I love it, and FS9 looks "old" to me."And I disagree, which is why there can never be a definitive answer to this question. With GE PRO, AS6, UT, and all of the other goodies I have compiled over the years, I like the looks of FS9 better. In some cases I actually think FSX looks cartoonish. But, as the above poster has stated, many feel otherwise. I am just glad that the Flight Sim community is still going strong, regardless of which sim you prefer. If you're happy with FSX, than I am truly happy for you, and hopefully you will be happy that I remain satisfied with FS9.

[michal 44]

>The number of simmers who use add ons may be a minority, but I>suspect it is a rather large minority, indeed, a signifigant>minority. And I think you are dead wrong. I had seen those numbers discussed here before and the population of flight simulation enthusiasts who frequent different avsim/flightsim forums, purchase or obtain free add-on products consists of tiny minority of total FS sales.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[G7USL 117]

Jeremy, if you haven't already got it, Flightzone 02 Portland scenery is THE very best.Nothing within FSX comes even close to it.

[rightseater 0]

Yep...got it and love it.