Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dillon

  1. Nice suggestion, but did you notice there is a threat called "What if you like to propose a project?" That's the place for suggestions.

    Actually didn't notice that but I'll post my suggestion there... Looks like a thread where my suggestion could get buried never to be heard from again...


  2. I should have put an FS9 tag in my original message. Scenery usually not a problem crossing over from FSX to FS9 so I hope an FS9 version is an option along with the FSX rendition.

    The good thing for the FSX crowd is at least the airport is covered in FSX's default library. In FS9 it's not detailed at all...

  3. I don't know about anyone else but this is outstanding work. I would love to see what you would do with an airport/area like ZBAA in China. The Peking China area in general in FS is pathetic to say the least. The vast city doesn't even extend to and around the airport grounds. Seeing how your doing Bangkok Suvarnabhumi your not only doing the airport but adding the extras around the airport that makes the area look realistic. ZBAA needs something like this should you ever decide to tackle it (no one else seems to be interested)... Just thought I'd mention this as I'm impressed with the extra work your doing on this current project that most wouldn't even bother with.

  4. Has anyone had the following -Error 6 "FDC aborted-"overflow in checkactualsettings routine " ? I,m afraid this is happening everytime i try to use FDC with PDMG 744, any help would be gratefully appreciated


    I'm seeing the same thing. This just started a few days ago. Before that everything was fine (will I just started back to using the PMDG 744F although I didn't notice a problem before).

  5. Dillon, these are really nice screenshots, but i was talking about FREEWARE-downloads!

    No doubt you can improve FS9 with (very expensive) addons like ActiveSky, REX, etc...

    All I wanted to say was, that most (please read carefully: M.O.S.T!) freeware addons for FS9 are relatively simple

    and don´t meet the standards of FSX-addons. That´s the nature of software-evolution!

    FSX-addons become more and more complex and so fewer and fewer freeware-developers have the time and money to create addons.

    Because of this fact i agree with you 100%: ...FSX is a payware platform from beginning to end....



    ActiveSky Advanced, REX for FS9, and Flight1's Ground Environment Pro is not that expensive especially if you live in Europe these days (What are we talking here 15 Euros at the most per product including FS9?). The exchange rate today makes a developer like Ariane's products a bargain if your trading in Euros.

    Speaking of FS9 Freeware the greatest efforts in this area as of late has to be in the area of AI planes and utilities. A package like WAI is almost priceless considering it's ease of use compared to a comparable payware product like Ultimate Traffic. The ease of punching in and out airlines with updates leaves the sim fresh and up to date with the latest airlines flying today on real world routes with accurate liveries. I can't tell you how nice it is in Sydney to see the Singapore A380 taking off on time heading to that small country up north. The countless outstanding scenery/mesh efforts that's out there for free that otherwise would cost $35/45.00 (even less in Euros) is amazing. None of this can be found for FSX without a price and/or a port over from FS9 work. Shez comes to mind when I think of his KHOU scenery or KBNA. Next we have the countless repaints that aren't nothing to sneeze at either. Then you have companies like Posky who's models are second to none. How many years did we have FSUIPC for free? It's convenient to FORGET about that now that 'Simconnect' is a reality in FSX but 'Simconnect' is only a reality because of the freeware FSUIPC that preceded it allowing add-on's to progress where they are today. I'll give it to you some and I do mean 'SOME' freeware releases are lacking but so much more of it isn't. Looking today on Avsim's download page I see so many option for AI modifications that would otherwise cost. Much of this stuff today can be carried over into FSX especially AI and people are doing it so it must mean something. Milton Shup comes to mind with his aircraft that are nothing short of payware quality but alas they are for free. All that's being done for FSX is what has already been done for FS9 with the exception of more eye candy here and there. Avionic features hasn't changed in FSX to really stand out over FS9. Heck FSX doesn't even have a realistic Airbus. The only realistic Airbus being developed is for FS9 by Airsimmer. Aerosoft has to cut corners on their effort because of performance considerations in FSX. Most other payware aircraft have versions for FS9 because they were originally created for FS9 or developed in tandem.

