[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Recently there have been a lot of post about the FSX/FS2004 controversy and also about the fact we do a lot of FSX only products. To avoid repeating that discussion for every product (and yes there are a few very high end FSX only products coming) I rather post and discuss it one more time here. I do it based on the most asked questions.

Why do you prefer FSX products?
Aerosoft doesn’t, the majority of customers does, it really is that simple (our market research shows that around 70% of actual customers who are actually willing to buy products prefer FSX at this moment). Of course firstly because Aerosoft is a commercial company that has bills to pay. There are more FSX then FS2004 customers at this moment and this balance moves to FSX more and more every single day. I’ll write it now and will repeat it a few times… we did not stop making FS2004 products, but customers stopped buying them, we create what we can sell. And seeing how Aerosoft grows we are doing a pretty good job. But there are technical things to take into account as well. Perhaps the main issue is that FSX is far less limiting then FS2004 is. Not only in the files we can make for it but even in hardware. We are now working on projects that simply will need more than one CPU core to run because the amount of objects is so large that a single core would simply not be able to keep up. Clearly FSX needs more CPU power then FS2004 does, but even if this is take into account, FS2004 with its single core support will just not be able to run the newer projects until 5 Ghz single core CPU will be available. And that is not likely to happen soon as all development is in multi core machines. Simply put, FS2004 is just not supported by modern hardware. Not by CPU’s and not by the more modern GPU’s. So in hardware FS2004 is at a total standstill. Even if we could make the files more complex there would be no hardware that could run it. Let’s look at it in the three main categories, scenery, aircraft, tools. If you like to see our ideas about hardware, check this out: http://www.forum.aer...showtopic=19406

Scenery
In scenery design there are a lot of differences but they have been hard to use because they tend to be slow and not easy to understand. So progress to a new standard is slow but as you will see in the next few months, we now feel hardware is available that can run what we want to do. Most things we work on now will need at least 5 GHz of CPU, that’s the same as a non existing single core CPU for FS2004 and a sub $100 CPU for FSX. Certainly the fact that scenery now has sound and that missions are possible has a large impact, these are features that don’t have a performance impact and most customers really like them.

Aircraft
In aircraft design things are more simple. There is a huge set of new options, from far better animation, to better sound to the simple fact we now do not have to face the horrible polygon limit of FS2004. Many aircraft projects we done for FS2004 simply could not be done more complex as the FS2004 compilers simply would not compile them. Now we actually don’t know where the limit is and certainly have not found it. For example the F-16 is so complex that only a fraction could be compiled for FS2004. It is at least 6 times more complex than a FS2004 aircraft could ever be. These days if we ask a aircraft developer if an FS2004 version is possible he will just smile and ask me what bits of the aircraft I would like to have removed. For aircraft joint FSX/FS2004 development is nearly impossible because you will end up with a FS2004 aircraft that runs in FSX. That’s not what we want to deliver at this moment with so many more options available.

Tools / Missions
There is not a lot of difference for tools, certainly not since FSUIPC is free for the kind of tools we do. Still making an add-on that links to FSX is easier than a tool that links to FSUIPC that links to FS2004, certainly in support! For missions things are simple, they do not exist for FS2004 and we got great success in selling missions for FSX. Customers love the excitement and options they bring. At shows we got a lot of people hooked on FSX by letting them fly a mission.

Commercially things are rather simple. Major stores that we depend on to sell the boxed copies just do not want to store FS2004 products. They will take a box that has the FS2004 version as a free addition but even that can’t be put to boldly on the box. In download we see that FSX products do very well, better than pure FS2004 projects at this moment. Although there still is an FS2004 market, it is limited and declining all the time, commercially it is a dead end where we got very limited time to make money for us and, sometimes, the external developers. A good product will have a life span of two years and even though FS2004 still has a major group of supporters, we think they will not buy a lot of FS2004 products around Xmas 2009. So it is just not commercially attractive to invest heavy in FS2004 developments.

