Announcement: AspenX

[brianb10 0]

If Aerosoft is still looking for beta testers for AspenX, I live in Colorado and visit Aspen often, including flying in and out. I would love to be part of the testing process.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

If Aerosoft is still looking for beta testers for AspenX, I live in Colorado and visit Aspen often, including flying in and out. I would love to be part of the testing process.

Sorry Brian, we are near the end of the beta, no good adding people in this stage.

[brianb10 0]

Thanks. I look forward to this release!

[NYURDRMS 0]

Is there a estimated release date for this? I am looking forward to it.

[Dillon 9]

You guys are way to far on the 'FSX' bandwagon.

No one but you and Cloud9 are exclusively making products for FSX (a practically unusable sim at this point). I know SP1 will be out shortly but you guys should really consider supporting FS9 for at least another year. FSX won't come into it's own until well after the Vista/DX10 patch is released for it.

Aerosoft makes great scenery and it's terrible you currently only wish to share it with a certain segment of the community at this point...

[EDOT-TH 0]

Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!

I thank Aerosoft that they support the FSX this way.. otherwise it would be a wrong signal. And on other hand how may FSX-only addons are on the market which are not available for FS9? Five?

But due to your judgment about the FSX it seems you have it. So why not give AspenX a try in the new sim? I sold my FS9 copy and all FS9 addons long time ago and sometimes I can't understand the complainments about performance. Only problem could be the lack of addons.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

You guys are way to far on the 'FSX' bandwagon.

No one but you and Cloud9 are exclusively making products for FSX (a practically unusable sim at this point). I know SP1 will be out shortly but you guys should really consider supporting FS9 for at least another year. FSX won't come into it's own until well after the Vista/DX10 patch is released for it.

Aerosoft makes great scenery and it's terrible you currently only wish to share it with a certain segment of the community at this point...

Well there are a few things that cause this to happen. First of all, commercially seen FS9 is of very limited value, major stores simply do not order and FS9 boxes anymore so that removes a huge part of the possible sales for a FS9 scenery.

Besides, I do not think you are right. Budapest was released in FSx and FS2004 version, just as Helgoland. For MonacoX, KatanaX and the beaverX we already had an FS2004 version. Other new releases like AES, Munster Osnabruck are for FS2004 ONLY and do not even have FSx counterparts. In fact only Aspen and the ASP series are scheduled to be released on the FSx platform only. So I do not believe we are leaving the Fs2004 users behind.

And your comment that FSX is ony used by a small section of the users is just not confirmed by our sales and by the customers that we meet. Demand for FSX products is far far greater then for FS2004.

[Dillon 9]

First of all Mathjis proof of what I'm saying here is you and Cloud9 are the only ones out there releasing FSX only products at this point. Even AirlinerXP is releasing a new title for FS9. FlyTampa (TNCM St Juliana at St Marteen , St Barths TFFJ, and SABA TNCS) has great new scenery that focused on FS9 first and later FSX. If your point is correct why are most other developers outside of two still focusing on FS9 as the priority??? You tell me the ratio of FS developers releasing FSX only titles. I only can point to 2 who's starting to do this consistently, you and Cloud9 (BeaverX, FS9 version only available on the CD version. What kind of ^%& is that??? I sure hope that's not the original FS9 version included on the CD).

This is a problem... The FS9 titles you mentioned for the most part were created pre-FSX. Now that FSX is released you've all but dropped FS9 in importance as though FSX is fully embraced by the whole community as was the case with previous new Flight Simulator releases of the past. Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of you guys or anyone for that matter supporting FSX but to create a new scenery like Aspen only for FSX is a slap in the face to quite a few users. If there was already a professional Aspen scenery floating around for FS9 this wouldn't be an issue but there's not. The hardware game MS has been playing with user across the board is not going over that well this time around. Many aren't running out paying $3,000+ for one application (that still doesn't run as it should even with the new hardware). I have much faith in SP1 but I won't upgrade until it's all said and done with Vista/DX10. Many won't upgrade until FS11.

And your comment that FSX is ony used by a small section of the users is just not confirmed by our sales and by the customers that we meet.

All you have to do is just go to every forum in the FS community and see what people are saying about FSX. Yes many like it but most have a dual install of FS9/FSX used for different purposes. I shouldn't have to say this as I'm sure you know this as well as I do so your reasoning here escapes me... As far as what stores are selling really doesn't tell the full story. When I go to Amazon or other like venders, FS9 is still selling while FSX is getting passed up on the shelves. Actually FSX has been pulled from many places in my area. People are starving for new FSX related products but the fact is FS9 is still going strong.

