- Messages
- 10,158
- Country
I develop for both, FS9 and FSX.
I still have a strong following of FS9 customers.
Bill Leaming (N4GIX) has a good point on numbers of available downloads for FSX compared with FS9 at AVSIM. Addon sohpistication I think is the main fallback.
I will still be developing FS9 planes for a long time.
If the people wish to buy FS9 products, I am willing to sell them. They are dreadfully easy to make. Making a plane to run in FSX is difficult in the conversion mainly at the assignments of animations and effects, (creation of custom animations, effects, etc, with the new code and with the new dual and tripple processes in the parts lists seem to me to be the real time killer).
By the way, this is why I am pushing to get a compiler to make a model above 64,000 polygons. We can now compress the Vertices down to close proximity as like FSX, but we cant do high polygon counts yet. Then we could take an FSX mesh and compile it to FS9, thus opening payware possibilities of market backup perhaps 50% to 100% and models wouldnt have to suffer drop downs in mesh quality in FS9. They would be 'improved'.
Concerning who governs what is in the market, I think its the 'market' themselves. Mind you, the freeware people will make what they want, while payware people will make what the people want.
On a personal level, I fly FS9 for fun. I cannot stand to run a simulator at low to zero effects settings, and even with FS9 cranked up to about 100%, its still at perhaps 24 FPS, which is not high. FSX will jump down to 5-7 FPS and thats with nearly no traffic (ground traffic off, GA traffic about 5%). With clear weather though, and away from cities, its at perhaps 25FPS, which then it is good, but I dont like to have all this 'sim' and not be able to fly it.
I have a new quad core, 8500GT nVidia, 3 gigs of DDR Ram. You would think I could run it pretty dang fast.. arrgh... (Yes, I have all the adjustments and tweaks done to FSX and my system). What could pose a bad position for me is if I 'did' have a super computer that could run FSX, and I could afford all the scenery that would make it look realistic, (at $40.00 to $45.00 dollars each, perhaps 20 or 40 of such said packages), then I would have a sim platform that would be fun to fly, but I couldnt use it as a test platform, so I would have to have 2 computers, one for fun, and one for testing. By testing, it has to be a 'normal' computer that everyone else has, sort of a 'run of the mill' average. This way, I am able to know what most others are seeing...
Bill
LHC
I still have a strong following of FS9 customers.
Bill Leaming (N4GIX) has a good point on numbers of available downloads for FSX compared with FS9 at AVSIM. Addon sohpistication I think is the main fallback.
I will still be developing FS9 planes for a long time.
If the people wish to buy FS9 products, I am willing to sell them. They are dreadfully easy to make. Making a plane to run in FSX is difficult in the conversion mainly at the assignments of animations and effects, (creation of custom animations, effects, etc, with the new code and with the new dual and tripple processes in the parts lists seem to me to be the real time killer).By the way, this is why I am pushing to get a compiler to make a model above 64,000 polygons. We can now compress the Vertices down to close proximity as like FSX, but we cant do high polygon counts yet. Then we could take an FSX mesh and compile it to FS9, thus opening payware possibilities of market backup perhaps 50% to 100% and models wouldnt have to suffer drop downs in mesh quality in FS9. They would be 'improved'.
Concerning who governs what is in the market, I think its the 'market' themselves. Mind you, the freeware people will make what they want, while payware people will make what the people want.
On a personal level, I fly FS9 for fun. I cannot stand to run a simulator at low to zero effects settings, and even with FS9 cranked up to about 100%, its still at perhaps 24 FPS, which is not high. FSX will jump down to 5-7 FPS and thats with nearly no traffic (ground traffic off, GA traffic about 5%). With clear weather though, and away from cities, its at perhaps 25FPS, which then it is good, but I dont like to have all this 'sim' and not be able to fly it.
I have a new quad core, 8500GT nVidia, 3 gigs of DDR Ram. You would think I could run it pretty dang fast.. arrgh... (Yes, I have all the adjustments and tweaks done to FSX and my system). What could pose a bad position for me is if I 'did' have a super computer that could run FSX, and I could afford all the scenery that would make it look realistic, (at $40.00 to $45.00 dollars each, perhaps 20 or 40 of such said packages), then I would have a sim platform that would be fun to fly, but I couldnt use it as a test platform, so I would have to have 2 computers, one for fun, and one for testing. By testing, it has to be a 'normal' computer that everyone else has, sort of a 'run of the mill' average. This way, I am able to know what most others are seeing...
Bill
LHC
Last edited:
