Have FSX, but JUST Ordered FS9

[johnny_15b 0]

Hi Konrad,

I 100% respect your opinion and I will never claim to be 100% right by any means... There is always room for middle ground and yes I could be reading into this too deeply.... Please also understand this is not intended as a personal attack on anyone and is being expressed with the utmost of respect. This is not meant to be disrespectful or rude in any way, I am just trying to express my feelings on this matter. That also does not make me right by any means, I am just vocalizing... Again, please accept that whatever I say I say with the utmost respect.

But when the spokesperson for an organization such as Aerosoft makes comments such as:

"Well as the fans of FS9 are very active in defending their choice of simulator there will be many that will say you made a good decision and I more or less agree with them. You need software that's as old as your hardware.

The problem that you might have is envy."

Comments like this are volatile arguments waiting to happen. What does needing software as old as hardware have to do with a personal choice about which sim we prefer? Does my choice look like a Hardware issue or choice LOL...

When you are doing PR for an organization you better take into consideration how people are going to read it "between the lines." I am far from the only FS2k4 user who is starting to feel like there are constant digs against us in this forum with a lot of them coming from Aerosoft themselves, this is just one more example... I would expect a group like Aerosoft who still sells products for both sims to be showing the highest levels of balance and political correctness but that is not the case...

Never forget the people who got you where you are (ie) all us FS9 users who spent years investing in thousands of dollars in add-ons... I don't mind what they are saying at Aerosoft, I mind how they repeatedly say it...

Cheers,

-Paul

PS

From my perspective there should be no battle or war and I would think my post is more in lines with trying to stop these battles than argue why one is better or worse, it is personal preference and FSX has led to great applications for FS9 like ASA for example and vice-versa. The PMDG MD-11 was delivered for both sims without a single negative insinuation or comment by the developers, wouldn't it be nice to see that same political correctness applied here? I also love FSX for GA, I have nothing against FSX nor do I have any reason too LOL... It is a sim...

Each sim has its own market right now IMHO and it has nothing to do with HW so again, stop making the connection between FS9 and inferior HW in these forums... There are guys going out and getting brand new I7's and still CHOOSING to return to FS9 for their style of simulation (Heavy vs GA)

Once again i agree with you. I did felt insulted in the way Mr Kok commented on my reply. I didnt even bother to answer back as i know he wont understand that not everyone of us can afford expensive hardwares just to run a game ( Even if we could, there is always something going wrong with fsx). There is not only flight simulation in life.

Speaking about hardware and this is a question for Mr Kok, How many times do you think we will keep on updating the hardware without seeing a major boost in fps in fsx even when not running everything on max and having at least detailed airports, flying complex airliners, and having air traffic to at least 85%?? i kind of guess quite a lot and i would like to point out that the hardware that i've got is not that old ( it's just about 2 years old ) and it runs fs9 and other games(except fsx) with any complex addons without probs.What i would consider old is something like a pentium 4 or below.

For fsx lovers, please dont get me wrong as i like fsx too, but am just being realistic about how things are going on. Even a professional airline company( my dad works for them) in australia that i know of, is using fs2004 to train commercial instead of fsx due to performances and bugs issues.

For me fsx will only be useable in about 3-5 years when proper testings and hardwares become available and then may be i'll switch over.

[mikkel 63]

My first experience with FSX:

I had FS9 with a lot of add-ons, that made it look pretty.

I installed FSX SP1 on my computer. I was not that impressed, because my add-ons added a lot to the sim world.

But FSX SP1 was smoother on my computer!!! It was a P4 3Ghz dual XEON workstation. A powerfull beast when it was new, that FS9 could never take advantage of. But FSX actually ran smoother on it, so i decided to uninstall FS9.

Today, an equal computer to the power horse mentioned above can be bought pretty cheap, you don't need two power units to run it, and I actually belive that anything from an E6600 (2,4 ghz core 2 duo) and up, has equal or better performance.

With SP2, the autogen batching are so good, that you can and should run the auto-gen level at Dense or Very Dense. FSX is more optimzed than FS9, no question about it.

Some of you claim that you get 60 fps with a lot of AI planes at big hubs, with complex sceneries. I never got good performance with advanced AI packs in FS9, neither in FS2002 or FSX. I belive the simulator handels AI quite poorly.