But you do still release FS2004 products!
Yes and with great pleasure, pride and most of the time good success. Some of these projects come from external developers that feel they have to do a FS2004 version because their customers demand it. In that case we gladly sell the product, though it has to be said that great care has to be taken to make the FSX version really shine when FS2004 and FSX development are done simultaneous. For other projects the base is solidly in FS2004 and it has been decided to maintain that base. This makes it rather easy to compile the FS2004 versions but sometimes means the FSX version is not a lot more then the FS2004 version running in FSX. Not always a bad thing, but not the progress we so seek is not there. All our internal development, so all the things we start and fully pay for, are now based on FSX, we simply can’t afford to do them for FS2004 as well. The investment to do so would be foolish and irresponsible.

So do you still support FS2004?
But of course. Just as we still support the FS2002 products we sold. We also will gladly sell you FS2004 products when we got them. We like FSX but we love FS2004, it’s a good old friend and a reliable simulator. But we are a commercial firm with dozens of people to pay and we got to make money. If a whole load of people would suddenly start to buy FS2004 add-ons we would be very happily start to develop those. Aerosoft produces what people want to buy.

But clearly your site shows that FS2004 products are selling more, almost all best sellers on the list are FS2004!
For AES (the no.1) this is mainly because most users have 4 or 5 credit packs so that makes it a bit different. For the other products the main reason is that we sold them for such a long time. FIAT sold more original 500's then they have sold of the new 500.... same reason, same logic. If the best sellers list would show sales per month you would most likely see only AES on the list.

But if you would MAKE more FS2004 products people would buy more
Tell that to Sascha in our warehouse. He got loads and loads of FS2004 products we are unable to sell. It's just not true.


Now should you be willing to discuss this, keep in mind that shouting in capitals and a lot of exclamation marks that it is is clear that FS2004 is better and that more people use that is just venting and not discussing. It's also of no importance because we are talking about customers, not users. Telling me that FS2004 is far superior also is not really an issue because, again, that does not seem to stop people from buying the addons for it.

In the end... If you like FS2004 more then FSX, that great, you're not alone. If you want addons for your FS2004 sim we will try to sell them to you. If you insist on getting something done for FS2004 you can always ask us, if we see a market large enough we might do it. Bring 5000 of your best friends who want the same product and the changes of getting it done by one of our teams increases a lot. BUT... in a market where FS2004 sales decrease and FSX sales increase a commercial company like Aerosoft does not really have a lot of choice. It's that simple.

[Valtteri Isola]

And if someone would still come and say that you have to do FS9 version, without a fresh reason, I don't know what I would do if I were you.

(I bet someone is still going to say that FS9 sells better LOL)

[Vigilius]

Finally the truth! I fly with FSX from the first day and I never regret about that.
Ok, I've lost 1-2 really good plane but new will arrive.

[WEA-JHD]

It's funny that you say that 70% of the flightsim users use FSX when you have no facts to back it up with.

Just think about the PMDG 747-400X. There are no computers, high-end or low end that can run FSX with that plane in an urban area like KJFK at max graphics, there is not a single computer in the world that's capable of doing such a thing.

General Aviation is another, that's very possible in FSX, but i really doubt that 70% of all flightsimmers use General Aviation only.

All in all i don't believe you, Mathijs. This is a method to try and make more flightsimmers to move over to FSX so you don't need to support dual platforms, which i agree takes up alot of development time, but stil after two years of FSX products are still made for FS9, that shows you how good that flightsim really is, contrary to FSX. Personally i see more limitations than possibilities in FSX.

Regards
Jan

[Valtteri Isola]

It's funny that you say that 70% of the flightsim users use FSX when you have no facts to back it up with.

Just think about the PMDG 747-400X. There are no computers, high-end or low end that can run FSX with that plane in an urban area like KJFK at max graphics, there is not a single computer in the world that's capable of doing such a thing.

General Aviation is another, that's very possible in FSX, but i really doubt that 70% of all flightsimmers use General Aviation only.

