So, was FSX successful after all?

[spilok 1,133]

I love opinions. That's why "Freedom" exists. I respect your opinion about FSX being Cartoonish, but it can't be further from the truth with the flight models, the scenery (GEX and FEX) and the overall feel of it.Love it. I've checked out FS9 after a few months with FSX, and I only did one thing: DELETE FS9.That's my opinion.

[mgh 89]

"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)"What other definition of success is there for a marketed product? The fact that some of the small minority of purchasers who frequent these forums were disapponted is not really relevant.

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Maybe I should be more clear and say "successful for the FSimmers community"...I have no doubt that it sold good numbers. The question then is, how many of those who bought FSX STILL fly with it?It's a success for MS if it sold, let's say, 1M copies, but a disaster for the FS community when out of that million just 100K still use it, or try to enhance it etc.George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[mgh 89]

If it wasn't a success for Microsoft then it's unlikely that it would continue developing it. Without success on Microsoft's terms there'd be no FS11 - so don't knock it!

[MD83 1]

>The fact that some of the small minority of>purchasers who frequent these forums were disapponted is not>really relevant.That's very belittling. If the "small minority" of purchasers were so insignificant, you wouldn't see the likes of Phil Taylor on here ;)The File Library is still dominated by FS2004 files, after two years!

[Geofa 108]

Very true-there are many more Fs2004 files in the library-even two years later.Again, if that is your sole criteria for success, then fsx in not succesful.In my case, I am more interested in simulating my rw flying. The higher definition clouds, ground textures that are sharp and clear at low altitude, and many new features such as moving car traffic make fsx a success for me. I'd still be using fs4 if it was capable of these things, but it isn't.Which again leads me to the obvious which Rightseater mentioned above-use the sim that turns you on and meets your needs. It really doesn't have to be a competition. :-)http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=275888&page=http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=275909&page=GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[rightseater 0]

I think Geof's post brings appropriate closure to this topic. He is happy with the way that FSX can recreate his RW Baron flighs. I am happy with the way that FS9 recreates my RW 206 flights. What matters most is that we are both happy simmers. I suspect we will all meet up again in the next version and bid farewell to both FS9 and FSX.

[LAdamson 240]

It's the same here. Most of my RW/sim flying is across the western USA with a lot mountainous areas. FSX just portrays these mountain/city scapes with sharper textures that look more photo-like. It even adds to a sense of 3D depth. FS9 is very bland in comparison, unless I'm using a highly detailed scenery area. But since I'm dealing with thousands of square miles that are default with a few scenery enhancments................it's FSX that wins in the long run.L.Adamson