    The point of your argument is freeware and I don't see allot of trash floating around out there. Most freeware scenery is actually quite good. There is no hardcore Heavy freeware to compare with for either sim so we can't go there. AI utilities have benefited both sims but was developed under and for FS9. So I guess we can make these glaring comments because of the few that's tried their hand at the development process with less that stellar results. Most freeware are pretty good efforts especially in the repaint, AI, and scenery category...

    • Downvote 3
  6. Well I am not surprised at all. There is simply not a lot of FSX freeware that's seriously good. The reason for this is also rather simple. Pure FSX development is more complex, more time consuming and requires more costly tools (I generalize for sake of argument here). In other words, if I would do freeware at zero investment I would also use FS2004! Commercially I wish the FS2004 would be stronger, but it is simply not the case. In large airports we can still add the FS2004 versions (and there is great demand for this) to the FSX versions for boxed distribution, but I simply have not seen a single pure FS2004 boxed product in a store for a long time. And make no mistake, that's still where the majority of products are sold.

    I know Dillon you think I am talking bull, and the moment you guarantee to order 50.000 FS2004 products a year we'll be happy to jump back into that market with a vengeance! We can't find those customers, you say they are there so become a retailer, you'll make loads of money, that is, if you are right.

    I perfectly agree you can't find customers buying boxes but what about downloads, you never talk about that...

    Mathijs I don't know for the life of me why you keep touting such an archaic form of distribution to justify FSX and moving away from FS9. Your arguments are valid for the most part but much of the sim world has equally embraced downloads as an alternative to boxed products along time ago. The lack of sales for solid media has nothing to do with FS9 but rather the speed of internet connections. I haven't bought a boxed copy of anything FS related in over 15 years... I can't go into one computer store in America if I wanted to outside of Micro Center (which may be closing down in the near future) and find any type of add-ons being sold for any version of Flight Simulator. In most cases Flight Simulator isn't being sold. I haven't seen an Aerosoft title on the shelves anywhere in over 5 years. I look at programs like the new 'Wings of Prey' being released exclusively via download and hear this coming from you in every interview and shake my head as to why you keep using this as leverage. Sure like 'Rise of Flight' it will eventually get a boxed version but I happen to know most sales are coming in via download for most developers (Airsimmer, Blueprint, Imaginsim, Feelthere, to name a few). So if your guy is sitting in a storeroom somewhere with many boxed copies means nothing more than too much product was made for a declining demand for that type of media not the actual product itself.

    I don't know how things are in Europe but it seems boxes are popular there more so than other places. That's not the case in America or I'd see your titles in some of the bigger chain stores. Everywhere from the US to New Zealand I happen to know people aren't going to stores anymore for add-ons like they used to (VOZ a very popular product From Fly Away Simulations for both FS9 and FSX, it's another great example of a successful downloadable product). An internet connection can get you any add-on in the world within 15 minutes depending on your connection speed. So please give me something else as an excuse FSX sales are over FS9. Again I perfectly understand everything your saying outside of this one point because in American where stores like Best Buy (which is headquartered here in Minneapolis) and Walmart aren't selling FS add-ons why keep using this as a focal point for lack of sales? If you can make a valid case of not imbracing FS9 for logical reasons why would you not do this with solid state copies of products? Boxes will always have their place for some but when major stores aren't stocking the media and you come in here stating that's FS9's fault then something's amiss... If Micro Center is your only outlet in American for boxed add-ons then you are really are in trouble. I know your not going to tell me what download sales are doing for both sims for obvious reasons. Actually quiet as it's kept you did mention before in the download arena FS9 wasn't doing so bad but you elected not to embrace that outlet of moving products in the discussion. I will tell you for the developers I work with sales are running neck and neck with FS9 beating out FSX depending on the add-on. Heavy airports and aircraft sell better for FS9 in the download arena versus FSX. This is true for Dreamfleet, Feelthere, and others I need not mention. GA everything sell better for FSX. Boxed products aren't selling well for either sim and if we could get a handle on this pirate situation FS9 sales would be even better. Developers like Blueprint don't even bother going boxed and others if they do decide to do this only go through distributors like yourself, Flight1, or Just Flight. Simmarket last I heard (and this is what I heard) is reporting great download sales for both sim versions. So I hope we can move away from the boxed product argument because that's about on the level of having a pen pal if you remember that. Today we have email that allows us to communicated instantly. This holds true with getting patches and add-ons for products. I am on the other side of this game as well so it would be better moving forward if we compare apples to oranges not rabbits to snales...