Back to topic, to the FS9 defenders, you seem very driven by emotion. Use FS9 if you want to, but don't stop other people and the add-on scene from moving forward!

I think there is only one valid point in FS9 argumentation, and that is the amount of money spent on add-ons. More companies should ofer upgrade prices for loyal customers, I belive...

BTW: If you install FSX and SP2, don't use the tweaks found on the net, most of them will sabotage the performance in SP2 and make the simulator unstable. Only use the small detail radius tweak and the OS memory tweak. If you would like, experiment with the buffer pool sizes, but only with very, very small adjustments, landscape spikes and OOM erros are the resaults from adjusting buffer pools like you were used to in earlier versions.

[WEA-JHD 1]

Come on with these comments already. it is enough, Aerosoft's spokesperson does more to fuel the FS9 v FSX war than anyone on these boards...

If an organization like PMDG can make the MD-11 for both FS9 and FSX and the differences are in animations and visuals but the FDE is identical, the systems are identical, both sims are fully operational then yes it may be hard but don't say it is impossible... PMDG has proven you CAN develop for both sims at an exceptionally high level and I don't here too many MD-11 users raving about how much better it is in FSX. In fact, most were excited to get the MD in FS2k4 and be able to use ActiveCamera and all of our other wonderful FS2k4 add-ons with a phenomenal product deigned for FS2k4 and maintain 40+FPS under even the densest situation even with 3 monitors... Not to mention alot of us have Thousands of dollars invested in FS9 add-ons (alot purchased here) that still provide immense enjoyment, I am not just going to scrap them because there is something new if the old still pleases us... It is this lack of loyalty and bashing what got us where we are that I can not fathom. We are not treated subservient at PMDG but to the contrary we are embraced and PMDG has seen the benefits as a result with probably the most loyal FS9 AND FSX user base opposed to repeatedly alienating one group in favor of another. Constantly making these FSX superiority comments is going to do nothing but isolate a good portion of your customer base.

If you have taken the option to phase out FS2004 products and sales that is fine but don't repeatedly imply that the only products that can be made for FS9 are inferior and please stop assuming that those who stick to FS9 do it for HW reasons. Most of those of stay with FS2004 are simply "heavy" fliers who appreciate FSX for GA but repeatedly state that when it comes to flying our heavies with all of our add-ons and every slider pinned FSX cannot match up to FS2k4... How many times do we have to point to the forum surveys that show a 2-1 FS9 to FSX usage rate amongst heavy fliers before people understand that there is a divide in the market based on your usage type more than anything else...

To say FS9 users don't buy as much anymore is just ludicrous when you are not putting out products on a level playing field. If you put out 10 FSX releases for every 1 FS9 release then yes the numbers will show FSX users buy more add-ons. When you consider the amount of add-ons currently available for FS9 that we have ALREADY purchased then of course we will be buying less now, especially when there are less choices. But when you look at AES oliver has proven that FS2k4 users are loyal and very willing to spend our money with a developer that supports us!!! So to your business decision, I respect it, as for the way you verbalize your message to your customers I think Aerosoft should take a long hard look at HOW things are said and ensure there is no further alienation of the users who supported you for so many years and without whom there would be no Aerosoft...

Please please please stop with the whole FSX v FS9 comparisons and either embrace the FS9 user base or just stop bashing us with backhanded insults in the process.... Some of us have ZERO FSX envy trust me and the more you continue to view us as secondary citizens the more we will find other places to purchase our FS9 add-ons....

Just my .02 but every FSX is better comment gets further and further under my skin. Some of us just CHOOSE FS9 as difficult as that may be to understand...

All the best to everyone for a great day!!

-Paul

Paul, Thank you very much for posting this. you said this better than what i could ever have said myself. This is what i tried to comment about earlier, but i got too carried away and i got more and more frustrated for every reply as people constantly misread my posts and i had to repeat myself so many times that i got sick and tired and i "lost it" so to speak.

However, i agree with you absolutely 100% about this post, you truly hit the nail on the head this time.

I'm going to do the same as Marc W is doing now, i'm going to leave this forum as i feel it's a waste of time trying to explain why they should focus on making more FS9 products.