I'll just out and say it, "It's really bogus for anyone at this point to release an FSX only title. It's almost like extortion but I won't use that strong of a word to port people over to the new sim. Microsoft makes titles that really aren't that much improved over the older stuff (case in point new versions of Office) yet requires beefed new hardware to run it, that game has run it's course with more than just the private sector. In order to use this new scenery I 'HAVE' to load up FSX while all the other major FS vender's have no problem at this point supporting FS9 a while longer for obvious reasons"...

In a year from now an AspenX FSX 'ONLY' product may (and I say 'MAY') be a good choice but as of today a good 90% of people are still using FS9. If that weren't the case why is AirlinerXP, DreamFleet, FlyTampa still releasing great titles first for FS9 and FSX versions are promised sometime in the future. I work for a few developers and believe me FSX is an after thought while the FS9 version takes priority. There's a reason for this Mathjis... :wink:

[IanP 0]

...as though FSX is fully embraced by the whole community as was the case with previous new Flight Simulator releases of the past.

It has. The majority of "hardcore" users bought FS95 and didn't use it totally until their hardware caught up. FSX isn't the first version to stretch hardware beyond its current capability. FS95, FS98, FS2000 and FS2002 did as well. We just got lucky with FS2004.

I could go through and counter every one of your arguments, but I won't clutter up the thread with it. The fact is this: I don't know where you live, but no store I have been to since about a week after FSX's release has sold FS9. There's no market for it. They are selling FS9-only add-ons, but not as fast as they are ones that say "FSX" on the front cover. In fact the main one in this country, Game, has pulled all FS9-only titles from their shelves. PC World haven't (although they have pulled FS9 itself), but they have more space, which FS shares with train and driving sims that they are still trying to sell at full price which I can get from Game or online for sub £5!

FS9 products have a limited shelf life - more limited still when FSXSP1 is released. FSX products have a several year shelf life. Every commercial developer I know of is currently finshing off what they were already working on for FS9, then switching to pure FSX work. Some have already ditched FS9 altogether and are not releasing anything else for it at all, including re-engineering what were going to be FS9 products to be FSX instead (mainly aircraft in that case).

Unfortunately, if we're into being blunt, your argument is about sour grapes, not economic or commercial reality.

Edited to add: Does anyone else remember the cries of horror from some areas of the community that FS9 didn't go far enough and was just a re-hash of FS8 with different bugs? Strange how quickly FS2002 faded in preference for FS9, then...

Ian P.

[Marc W. 0]

And your comment that FSX is ony used by a small section of the users is just not confirmed by our sales and by the customers that we meet. Demand for FSX products is far far greater then for FS2004.

and

Unfortunately, if we're into being blunt, your argument is about sour grapes, not economic or commercial reality.Edited to add: Does anyone else remember the cries of horror from some areas of the community that FS9 didn't go far enough and was just a re-hash of FS8 with different bugs? Strange how quickly FS2002 faded in preference for FS9, then...

Ian P.

hope this finally settles that

[harpsi 0]

And your comment that FSX is ony used by a small section of the users is just not confirmed by our sales and by the customers that we meet. Demand for FSX products is far far greater then for FS2004.

The problem is that every addon needs quality and time. For example, Fly Tampa and Flightscenery, for me the two best scenery developers until now, need 1 year to complete just one scenery or an area. Sceneries with good quality only come from cloud 9, simwings, aerosoft, fly tampa, flightscenery, uk2000, maybe the freeware ISD and FISD, and not much more, so until a good part of the world is covered with good sceneries, or at least 75 % of europe and at 50 % of USA, we need probably 2 or 3 years, even more. In three years we will be already using FS 11 probably... There are for sure a lot of addon makers which are not doing new scenery versions but just an update for compatibility with the new simulator, but, if the scenery is more or less the same as before, why to change a whole simulator when the general looking is not so different? I remember some developers which were making sceneries for FS 2004 just adding some updates. Of course those sceneries were looking like FS 98... It makes no sense.

It happens to aircrafts as well. The first good airbus until today will probably come from airliner XP. It took more than 3 years to think and develope. 3 years ago we were in the beginning of FS 2004 and FS 2002 was still in use...

I am not defending FSX users or FS 2004 users. I have FSX but I am staying with FS 2004. There is no interest for me to use FSX with 5 or 10 sceneries, when in FS 2004 I can have maybe 300, or when I just have a good 777 from wilco with an FSX update. There is no level D, no 737, no airbus at all, no ATR from flight 1, nothing....