    Mathijs your a smart guy who has been in the business for years, I remember when you were with Lago and did an outstanding job over there. All of this I'm telling you here you already know and pegging you for proof is a mute point. All I'm asking is don't insult mine or anyone's intelligence with this whole boxed product argument. I know perfectly well boxed anything isn't selling well these days as I work with a few developers myself. You from your experience know what's happening in the more vibrant download market and we should stick with and discuss that... FS9 isn't doing bad at all that's why developers like FSDreamteam continue to make products for that version. Same goes for 'most' everyone else with the exception of those tied to Aerosoft...

    Here's one anxious customer waiting for FS9 Schiphol and Luxembourg ;)

    Mathijs said it not me so let's see if he delivers especially on these two airports...

    • Downvote 5
  7. Quite incorrect, in fact. For instance, my local BestBuy had at least 8 copies of FSX GOLD Edition on the shelves last month and sold every one at $39.95...

    But in any case, once again this argument is turning into people stating their perceptions as fact, etc, and I am not just directing this at Dillon.

    It's fair to say that both versions of the simulation offer users satisfying experiences, and some developers continue to offer products for one or the other (or both) and if they make money with FS9 versions, then great!

    Why is this always a point of contention? Pick your flavor, and enjoy. Each version offers something for every user, and there is no "ultimate sim" that exists today...that is, until Aerosoft releases their version! :D

    Well in my neck of the woods FSX is not to be found anywhere especially for $39.95. Speaking of the 'bargain Bin' that seems to be the trend with any title more than a year or two old (how old is FSX now?). The purpose is to get the product out of the store to make way for new titles. So it's not a stretch depending on the store to see FSX or FS9 in a bin at reduced prices. FS9 for the record is mostly to be had online these days...

  8. As you have your ear to the ground of payware developer FeelThere perhaps you can give us a breakdown of the relative sales of the same product in both sims

    Your `FS9.75` is actually likely to cause more problems by introducing variables and alterations that can only make problems emerge, not dissolve. You surely cannot expect developers and publishers to support aftermarket modifications to the base sim AND cope with their product at the same time?

    ...that would be the FS9.x that is readily found in the bargain buckets at vendors as it is no longer on shelves for sale in High Street retailers, and hasn't been for some considerable time.

    Let's break this down in points:

    1. Last I checked (can't give you exact numbers because that's against policy) Feelthere's sales for FS9 beat out FSX sales for the last few projects. There's a few developers I know a little more info on concerning sales and what Aerosoft is reporting is skewed in FSX's favor to say the least... Reminds me of a great quote, "Who cares what anyone thinks? It's what you know that interests" and I know FS9 add-ons are selling more than some are admitting. Now if we are talking GA then FSX sales may surpass FS9 but for Heavy airplanes/scenery it's either neck and neck or FS9 sales beats out FSX's.

    The benefits for mis-info is this (Rafal says it best):

    - planned marketing (it's easier to concentrate on one platform)

    - the number of already existing quality addons for FS9 is way larger than for FSX, so the FSX market is the target to fill

    - there are, as always, many new simmers coming - why should they start with an older sim? Many of them actually are once their educated in forums like this one...

    2. FS9.75 requires no special attention from developers creating add-ons for FS9. Modifying textures is all that's done to beef up the sim and make its looks comparable to FSX (doesn't take that much to bring it close to what you guys are getting in FSX).

    3. FSX is found in bargain buckets as well in fact if you don't get it online like FS9 you won't see it on store shelves these days, your point here is mute...

  9. Hi, Les!

    You know I'm on your side usually. Long live FS9! Give me a Cray computer and I still will enjoy FS9. I call it the right to choose.

    However, I couldn't resist to comment on one thing, concerning one mentioned addon:

    This sentence struck me as you joined two addons which, for me, represent the opposite ends of the payware class: LH MD82 which could be called all times masterpiece in quality and system depth, and the ASA320 which, I believe, is the greatest disaster. For the first time in my life I went for a refund (Flight1) yesterday after wasting my new year's holiday tryings to tweak this alpha-state bag of bugs to make at least one successful flight. And you know I'm not a newbie in the sim.

    And that is one of the main reasons for ASA320 trouble.

    Maybe it will be a quality simulation one day, maybe not.

    But giving it as an example of how far FS9 can go, with LH Maddog in one line, seems a bad idea to me.

    Other than that, I too live on the FS9 side of the wall. Will all comfort and pleasure.

    As for the number of downloads, all commenting here could be right in a way.

    But taking into consideration how maaaany great addons we already have for FS9, I won't be surprised it if those for FSX will soon be the only ones.

    Will that mean this sim became more popular or better? I'll leave you all with your own answers. I have mine. For sure. :)

    The Airsimmer effort is wishful thinking because I know how far the Leonardo Maddog has come. I owned it's first incarnation called the Lago Maddog which for me was a big disappointment. I bought the various versions of the Maddog over the 5+ years of it's existence without a VC. It wasn't until this last version released little over a year that it finally reached it's full potential. Now I would consider it the greatest hardcore add-on ever released. And again like I said to debunk 'Timo's' claim it beats out anything yet released for FSX (even the PMDG MD11). The FS9 Leonoardo Maddog beats out it's own version for FSX for nothing more than it runs considerably poorer on that platform. So I believe Airsimmer can turn things around with time or at least I'm hopeful of that. I like what I'm seeing so far and it's a whole lot better than what the Leonardo Maddog originally was. So I put them side by side with hope the Airsimmer A320's final incarnation will be on the same level as Leonardo's effort ended up being...

    On a side note I see the guys around here aren't hip to 'FS9.75' so I thought I'd spread the word in a round about way. My original intent was to open people's eyes as to a continuing trend until 'Timo' spoke up. Now it's obvious even the customers or forum members of Aerosoft either need educating or at least an honest discussion brought forth... Their still thinking all FS9 add-ons are inferior to FSX efforts (which is crazy as outside of eye candy, like FSX over FS9 little has improved over what's been done for FS9 for years). Either way we have screenshot proof of where FS9.75 is today and the amazing add-ons still being produced for it (in some cases exclusively for it). It's false to say FSX has the high end stuff and FS9 has the low end. Quite the opposite as FS9 is still seeing high end add-ons produced for it plus the years of stuff that's been created for it already pre FSX. You put that on top of the whole freeware community still continues to support it hands down over FSX and you come up with only a few companies by comparison exclusively supporting FSX. Even some of Aerosoft's developers still support FS9 like Simwings. If most developers went to FSX the whole wealth of add-ons produced for FS9 over the years plus the daily freeware allotment being released today daily for FS9 eclipses FSX's output 10 fold. Unless hardware catches up and surpasses what FSX needs to run (which I believe will happen in the next 2 to 3 years) FSX will never be on FS9's level (especially historically as the most influential version). The cult following for FS9 will keep it alive well into the future and/or Microsoft reopens the franchise or Aerosoft smashes the competition with their effort. No matter how this all turns out FSX has eclipsed FS2000 as the worse release in the franchise. It has taken FSX far to long to be accepted by the whole community and that will be the legacy of this program and a lesson learned (I hope) in releasing something that runs well day one and not requiring 5 to 6 years to get off the ground.

  10. You are aware that most every one of the products you mention were developed for FSX, or precede the arrival of FSX by a considerable margin, right?

    Here's a break down of the add-ons I mentioned above:

    Leonardo's Maddog was not created for FSX originally but it was ported over. The final build of the Maddog for FS9 was released in 2008 which was after FSX's release. After the FS9 final release it was ported over to FSX. Seeing it's an FS9 add-on it runs better in FS9 versus FSX.

    The Captainsim 757 concept which eventually turned into the FSX 767. The original 757 was released after FSX hit the market. Little changed outside of eye candy with the FSX 767.

    I work for Feelthere so I can tell you the FSX and FS9 versions of the E-Jet Series and ERJv2 were created from scratch with both sims in mind very much after FSX's release.

    Eaglesoft's Citation X was originally an FS9 concept. The version 2 option was released last year which now has it's own version for FSX.

    Airsimmer's A320 was just released in it's BASIC form back in November 2009 well after the release of FSX

    The only add-ons I mentioned above that you have a partial case for is REX and GE Pro (2 out of 7 for the record).

    REX's start is irrelevant seeing it totally changed the game for FS9 with a few clicks of the mouse so who cares if the FSX version came out first.

    Ground Environment Pro has versions for both FSX and FS9 which does wonders to both sims...

    Why, if your theorising was correct, is there not more product for FS98 than FS9 and FSX? Combined..?

    You know just as well as I (well you should know if you've been around for any length of time) every version of FS died when the new version hit the market meaning everyone (90%) dropped the old version as soon as the new version hit the store shelves. Every new version up until now was a full replacement for the previous version. All that changed with FSX and if 'YOUR LOGIC' was correct FS9 should be dead now especially seeing FSX is the last version seemingly to be produced by Microsoft. People have moved many times over in the past to a newer version no matter how many add-ons they had because the new option was a full upgrade. This didn't happen with FSX because of it's many problems and it still hasn't happened. Even people with beefy systems aren't moving over to FSX in fact quite the contrary many are moving back to FS9 after seeing examples like what I've shown above. If you don't believe me go read some posts on Avsim especially in the FS9 forum. Ask around on various forums and you'll see people wanting the visuals I posted above with 30+ frames over places like New York and London (with the highest quality scenery/planes available).

    I have no doubt FSX will come into it's own as hardware continues to evolve but what I found surprising was it hasn't happened yet and some of you very same people would have shouted down two years ago that FS9 would still have this kind of support crossing over into 2010. I posted this thread because Aerosoft was the biggest nay-sayer FS9 would hang on this long. They made a move exclusively to FSX touting boxed version (even though that's such an old school approach to selling when most product in this genera is sold via download. Examples of successful download releases are 'Rise of Flight' and the brand new sim 'Wings Of Prey' which isn't offered currently in a boxed form) because they felt something like this was impossible. Mathjis even stated in an interview that FSX will never rival FS9 in performance based on how it was programmed. That's the biggest kill factor for many staying with FS9 because they want a fluid experience like one would get in the real world. Hence we have Aerosoft developing a new sim that hopefully will live up to everything missed in FSX.

  11. So most of the FS9-freeware-downloads are low-quality in comparison with high-end FSX-products.


    Most FSX freeware is lower than that because there's hardly any and none of any significance... FSX is a payware platform from beginning to end.

    Comments like 'Timo's' deserve a couple more shots. Like I said add-ons like Leonardo's Maddog, Feelthere's E-Jet Series/ERJv2, and Eaglesoft's Citation X blows comments like this out the water.

    Take away those add-ons and just apply REX for FS9 with results like the pics I've attached below ends the discussion. There's reasons people use both sims but when FS9 can look like this for no more than three extra add-ons (Activesky Advanced, Flight1's Ground Environment Pro and REX) dismissing it like 'Timo' is foolish to say the least...








    • Upvote 1
  12. Comparing freeware to a payware publisher is tantamount to deliberate molestation of the truth, or blatant stupidity. Either is foolhardy in a forum such as this as it will only realise a challenge which reveals the original theory to be specious. Or malicious... :ph34r:<_<

    It is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to process that the gravitation to payware in FSX is a summation of its mid-life development maturity, and the comparative absence of freeware downloads more an indication as to the profit-driven motives of the expert developers who are as affected by the credit crunch as the rest of us. Given the time and effort now required to develop for the more complex simulator, we might well recognise that FS9 WAS the pinnacle of freeware, perhaps because most of the developers of freeware didn't have the skills or the desire to transfer to the greater demands - and reasonable expectations of a payware audience - for an obsolescent product.