Aerosoft is clearly phasing out FS9 products, but as long as they make new FS9 sceneries i will continue to buy them if i find the airport and location interesting. The day Aerosoft stops making FS9 products is the day i will no longer buy any Aerosoft products.

Have fun with whatever flightsim you use folks. I also want to apologize for my behaviour earlier in the FS9 vs FSX products thread, alot of the posts were out of line and should never have been posted.

On that note i'll say good bye!

Kind regards

Jan

[edetroit 529]

My first experience with FSX:

I had FS9 with a lot of add-ons, that made it look pretty.

I installed FSX SP1 on my computer. I was not that impressed, because my add-ons added a lot to the sim world.

But FSX SP1 was smoother on my computer!!! It was a P4 3Ghz dual XEON workstation. A powerfull beast when it was new, that FS9 could never take advantage of. But FSX actually ran smoother on it, so i decided to uninstall FS9.

Today, an equal computer to the power horse mentioned above can be bought pretty cheap, you don't need two power units to run it, and I actually belive that anything from an E6600 (2,4 ghz core 2 duo) and up, has equal or better performance.

With SP2, the autogen batching are so good, that you can and should run the auto-gen level at Dense or Very Dense. FSX is more optimzed than FS9, no question about it.

Some of you claim that you get 60 fps with a lot of AI planes at big hubs, with complex sceneries. I never got good performance with advanced AI packs in FS9, neither in FS2002 or FSX. I belive the simulator handels AI quite poorly.

Back to topic, to the FS9 defenders, you seem very driven by emotion. Use FS9 if you want to, but don't stop other people and the add-on scene from moving forward!

I think there is only one valid point in FS9 argumentation, and that is the amount of money spent on add-ons. More companies should ofer upgrade prices for loyal customers, I belive...

BTW: If you install FSX and SP2, don't use the tweaks found on the net, most of them will sabotage the performance in SP2 and make the simulator unstable. Only use the small detail radius tweak and the OS memory tweak. If you would like, experiment with the buffer pool sizes, but only with very, very small adjustments, landscape spikes and OOM erros are the resaults from adjusting buffer pools like you were used to in earlier versions.

Again I say to uninformed FSX users......please be quiet and enjoy your Sim.

[newmanix 61]

In case anybody cares:

I am leaving this board now.

Ok goodbye!

[mikkel 63]

no, thats not okay newmanix, that people leave this board because of childish behavior by a little hand full of individuals...

edeltroit, could you please explain to me what's uninformed in my post? and btw. no, i will not be quiet about this issue, i would rather see good developers spend their resources on new good products, than to fulfill the wishes of some stubborn people. actually i was quite shocked when i came back to the fs-scene a few weeks ago, to discover that people still demand product and support for an almost 6 year old version of the sim, after all the work that has been spendt on fsx, and the improvements it offer.

[thomas29 5]

Hello Ted, hello battlefans,

Ted you are right: The correct size of your harddisk is 293 Gb not 320 Gigabyte. Binary code: one Kilobyte is 1024 Byte and not 1000 Byte and so on, see for example Wikipedia.

The Rest: Here is not a battlefield for FS 9 or FSX Users. Look here, this is the right place : http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...0&start=340

Ted started this thread for answers to his questions, and not to start a battle or crying "Aerosoft...". This is not polite.

Many greetings Thomas

[Sharrow 107]

How much of the total hard disk space should be used? 80% of total hard disk space? 85%? 90%?

Hi Ted

For the best performance on your OS and FS HDD's (if seperate) you should try to not use more than 60% capacity at any given time (i.e. leave at least 40% empty).

Konrad

[newmanix 61]

no, thats not okay newmanix, that people leave this board because of childish behavior by a little hand full of individuals...

edeltroit, could you please explain to me what's uninformed in my post? and btw. no, i will not be quiet about this issue, i would rather see good developers spend their resources on new good products, than to fulfill the wishes of some stubborn people. actually i was quite shocked when i came back to the fs-scene a few weeks ago, to discover that people still demand product and support for an almost 6 year old version of the sim, after all the work that has been spendt on fsx, and the improvements it offer.

I will reaffirm, OK GOOD BYE. If people can't handle a debate because they don't like the results, then they should leave. Do you hear me going after FSX users that bash or give their opinions FS9? No. I just give my opinions. If I dont like it I can leave. Some people just take this crap so damn personal!! At the end of the day it is a F#$king video game!

[newmanix 61]

The bigger problem here is that folks ACTUALLY react to stupid comments like "if you like slideshows then get FSX". Sorry Marc, but you took the bait hook, line and sinker there mate. The more people react to these types of comments the more encouraged people are to regurgitate them.

Leaving the board is not a solution Marc - this type of stuff goes on inside every FS forum you may care to visit. Trolling (on forums or on the open ocean) is only viable if there is a chance of actually catching something... not so?

Konrad

I made the stupid comment and I agree with you 100% it only becomes an issue when people make a bit deal out of it.

[Sharrow 107]

It's the chicken vs egg debate, but in reverse - what will go first, the stupid comments or the folks who react to them?

[newmanix 61]

It's the chicken vs egg debate, but in reverse - what will go first, the stupid comments or the folks who react to them?

Wrong and neither.

Weather a post is stupid is based on the perception of the reader. How the reader chooses to respond causes the flare or lack thereof... My post was only based on my opinion and unless anyone here starts posting factual footnotes in posts...

The bottom line here is the fact that some FSX posters here seem to forget there they come from. Some talk so negatively about FS9 as if they never used it and always hated it.

I may talk crap about FSX as well but my decision to stick with FS9 for the time being is for 3 reasons:

1. There are alot of seneries and aircraft I love both payware and freeware I can't get in FSX.

2. I have tried FSX on a very high end Alienware system and was not impressed with the peformance. Thus waiting to build a system that will make me happy.

3. The new features in FSX are not a big deal to me other than the improved graphics.

FSX for me will come along in time. But I am still enjoying FS9. And when I do go FSX, I will still run FS9 on the current system or my new laptop as both have pros and both have cons.

[worldted 0]

Hello Ted, hello battlefans,

Ted you are right: The correct size of your harddisk is 293 Gb not 320 Gigabyte. Binary code: one Kilobyte is 1024 Byte and not 1000 Byte and so on, see for example Wikipedia.

The Rest: Here is not a battlefield for FS 9 or FSX Users. Look here, this is the right place : http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...0&start=340

Ted started this thread for answers to his questions, and not to start a battle or crying "Aerosoft...". This is not polite.

Many greetings Thomas

Hi Tom...Thanks for your reply. I figured the 293 number was the relevant one, but wasn't totally sure. Someone at work set me straight too.

Of course, I'm sorry if I incited a battle between FS9 & FSX users. I'm sure they're BOTH great sims. The origin of my inquiry was just to find out which sim would be more appropriate for my circa 2006 gaming laptop. FS9 would probably have been a better match with my computer, but I have so much invested in FSX addons, etc, that switching to FS9 at this point might be tough.

I think what I'll probably do is save my money for one of the Jetline Systems high-end desktops on which to run FSX. I know that some flight simmers have the computer know-how to build superior systems at 1/2 the price, but I'm not one of them! I'm hoping one of those high-end rigs will run FSX well "right out of the box." No tweaking/overclocking in my future...I hope anyway! I mean, I just wouldn't know how.

So, for now I'm just going to save my money for better computer on which to run FSX. I'm a "student pilot" anyway, so GA aircraft flying in FSX is fine for me at the moment. In fact, still VERY challenging (ya know...right turn, right rudder...that sort of thing...I forget sometimes!). Anyway, when I upgrade my computer I'll hopefully be able to look into some more advanced planes/sceneries. It will be a great day indeed when I can fly the F-16 around Manhattan X. For now it's the C152 around very small towns!

It's all good though because this is the greatest hobby on Earth, and will only get better as time goes on, and computers get that much faster. 'Course my eyes won't be getting any better.

Cheers,

Ted

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

If you want to have fun and fly go FS9!!

If you want to enjoy slideshows go FSX!!

There is not a system out there that is good enough to run FSX with all sliders maxed out and all 3rd party senery running to land at (example) FSDT KJFK at 60FPS. Including full AI traffic... When this is possible and for under $2,000 then I will go FSX.