All in all i don't believe you, Mathijs. This is a method to try and make more flightsimmers to move over to FSX so you don't need to support dual platforms, which i agree takes up alot of development time, but stil after two years of FSX products are still made for FS9, that shows you how good that flightsim really is, contrary to FSX. Personally i see more limitations than possibilities in FSX.

Regards
Jan

Mathijs says that 70% of people that buy aerosoft addons are using FSX, and you really can't contradict that.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

It's funny that you say that 70% of the flightsim users use FSX when you have no facts to back it up with.

Just think about the PMDG 747-400X. There are no computers, high-end or low end that can run FSX with that plane in an urban area like KJFK at max graphics, there is not a single computer in the world that's capable of doing such a thing.

General Aviation is another, that's very possible in FSX, but i really doubt that 70% of all flightsimmers use General Aviation only.

All in all i don't believe you, Mathijs. This is a method to try and make more flightsimmers to move over to FSX so you don't need to support dual platforms, which i agree takes up alot of development time, but stil after two years of FSX products are still made for FS9, that shows you how good that flightsim really is, contrary to FSX. Personally i see more limitations than possibilities in FSX.

Regards
Jan

Ahhh Jan, reading is a fine art.. I wrote: "our market research shows that around 70% of actual customers who are actually willing to buy products prefer FSX at this moment." I did not write that 70% of FS users prefer FSX. You read that but I did not write it. Now I don't think I like to be called a liar in a forum we provide for you, certainly not if it is based on something I did not write. I would appreciate a excuse.

And btw, we are actually VERY happy to have two platforms. How stable you think a company is that is based on one single platform? The sales for existing FS2004 addons is still high and that makes us very do better than we did when we only had FS2004 sales. The whole idea that we would like to kill FS2004 sales because it would be better for us is almost to silly to discuss. It makes no sense from what ever angle you look at it. Not from marketing, not from sales and not even from development. If there would be customers I would love to do more FS2004 addons, it would be great for us. In fact we are working on adding MORE sims to our development, not less.

[WEA-JHD]

Ahhh Jan, reading is a fine art.. I wrote: "our market research shows that around 70% of actual customers who are actually willing to buy products prefer FSX at this moment." I did not write that 70% of FS users prefer FSX. You read that but I did not write it. Now I don't think I like to be called a liar in a forum we provide for you, certainly not if it is based on something I did not write. I would appreciate a excuse.

And btw, we are actually VERY happy to have two platforms. How stable you think a company is that is based on one single platform? The sales for existing FS2004 addons is still high and that makes us very do better than we did when we only had FS2004 sales. The whole idea that we would like to kill FS2004 sales because it would be better for us is almost to silly to discuss. It makes no sense from what ever angle you look at it. Not from marketing, not from sales and not even from development. If there would be customers I would love to do more FS2004 addons, it would be great for us. In fact we are working on adding MORE sims to our development, not less.

Ok, my bad Mathijs. I stand corrected, i may have read through your post a bit too fast. for that i apologize.

Still it's sad to see developers drop FS9 support where clearly most of the FSX users won't able to enjoy the product in FSX with good graphics and FPS. It may of course depend on the product, but urban area sceneries and complex airliners will be hard to run at the full potential of FSX.


Mathijs: i see you edited your post.

I'd be glad to see that you include more flightsimulators in your company, i certainly hope that it's X-plane V9 you're talking about because that is probaly the best optimized flightsim on the market today. The only thing that keeps me from buying it is the Addon availability. So, you see Mathijs, i am open and willing to try other flightsims, but FSX was and still is a big dissappointement for me, the X-plane demo on the other hand was a very pleasant surprise

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Ok, my bad Mathijs. I stand corrected, i may have read through your post a bit too fast. for that i apologize.

Still it's sad to see developers drop FS9 support where clearly most of the FSX users will be able to enjoy the product in FSX with good graphics and FPS. It may of course depend on the product, but urban area sceneries will be hard to run at the full potential of FSX.

Thanks!

Yes, we agree, using high end aircraft in a complex environment is still very hard. But it depends a bit on how it is done. We are working on some addons that might not have the same complexity in systems as the PMDG 747 but are not that far off. And we see system loads that are very acceptable. The PMDG 747 is highly demanding on hardware for sure but you can't blame FSX for that can you? It also does not like Vista, not in the FS2004 or in the FSX version. That doesn't make Vista bad?

You also write that using the sim at max settings is hard. And it is, but so are many games. The game settings are there to tune the sim to your system. They also make a game more future proof, as hardware gets better, users will be able to activate more settings. Unfortunately many users slide everything to the right and complain without understanding what they are doing. They don't understand that FSX itself has the same mesh as almost all FS2004 mesh addons can deliver. Sliding the mesh settings to the right means you should compare it not to FS2004 but to FS2004 with a good mesh addon. They don't understand that Autogen is far denser in FSX, medium setting in FSX is the same as the highest level in FS2004. They don't understand that default textures are more complex in FSX.

In fact, on the same multi core CPU, we are pretty sure that FSX is faster PER polygon shown. And in day to day use, on my quad core system, FSX is at least as fast as FS2004 is.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Ok, my bad Mathijs. I stand corrected, i may have read through your post a bit too fast. for that i apologize.

Still it's sad to see developers drop FS9 support where clearly most of the FSX users won't able to enjoy the product in FSX with good graphics and FPS. It may of course depend on the product, but urban area sceneries and complex airliners will be hard to run at the full potential of FSX.


Mathijs: i see you edited your post.

I'd be glad to see that you include more flightsimulators in your company, i certainly hope that it's X-plane V9 you're talking about because that is probaly the best optimized flightsim on the market today. The only thing that keeps me from buying it is the Addon availability. So, you see Mathijs, i am open and willing to try other flightsims, but FSX was and still is a big dissappointement for me, the X-plane demo on the other hand was a very pleasant surprise

No its not Xplane, that market is minute even compared to FS2004 at this moment (though I still like it). It a almost complete new development that we'll show as soon as we got some good plans for it ready. But it is a sim and it is about airliners (so not VFR)

[WEA-JHD]

No its not Xplane, that market is minute even compared to FS2004 at this moment (though I still like it). It a almost complete new development that we'll show as soon as we got some good plans for it ready. But it is a sim and it is about airliners (so not VFR)

I understand the X-plane situation, was just hoping for it to receive more attention in the addon market, hopefully that will happen some day as X-plane is a very nice sim with alot of possibilities

Looking forward to see that upcoming sim and maybe i'll get it if i find it interesting


Also to quote you on one thing here:

"You also write that using the sim at max settings is hard. And it is, but so are many games"

Yes, i want to be able to run a game the way it's meant to be run, at it's max potential and full glory and i'm able to do that on most of the latest games, including Age of Conan, World In Conflict, Frontlines: Fuel of War.. etc.. the list goes on and on. I can run all those games at full settings, but i don't stand a chance doing it in FSX and that causes my frustration of it, i have also been willing to compromise some settings to make it more FPS friendly, but then either the graphics are not satisfactory or i don't get that huge FPS increase that it really matters.

So in a conclusion, FSX is not a very well optimized platform and it's probably most because of the backwards compatibility, something that hopefully will be dropped in FS11 so that they can start fresh

and BTW: i'm using XP, not Windows Vista

[mk83]

Although FSX is surely not as optimized as I would have desired it, you have to consider that it is not designed and marketed like an ordinary PC game. The average lifespan of a Flight Simulator version as a full price title is much longer than the average block buster games. We won't see FS 11 until fall or winter 2010. Thus Aces choose the maximum settings so that FSX can utilize the increased performance of new hardware and stay competitive years after it's release. For me that isn't a bad thing.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

I understand the X-plane situation, was just hoping for it to receive more attention in the addon market, hopefully that will happen some day as X-plane is a very nice sim with alot of possibilities

Looking forward to see that upcoming sim and maybe i'll get it if i find it interesting


Also to quote you on one thing here:

"You also write that using the sim at max settings is hard. And it is, but so are many games"

Yes, i want to be able to run a game the way it's meant to be run, at it's max potential and full glory and i'm able to do that on most of the latest games, including Age of Conan, World In Conflict, Frontlines: Fuel of War.. etc.. the list goes on and on. I can run all those games at full settings, but i don't stand a chance doing it in FSX and that causes my frustration of it, i have also been willing to compromise some settings to make it more FPS friendly, but then either the graphics are not satisfactory or i don't get that huge FPS increase that it really matters.

So in a conclusion, FSX is not a very well optimized platform and it's probably most because of the backwards compatibility, something that hopefully will be dropped in FS11 so that they can start fresh

and BTW: i'm using XP, not Windows Vista

Well, let's put it this way... a few months ago there was a rather big events about FS and we went around looking at what people had for settings on there systems. As this was a meeting for online flying we expected and did see mostly FS2004 systems. But NONE of the 19 systems we saw had all sliders at max. And clearly they were all FS2004 fans but they did not expect the sim to run on max settings.

For me FS is a few sims in one. When I fly big jets I want detailed airports, but mesh car/ship traffic and autogen means not a lot (who sees that from 38.000 feet?) When I fly helicopters I want ground shadows and full mesh because it helps me judge my altitude better. When I fly in the Beaver I want the best looking water and detailed mesh, but no building shadows. For me one of the best new functions in FSX is the fact you can make, store and load profiles. I got ten or more, in fact I make them for all the major addons I use. If I am testing an aircraft I am looking at an empty world, but the sim loads quick and framerates are over 80. When I need to test airport scenery I use different settings then I would when I when I test a VFR scenery. So different settings for different tasks.

I don't think FSX is badly optimised btw and I also see little reason to think backwards compatibility is an issue. The main thing that bugs all sims is the wide open space with huge horizons that need to work well and the detailed flight modeling that goes on. It's totally different from a confined world as in most shooters where the area in play is normally very small and only looks big. FSX needs to handle a huge load of data and needs to handle it on the spot with a player that is totally free what he does. In most other games a whopping load of graphics need to be handled with a bit of physics. But that's what modern GPU's do so well. And that's why most games do so much better with a new graphics card and why so many people are dissapointed when the buy a new GPU for FSX. Because FPS is determined by CPU, how the frames look is determined by the GPU. In Frontline the GPU determines the FPS and how they look. You can buy faster frames for most games, you can't really do so for FS. Real fast CPU's are stupidly expensive and most of the time buying a better cooler and overclocking gives the same results for a fraction of the money.

[WEA-JHD]

Well said, Mathijs.

So basically we agree on at least one thing, there is no PC that can run everything on full graphics in FSX with big, complex airliners in urban areas.

Yes, i'm aware of the different profiles you can set, save, load and modify, but the thing is i don't have to do that in FS9, i don't need to compromise anything at all no matter how many addons i install and use. I never drop below 30fps, so when developers decide to make big, urban airports for FSX i really can't understand it, it will be very hard on the frames where in FS9 it will barely affect the performance. Yes i know the ground resolution is not as high as in FSX, but as you say, who needs it when you're cruising at FL380?

Because of that reason i believe the majority of the heavy iron pilots still use FS9. As i have said earlier i have no problems running General Aviation, like the deafult Beaver in FSX at almost maxed out graphics, but i mostly fly airliners so i really can't get much enjoyment out of it.

And the fact that they still use the FS9 graphics engine in FSX is an indication that this technology is outdated, they should make a brand new graphics engine that is more optimized for today's hardware which will effectively kill the backwards compatibility. They just need to start fresh. Look at X-plane 9 as a comparison, it's graphics are very much on-par with FSX, but it's FPS and smoothness is just so much better, it truly shows the possibilities and potential of a properly optimized game.

Maybe i will run FSX the day they release hardware components that can run FSX at it's max potential and full graphics at 30+FPS with complex airliners and detailed urban areas, but until then i'll refrain from using it, except when i feel like flying around VFR style in GA planes which is not very often.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Well said, Mathijs.

So basically we agree on at least one thing, there is no PC that can run everything on full graphics in FSX with big, complex airliners in urban areas.