I will change to FSX until I can have at least 50 or 100 different places with sceneries to fly, at least 5 or 6 good types of aircrafts with FMC (one 757-767, one 737, one goood airbus and one ATR for example), a good weather program like active sky or fs meteo, ultimate traffic for AI aicraft (maybe the best utility for AI planes), and of course, without AES for example, it makes no sense for me to use FSX. It is probably one of my preferred addons for FS 2004 which adds a lot of realism to the simulator. We only had FS assist from lago and it took almost 6 years for someone to think about such an utility. It is really too much... Maybe a new simulator between 2 and 2 years is too much as well.

Think about this. It is just a point of view

harpsi

[EDOT-TH 0]

I understand you. Of course my opinion is not very important in terms of making sceneries. But you say due to lack of FSX sceneries and aircraft addons and missing AES you keep flying in FS9. And because that you say that FSX-only addons make no sense and you also say that in 3 years we could use FSXI.. hm. To be honest I think this is not very logical. I think FS9 at this point ist the best Simulator we ever had in the history of PC Simulations. But if you don't begin to stop making sceneries for FS9 and just do nothing for FSX then nobody will use the new Sim and why should MS pay for a development for FSXI during (let's say) next 4 years in that case? How could we use FSXI when we would not support its predecessor?

As I said I understand why you keep using FS9. But I think it is not very realistic to demand that every new addon is also FS9-compatible. And I don't believe that it will be a problem for FS9 users if Aspen comes only for FSX. Is this so important? I would understand if we would talk about a huge airport scenery.

I think you do not want to switch to FSX and you have your reasons but maybe there are enough out there who really like to switch or already did and are waiting for new addons? Why punish them? FS9 has all the great sceneries but everythink comes to its end and now the time of FSX started.. whats wrong about this? It is never painless to drop the old FS Version with all the great addons. But you don't have to and due to you also own FSX why not use them at same time. If you like to travel to Aspen.. well just start FSX

[harpsi 0]

As I said I understand why you keep using FS9. But I think it is not very realistic to demand that every new addon is also FS9-compatible. And I don't believe that it will be a problem for FS9 users if Aspen comes only for FSX. Is this so important? I would understand if we would talk about a huge airport scenery.

No, of course not. You can make new addons for FS X and then every person will switch to this new simulator, but there are more reasons to switch than others. If tomorrow I have EDDF, LFPG, LPPT, EGLL, LEMD and fly tampa sceneries for FSX, maybe I siwtch. If I have aspen, then the isle of man and then sicily and gibraltar for FSX only, maybe it is not so interesting for me to switch. If I have level D and a good airbus, maybe I switch. If I just have a cessna 172 from dreamfleet maybe I keep my FS 9... Everything has its importance. That´s why some persons fly in some places and others in other places with other aircrafts. That´s why some of us are switching to FSX and others not.

And I agree with you: FS 9 is the best simulator we ever had.

harpsi

[Dillon 9]

This was posted over on Avsim.com which says it all:

I see many posts regarding FS9 vs FSX. One thing I have been watching is the reviews on Amazon's site. FSX has 3 out of 5 stars from 196 reviews at this time. In grade terms that'a a big fat D or 60%. And now the used price has dropped to 35.99.

Some of the reviews are a liitle confusing, maybe user error because you see many poor reviews but with 4 and 5 stars so I think some people do not understand the process. So the acual rating is probably less than 3 stars.

I find the AMZN site reviews interesting becuse many of the poeple are simming for the first time. Those people tend to give it better reviews, probably because they have not experienced FS9. And the poor reviews usually come from the FS9ers.

If I were shopping for an item and it had a D grade from 196 reviews, I would not buy it.

JSC-"

:wink:

[IanP 0]

Yup. It says that in a couple of years, it will have almost totally replaced FS9, but hasn't yet. How surprising. How many times do people have to point out that it's an identical story to every version of FS since FS6/95 before you'll accept that FS9 is the outgoing product and FSX is the one developers are working on, whether you like it or not.

I can't play Armed Assault at a reasonable setting - the refresh rate is too low unless I seriously turn down resolution. Supreme Commander is fine up to a 4-player map, but above that, it's a lagfest. I have to turn the detail settings on Test Drive Unlimited down to "low" to get a decent refresh rate... Yet I'm running FSX with no problems whatsoever at realistic settings for my hardware. SupCom and ArmA have been uninstalled - FSX hasn't.

Yes, MS messed up the "out of the box" settings and they need changing to make it look better than FS2000, but your arguments still ignore the fact that most people with a little bit of clue about how to set up FS are having problems with the lack of add-ons for it, not the fact that people who enjoy bashing it want to give it bad write ups at a forum famous for pointless and often unubstantiated bashing of products.

Ian P.

[Dillon 9]

If you look at comparable sites like Amazon you'll get about the same thing. Like I said before just like everyone else with any since knows FSX if properly patched will be the future. Again like I said above I support add-ons for FSX but at this time FS9 is still a contender. Due to the horrible state in which FSX was released I truly believe many will pass this version up altogether in favor of waiting for FS11. Hopefully by then more user requested features will have been put into the base sim outside of just graphics.

For the record since the argument always leads to FSX's release being the same set of circumstances as FS9 or FS2k2 was before it, check out these numbers:

1. Amazon has only 126 reviews for FS9 coming in at four stars (higher than FSX with 196 reviews in a shorter time period).

2. FS2k2 comes in at 4 and a half stars with only 145 reviews since it's release on the market.

3. I may as well skip FS2000 which has higher reviews scores as well over FSX on Amazon.

IGN: reports FSX at a whopping '7.0' rating. FS9 comes in with a rating of '9' and FS2k2 comes in at '9' as well.

Gamespot: reports FSX at 8.4, FS9 at 8.8, and FS2k2 9.3. Reader reviews were, FSX 8.7, FS9 8.9, FS2k2 8.8

I could go on and on but outside of FS2000 what recent version has needed the level of patch work FSX is in need of? FS2k2 didn't need a patch and was never patched. FS9 was out for a whole year and a half before a small patch was released. FSX not only needs a major performance patch but a patch for the new OS and new DX10 version as well. For the average user that's not only a long wait time for the final product to see the light of day (with all the new bells and whistles) but users also have to wait while developers patch and then repatch their products.

The point here is FSX is far from being what other versions of Flight Simulator were upon release. That's why most add-on developers are sticking with FS9 a year longer if not more. This is not to say FSX isn't the future if Aces can get the performance issues straightened out, this is saying no matter what the dynamics/circumstances around FSX's original buggy debut will leave many skipping FSX altogether. There will be a market for FS9 titles until the release of FS11 which has not happened before. There is no market for FS2k2 titles anymore and that's the difference here. All one has to do is read the various forums, hunt down reviews, or load up the new sim for themselves. Aces may compound the problem by not releasing a new media on the market that contains all the fixes making it that much more of a pain for users to get in and use the sim later on down the road. You'll have to hunt down a few patches, spend the time waiting for them to download, and then installing them. This may be acceptable to some but when you look at FS2k2 which had really no major issues upon release and all one had to do is a straight install from the CD and be on their way, in comparison FSX is a hassle when it comes to the same process.

Aerosoft and Cloud9 are the only ones pushing their titles towards the FSX only market. Hopefully in a year that may make good business since but the pendulum could swing the other way and find the FS market still split until the release of FS11. We only have Aces to blame for that. Today to release a title that no one else has done yet for one platform only ticks people off that don't have the horsepower to run FSX at acceptable rates (let alone decent rates)... That's why I say a title like Aspen should be available for both versions of FS...

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Aerosoft and Cloud9 are the only ones pushing their titles towards the FSX only market. Hopefully in a year that may make good business since but the pendulum could swing the other way and find the FS market still split until the release of FS11. We only have Aces to blame for that. Today to release a title that no one else has done yet for one platform only ticks people off that don't have the horsepower to run FSX at acceptable rates (let alone decent rates)... That's why I say a title like Aspen should be available for both versions of FS...

Aspen will be only available for FSX because commercially it just makes no sense to do a FS2004 version. No matter how you feel or how others feel about FS2004, they hardly want to spend money on that platform. Besides an FS2004 version would simple not possible because of the standards we have decided for this project.

I have been involved in 4 new versions of FS from a commercial point of view and this conversation brings back a lot of memories, it has been like this almost any time. I agree we got serious issues with FSX but SP1 will solve a lot of those. Let's discuss FSX after we seen SP1, okay? In the mean time enjoy FS2004, I know I done so for a very long time.

And if you look closely you will see that Aerosoft is releasing more NEW FS2004 titles then NEW FSX products. Most FSX products are rebuilds of products you can also buy for FS2004.

[sel2002 0]

This will be a nice add-on. Are you going to have some seasonal scenery - like snow, how about some ski slopes with animated skiers?

I'd like to also say that I'd love to see a FS9 version, I'm still a good year away from moving to FSX and a new PC.

John

[HeyChief 0]

Didn't Bill Lyons a few years back put out a skier with one of his freeware planes?

I was thinking we could use that on the slopes.

HC