You can already do all this with FS9 for under $800 these days. FSX has very nice features but they are features I can very much live without for the time being.

Newmanix, I am getting a bit upset with your comments. You don't like FSX, that's clear to even the slowest on this forum. But we got thousands of customers who got no performance problems with FSX. Telling people they need a $2000 machine to run FSX is just nonsense and inflamatory. I got a sub $1000 machine and when I see a steady 35 fps over our new Manhattan (with 100% scenery density and 100% Autogen and 25% traffic) in our last beta of the Catalina, I know I am looking at things FS2004 simply can't show, not only in HOW they look but also at how MANY things I am seeing.

If you got nothing more to say than what you told us in the last few posts, I seriously suggest you look for a new forum where people have not heard your opinion. If you like to discuss things seriously and not just with rather childish statements, you know our forums are always open for it. But please spare us your platitudes or your troll feeds. It's just not on.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Ted

For the best performance on your OS and FS HDD's (if seperate) you should try to not use more than 60% capacity at any given time (i.e. leave at least 40% empty).

Konrad

I heard that before, but other then things getting slower after that when you install new very large bits of software, I never heard anybody explain it. It's like saying a car drives faster on a near empty tank (well it does but that weight). When the disk is reading a file and is sending it over the bus to the CPU it has not idea how full the rest of the drive is. And if it has to make jumps to find it on a fragmented drive the head does not mind if the sectors it is jumping are empty or filled with your complete Abba collection. Personally I start to be bothered when I get to the point the defragger software tells me it gets into problems, normally around 90%.

Put it this way, access time to a file that's on a DVD because you were afraid of 70% used disk are rather long, they run into minutes instead of microseconds. People worry to much and got to little faith in modern hardware and software.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Tom...Thanks for your reply. I figured the 293 number was the relevant one, but wasn't totally sure. Someone at work set me straight too.

Of course, I'm sorry if I incited a battle between FS9 & FSX users. I'm sure they're BOTH great sims. The origin of my inquiry was just to find out which sim would be more appropriate for my circa 2006 gaming laptop. FS9 would probably have been a better match with my computer, but I have so much invested in FSX addons, etc, that switching to FS9 at this point might be tough.

I think what I'll probably do is save my money for one of the Jetline Systems high-end desktops on which to run FSX. I know that some flight simmers have the computer know-how to build superior systems at 1/2 the price, but I'm not one of them! I'm hoping one of those high-end rigs will run FSX well "right out of the box." No tweaking/overclocking in my future...I hope anyway! I mean, I just wouldn't know how.

So, for now I'm just going to save my money for better computer on which to run FSX. I'm a "student pilot" anyway, so GA aircraft flying in FSX is fine for me at the moment. In fact, still VERY challenging (ya know...right turn, right rudder...that sort of thing...I forget sometimes!). Anyway, when I upgrade my computer I'll hopefully be able to look into some more advanced planes/sceneries. It will be a great day indeed when I can fly the F-16 around Manhattan X. For now it's the C152 around very small towns!

It's all good though because this is the greatest hobby on Earth, and will only get better as time goes on, and computers get that much faster. 'Course my eyes won't be getting any better.

Cheers,

Ted

Your laptop won't handle FSX fine, at best it will be marginally. But look at the screenshot and look at the list below, they are linked by the fact the image is made on that system (I used my existing screen, case and PSU)

270 Euro - 1x intel I7-920 CPU

63 Euro - 1x Asus 512 D2 X EHA4650 GPU (and yes, although many people do not believe it, this is the fastest GPU for FSX I have found to date)

275 Euro - 1x Asus P6T DeLuxe Motherboard

120 Euro - 3x 1GB D3 1333 memory

--------------

In total 720 Euro and I don't shop around and I bought that months ago, I just order what I see and I know I could get it cheaper. In US dollar it is certainly cheaper. That's not the 2000 euro system other people in this thread tell you that you need. The images I attach are not tweaked or taken with great care, they are done with a zillion other applications running, including MS Word, Outlook and Photoshop for crying out loud.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Aerosoft is clearly phasing out FS9 products, but as long as they make new FS9 sceneries i will continue to buy them if i find the airport and location interesting.