    Oh, and the fact that most FS9 downloads are simple AI aircraft or repaints which skews the download comparisons markedly. <_<

    So what is a true equivalent comparison going to say, I wonder? Were there more PAYWARE products released for FS9 in 2009 than for FSX?

    I doubt it...

    Without the budding talent of the FS9 freeware guys today the future of development for FSX would be severly limited (developers creating todays FSX add-ons won't be around forever). We will always need a platform accessible enough for those starting out, FS was always about this... Another thing that's a fact is the new advancements still being accomplished in FS9 is nothing to sneeze at. The big question is how many developers went out of business after the release of FSX? Another question is how big of an impact did the split in the FS market affect the community as a whole and the frequency of new products? There was a time when a week couldn't go buy without some developer having something new on the market. Instead of knocking those who stick with FS9 you should be glade it's still around. The apparent ease at which talent can get into the hobby and grow only adds to the pool of future talent that wishes and has the skill to move on to the more complex stuff. Speaking of the complexity argument, anything outside of the latest eye candy can be had in both sims. There's nothing really special in the avionics department of the Captainsim 767 for FSX over the 757 they created for FS9. The only thing that the 767 brings is more eye candy. Look at Airsimmer's A320 for FS9 or Leonardo's MD-88 (LH being the best hardcore simulation yet created for any version of Flight Simulator) these are top of the line efforts no matter what sim you use... Airsimmer's A320 is the first add-on of it's kind that doesn't need FSUIPC to run (in it's FSX form it most likely won't need SimConnect). Feelthere just released an outstanding ERJ and REX/Flight1's Ground Environment Pro makes FS9's looks rival FSX.





    • Upvote 1
  13. I know where Aerosoft is on this but I find it amazing that FS9 still tops all freeware downloads even on the first day of 2010 on all FS related sites. Those that create for the love of the hobby are in droves still creating for FS9 over FSX. It's an ongoing trend that even I didn't think would sustain itself past 2009 but here we are in 2010 and this is still the case. On all FS sites since FSX's release 3+ years ago it has been very rare (if at all) that daily downloads on all FS related sites hasn't been more in favor FS9 by 2 to 1 margins over FSX. This is not to sway any views at Aerosoft but to point blank look at numbers with amazement. Someone must still use FS9 when on Avsim today of all days (January 1, 2010) FSX only has one download to FS9's 33 options. Aerosoft's going wisdom is FS9 is dead and therefore doesn't deserve future product development and/or consideration. With this kind of underground support for FS9 it's amazing a company from Europe of all places doesn't understand something like this. When you have people that rally around something for nothing more than a passion and love for it you'd do well to capitalize on something like this not abandon it. If people are buying one thing but on the other side staying with something and giving freely to it both time and effort both camps have a strong and valid case for continued consideration from every developer. It's like anything else in life which one do you feel is going to last the longest, those in it for the money or those in it for the love of what they do???

    • Downvote 8
  14. Just thought I'd through in a great location with the best inner city park system in the world into the pool of suggestions as or future consideration. One of the US's northern most cities which spawned such talent as Bob Dylan, Prince, and Charlie Brown (or the creator that is). So hopefully this little bug in the ear is considered (heck if Indy was considered anything's possible)...

    Great work guys on the scenery that's been produced so far...

  15. Guess I'll have to add Minneapolis and Prince's studio to the mix. Atlanta would be great as well...

    That's an interesting new product series!! :)

    It looks nice so far...but the resolution of the ground image is a little bit too low for my taste.

    Especially if you compare it with the great LA Downtown freeware scenery for FS9... :mellow:



    I'll piggy back off of this post and say it would be awesome if you guys really did the Hollywood hills with some of the more prominent mansions. Santa Monica Pier and the various well known movie studios in the Burbank area. Studios like Universal, Warner Brothers, Disney, and Paramount would look awesome built up in this area... :) LA/Burbank would be an awesome area to really showcase this concept...

    For the record I'm still an FS9er but something like this would give me something to look forward to in the future.

  • Create New...