Yes, i'm aware of the different profiles you can set, save, load and modify, but the thing is i don't have to do that in FS9, i don't need to compromise anything at all no matter how many addons i install and use. I never drop below 30fps, so when developers decide to make big, urban airports for FSX i really can't understand it, it will be very hard on the frames where in FS9 it will barely affect the performance. Yes i know the ground resolution is not as high as in FSX, but as you say, who needs it when you're cruising at FL380?

Because of that reason i believe the majority of the heavy iron pilots still use FS9. As i have said earlier i have no problems running General Aviation, like the deafult Beaver in FSX at almost maxed out graphics, but i mostly fly airliners so i really can't get much enjoyment out of it.

And the fact that they still use the FS9 graphics engine in FSX is an indication that this technology is outdated, they should make a brand new graphics engine that is more optimized for today's hardware which will effectively kill the backwards compatibility. They just need to start fresh. Look at X-plane 9 as a comparison, it's graphics are very much on-par with FSX, but it's FPS and smoothness is just so much better, it truly shows the possibilities and potential of a properly optimized game.

Maybe i will run FSX the day they release hardware components that can run FSX at it's max potential and full graphics at 30+FPS with complex airliners and detailed urban areas, but until then i'll refrain from using it, except when i feel like flying around VFR style in GA planes which is not very often.

Yes, pilots who fly complex aircraft between major airports might be better off with FS2004, although this is getting better. I am personally not sure why the big airliners use so much cpu cycles. It's not in the modeling, our F-16 is many times more complex then the PMDG B747 and it does not affect framerates nearly as much. Our rather complex systems also don't seem to affect it so much, perhapos because we do nearly everything in very standard XML. I hope we find out what causes the big aircraft to cause so much load soon. It's not an area I personally work on a lot though, I like VFR stuff much more.

[WEA-JHD]

From what i've heard, which may just be a rumor is that the PMDG 747 and the Level D767 for FSX is not an FSX native aircraft and uses much of the coding from FS2004 that's ported over to FSX, but i guess the upcoming PMDG MD-11 will show if that's the case or not

[newmanix]

Hey Mathijs,

Ok. Here comes the stupidest question in the whole world.

Is there any way to dumb down the new completed FSX seneries for FS9? I know the code and all is different. But is it somehow possible? And if so, do you think people would buy it. Of cource assuming it is not too expensive to do so... I think a dumbed down verson of let's say the new Madrea senery (in production) would still be farr better quality than the current version you guys did that's on the market.

I already said this is a stupid question so everyone please... Just curious... As some of us are in no hurry to upgrade to FSX. I just paid for the nVidia GForece9800 so not going quadcore for FSX untill the end of next year which means buying a whole new system.... I for one would buy the dumbed own verson for FS9 so long as it is better the current verson for FS9.

Anyone disagree?

[WEA-JHD]

I think a dumbed down verson of let's say the new Madrea senery (in production) would still be farr better quality than the current version you guys did that's on the market.

There wouldn't be any sense in making an updated version of Madeira because there is a very nice looking freeware Madeira scenery for fs9 in development, which i would dare to say is up to FlyTampa standards

I would even dare to say it looks better than the Madeira scenery in development here

[Valtteri Isola]

There wouldn't be any sense in making an updated version of Madeira because there is a very nice looking freeware Madeira scenery for fs9 in development, which i would dare to say is up to FlyTampa standards

I would even dare to say it looks better than the Madeira scenery in development here

I would dare to say that it's gonna take quite a long time to be released... 

[newmanix]

There wouldn't be any sense in making an updated version of Madeira because there is a very nice looking freeware Madeira scenery for fs9 in development, which i would dare to say is up to FlyTampa standards

I would even dare to say it looks better than the Madeira scenery in development here

Oh please, please, please!! Tell me. Perhaps PM me. Very interested!!

[newmanix]

Oh please, please, please!! Tell me. Perhaps PM me. Very interested!!

Ah! Nevermind! I found it! It does look good indeed. Better than the FS9 Aerosoft version for sure! We will ned AES for this.