Well, we only sell what people buy, we can hardy force feed them right? But in aircraft you are right, we don't think we could do FS2004 aircraft that are much better then they have been done 2007 and early 2008, there is just no room for a lot of improvement and customers demand new products to be better looking and to have more features. We can not make aircraft look a lot better because FS2004 will not allow it (nor would the single CPU be bale to handle it). In scenery the whole thing is different, we do a lot of great scenery that just won't run on FS2004 because it either is not able to handle the density or is not able to handle the load on a single cpu, but for example a major release like Hamburg airport this week will be releases for FS2004 first. For these airport sceneries FSX does not bring a lot of extra's and some of our developers decided to do the things for FS2004 first and make an FSX version of the same files later.

But in the end, really it is very simple, if people would start to buy enough FS2004 products we would make them. For you it is a hobby, for us it is our income, we simply do what customers want.

[WEA-JHD 1]

All fine and clear, Mathijs. I don't expect you to make aircraft addons for FS9 any more, neither do i really care, cause you mostly make General Aviation aircraft for FSX, which makes sense for the added ground and texture resolution and more details.

I'm in the market for big airports and large, heavy airliners and you don't make the latter anyway, that's why i go to companies like PMDG and hopefully airsimmer to fulfill that need. You do, however make some great airport sceneries which i will continue to buy as long as they are available for FS9 and it's an airport i find interesting.

But i still don't believe that FSX airports outsell FS9 airports, at least not big and heavily trafficated airports. As Paul said; If you make 1 FS9 addon for every 10 FSX addons, the sales numbers will of course favor FSX greatly.

Kind Regards

Jan

[Sharrow 107]

I heard that before, but other then things getting slower after that when you install new very large bits of software, I never heard anybody explain it.

My limited understanding is that this relates to the outer half of an HDD platter being generally "faster" than the inner half due to the much larger area covered by the head at otherwise the same rpm. The closer to the edge of the platter your data is the faster it will be accessed is another way of putting it. Furthermore, if your OS and FS are on the same drive you must make allowances for ample scratch disk space etc. Could also be that read/write times degrade as a drive fills up, though at which point it becomes noticeable could be very subjective.

I'll admit that this is as far as my understanding goes but seeing as this tip is a part of Nick Needham's FSX guide I will try to get a more detailed explanation from the other side of the pond.

I'm certainly not suggesting one starts to access files from a DVD rather than from a very full HDD. If it is that full it is clearly time to buy another HDD.

Konrad

[worldted 0]

Your laptop won't handle FSX fine, at best it will be marginally. But look at the screenshot and look at the list below, they are linked by the fact the image is made on that system (I used my existing screen, case and PSU)

270 Euro - 1x intel I7-920 CPU

63 Euro - 1x Asus 512 D2 X EHA4650 GPU (and yes, although many people do not believe it, this is the fastest GPU for FSX I have found to date)

275 Euro - 1x Asus P6T DeLuxe Motherboard

120 Euro - 3x 1GB D3 1333 memory

--------------

In total 720 Euro and I don't shop around and I bought that months ago, I just order what I see and I know I could get it cheaper. In US dollar it is certainly cheaper. That's not the 2000 euro system other people in this thread tell you that you need. The images I attach are not tweaked or taken with great care, they are done with a zillion other applications running, including MS Word, Outlook and Photoshop for crying out loud.

Thanks for the info on those parts. I'll look into it. The IT guy who does computer work for the place for which I work said he could help me build the computer (for a fee, of course ). A system like that will make FSX do a ton more that it does now! And, yes, my computer handles FSX only marginally....at best. Very true. Anyway...thanks again for help.

Cheers,

Ted

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thanks for the info on those parts. I'll look into it. The IT guy who does computer work for the place for which I work said he could help me build the computer (for a fee, of course ). A system like that will make FSX do a ton more that it does now! And, yes, my computer handles FSX only marginally....at best. Very true. Anyway...thanks again for help.

Cheers,

Ted

The key, and we are more and more sure about it, is to get the cheapest 512 Mb graphics card you can find. I have 3 systems and they all had graphics cards that were at least 300 euro. I now removed all of them and got 4650 cards. FS2004 and FSX simply run a whopping lot better on all machines. I advised the same to others and they ALL written back to me to tell me that this did it. From 5 fps over Manhattan to 20+ fps by downgrading the graphics card.

Now if your main game is FS this is a great idea, if you also like to play other high end games you got a dilemma.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

My limited understanding is that this relates to the outer half of an HDD platter being generally "faster" than the inner half due to the much larger area covered by the head at otherwise the same rpm. The closer to the edge of the platter your data is the faster it will be accessed is another way of putting it. Furthermore, if your OS and FS are on the same drive you must make allowances for ample scratch disk space etc. Could also be that read/write times degrade as a drive fills up, though at which point it becomes noticeable could be very subjective.

I'll admit that this is as far as my understanding goes but seeing as this tip is a part of Nick Needham's FSX guide I will try to get a more detailed explanation from the other side of the pond.

I'm certainly not suggesting one starts to access files from a DVD rather than from a very full HDD. If it is that full it is clearly time to buy another HDD.

Konrad

All very true. But a good defragger (see my post about that) knows which files you use most and will move them to the fastest part of the disk.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

All fine and clear, Mathijs. I don't expect you to make aircraft addons for FS9 any more, neither do i really care, cause you mostly make General Aviation aircraft for FSX, which makes sense for the added ground and texture resolution and more details.

I'm in the market for big airports and large, heavy airliners and you don't make the latter anyway, that's why i go to companies like PMDG and hopefully airsimmer to fulfill that need. You do, however make some great airport sceneries which i will continue to buy as long as they are available for FS9 and it's an airport i find interesting.

But i still don't believe that FSX airports outsell FS9 airports, at least not big and heavily trafficated airports. As Paul said; If you make 1 FS9 addon for every 10 FSX addons, the sales numbers will of course favor FSX greatly.

Kind Regards

Jan

FSX airports do not outsell FS2004 airports a lot. It depends a bit on what you look at. The bigger the airport the better it does for FS2004. But it's a limited section of the market, one that is more or less exhausted as we done all the airports that would sell. Big aircraft and big airports peaked around 2005. There is just no progress there, it's at best a remake to 2008 standards and that is just not very nice for customers and not for commerce. Keep in mind that the main retailers that we depend on a lot simply will not stock any FS2004 boxes. They just won't because just as we do they know the market is not there.

And Paul's explanation is close to an insult to my intelligence, lol. You can't seriously think that's what I intended. Per product sold it's FSX that makes most of our income. Again that has a lot to do with the major retailers, if they do not buy FS2004 products we can't make them. In this day and age the investments are so massive that we simply need the boxed sales.

Aerosoft is a commercial firm. it's not a hobby. We got to pay something like 60 people every month. They are paid from the money you customers send us. If you would like large barbie dolls in Central Park we would swallow deep, curse a bit and add them. if the majority of customers believe a B747 has 3 engines we would try to explain it has 5 (do not forget the APU) but if they would insist we would make one with 3 engines. If people would start to buy thousands of copies of a SUPERB fs2004 scenery like the Hamburg airport we released yesterday we would not even think of an FSX version. But that is simply not the case. Even with something as advanced as that project, based on an airport that is very close to the epicenter of FS2004 users (the German market has been larger then the US market for at least 6 years) we simply do not find the customers.

So if you say we got it wrong and that we should do FS2004 projects more, you should get all your friends together and start ordering FS2004 stuff. Because again, we are a commercial firm, we don't decide what we want to do, our spreadsheets tell us what to do.

[WEA-JHD 1]

FSX airports do not outsell FS2004 airports a lot. It depends a bit on what you look at. The bigger the airport the better it does for FS2004. But it's a limited section of the market, one that is more or less exhausted as we done all the airports that would sell. Big aircraft and big airports peaked around 2005. There is just no progress there, it's at best a remake to 2008 standards and that is just not very nice for customers and not for commerce. Keep in mind that the main retailers that we depend on a lot simply will not stock any FS2004 boxes. They just won't because just as we do they know the market is not there.

You know what Mathijs; the very first sentence that you wrote there is more or less what i have thought was the case for a long time. That big airports sell just as good (if not better) in FS9 than in FSX. This is the first time you have actually said that and it is what i have been trying to say for many months, but i know i got a bit carried away and made some stupid comments that provoked other members here and took the debate to a new level, and for that i apologize again.

I'm not quite sure what you mean that things are a remake from 2005 and that there's no progress. PMDG just released a wonderful MD-11 for FS9, the next 737 NG V2 will also be FS9 compatible, as will their next "secret project". and i really doubt that those aircraft is a "remake from 2005 standards that don't progress". in the Scenery department you can also look at FlyTampa's sceneries which is also very good and the visual difference from FS9 to FSX is not that big, at least not in my eyes and there have to be a reason why FlyTampa still makes FS9 compatible products.

I didn't think that boxed products was a big deal anymore since in this time and age most of what people buy is download-able from the net instantly after purchase, but of course i could be wrong and in that case your argument is very valid.

And Paul's explanation is close to an insult to my intelligence, lol. You can't seriously think that's what I intended. Per product sold it's FSX that makes most of our income. Again that has a lot to do with the major retailers, if they do not buy FS2004 products we can't make them. In this day and age the investments are so massive that we simply need the boxed sales.

I hardly think Paul had any intentions of insulting neither you or the rest of the Aerosoft team, as he said, he was just "vocalizing" on a very good level (at least in my opinion). And i believe that some points he made was very valid, for example the sentence where he said that "you appear to be second prioritizing FS9 customers and you give the impression and perception that making FS9 compatible add-ons is "so much more tiresome and time consuming". I'm not trying to insult you or being rude, but i would recommend you to read your own posts one more time, Mathijs. And think through how you write the posts, cause it's sentences and words like those in your first and second post in this thread that can potentially spark FSX vs FS9 arguments. PMDG don't make any negative comments against FS9, no matter how much work it is for them to convert their planes from FSX to FS9.

Aerosoft is a commercial firm. it's not a hobby. We got to pay something like 60 people every month. They are paid from the money you customers send us. If you would like large barbie dolls in Central Park we would swallow deep, curse a bit and add them. if the majority of customers believe a B747 has 3 engines we would try to explain it has 5 (do not forget the APU) but if they would insist we would make one with 3 engines. If people would start to buy thousands of copies of a SUPERB fs2004 scenery like the Hamburg airport we released yesterday we would not even think of an FSX version. But that is simply not the case. Even with something as advanced as that project, based on an airport that is very close to the epicenter of FS2004 users (the German market has been larger then the US market for at least 6 years) we simply do not find the customers.

You may be a commercial firm, but so is PMDG, Wilco, Feelthere, Digital Aviation, FlyTampa.. and i could go on and on, but they still make FS9 compatible addons and they all seem to be doing just fine.

And i do get the point of the central park and B747 analogy, but it also proves that you would rather listen to the audience than making things as realistic as possible when companies like PMDG would ignore that and make the addon perform and/or look as close to their real-world counterpart as possible, and i believe that's what made PMDG to be where they are today, recognized as one of the best addon developers for flightsim.

I don't know if you remember my "747 looping around the golden gate bridge" comment from the FSX vs FS2004 development thread? Well that was part of the point i was trying to make. You seem to be more obsessed with details and looks than actual realism and function, but of course that's nothing but my personal point of view so take it for what it's worth.

Kind Regards

Jan

[WEA-JHD 1]

I got a sub $1000 machine and when I see a steady 35 fps over our new Manhattan (with 100% scenery density and 100% Autogen and 25% traffic) in our last beta of the Catalina, I know I am looking at things FS2004 simply can't show, not only in HOW they look but also at how MANY things I am seeing.

Could you please tell me the FPS you get with the PMDG 747 and/or the MD-11 , maybe even the Level D 767 over the same place with full clouds and precipitation added to the same settings you have listed? Do that and you will see exactly the reason why i'm not using FSX, cause all i want to do is to be able to enjoy FSX with all it's new (mostly visual) features, but what's the point in upgrading when you can't do that? Why should i upgrade to FSX when i got the exact same FDE and system simulation in FS9 as i would get in FSX, only with a much lower Frame rate?.. it just don't make sense, Mathijs.

FSX may be great for General aviation aircraft, like a catalina in VFR conditions, but when we are talking about the actual aircraft and airliners that fly in and out of this place daily, the tables will turn rather quickly methinks.