Understand I am not a "young, whiny new FS user" who's complaining that his version isn't being supported.  I'm a grown man who has been using flight simulation for well over a decade, and has specialized personally and professionally in the 737-200.  I know this aircraft, love this aircraft and am perfectly fine remaining with the Tinmouse II if FS9 support is not provided by CaptainSim for this product.

That said, there's been lots of cursory statements about FS9 support in these forums, most of which are short and of a complaining tone.  This is not one of those.  Thanks to the AVSIM survey that is live and will be running ALL YEAR LONG through 2011, we have a glimpse at the market for flight simulator use and I thought it wise to share this with you.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1871/grapht.jpg
Up to the minute data: http://surveys.avsim.net/stats.php?sid=37&st=a&vw=a

While this data is "early" in the sense that it's May and the survey will run until 12/31, we have glimpse at the market of FS use specific to versions.  At the time the graph above was created, 897 individuals had responded to the survey.

What does this data tell us?  Simply put, FS9 is far from dead.  It's no longer the dominant platform, but at nearly 40% market share, it's still around and generating enjoyment for users.  Imagine now in terms of dollars what we are talking about here for a software developer.  Imagine (since we don't know what the CS737 will cost yet) that the cost per product is an even $50.  

Because the survey ran for 897 individuals at the time I posted this, we'll use that data to develop a case.  Imagine that 897 people will purchase the CS737 over time.  Not entirely unreasonable if the product is popular enough.  That's a total of $44,850 in gross revenue at $50 per sale.  Using the data above, that's $27,500 in sales to FSX users and $16,600 in sales to FS9 users.  However, the net cost of time and investment to make an aircraft function in both FS9 and FSX is negligible.

So in terms of pure dollars an cents, using the scenario above, CaptainSim is willing to forgo added revenues of nearly $17,000 in sales by supporting FSX only on development.  As a businessman, I would urge CaptainSim to think of FS9 as a development option following the FSX release.  And also as a businessman, I will have no issues remaining with the next best product should they choose not to.  ;)

Mark, there's much passion in the descriptions and analysis of yours. Big respect there, but I have to point out some things to maybe think about.

I think that the basic "flaw" in this survey is that you've measured flight sim forum users and their preferences, leaving out the guys which are buying boxes or downloads and never even attend to forums of this kind, especially not any surveys there.

The scientific mind in me will also explain you that any survey with the approach 'to find out more about the flight sim usage and the usage bias' will trigger the smaller group (FS9 users) to attain the thing (to get regarded some more) while the bigger one will mostly remain calm = not attend, leading to more input from the smaller group.

Any survey requiring some will (and may it be only a click) to participate will show you results with a bias from the "willing" people. As the smaller group of FS9 users is willing to gain attraction and also willing to 'show their market numbers', they will attend in larger numbers.

All the guys which don't care or are very happy with the current FSX market therefore have a much lesser will to click here and there to show their opinion.

Ask people about human rights and what they think about their need and basis. If you ask them on the street (by going to them, using the mic while they are e. g. shopping), you will get answers, if you set up a website, you will get those too but now the focus changes since people have to go to that site, have to click, have to type something. They need a will to participate, they didn't need it as you were actively asking them.
So while the first "active" asking shows you some real numbers with many 'I don't care' or 'I don't know' in it, that website will give you some 'they are so important!' outcome.
Catch my drift?


The devs making up a decision whether to go FS9/FSX or FSX are looking at overall numbers from the actual sales of previous products. Those numbers represent what money can be expected and what trend may build up, while the forums represent the fan view and some bias towards the more established products.
If the sales numbers on FS9 products point down, nobody will try to revive that market more than once.

You don't plan new car concepts or electronics by the answers of some special group (forum members) in an already small market, you do so by looking at the former sales and maybe take into account what your fans stated as a wish, checking it's feasibility then.
You don't sell things to fans only, you have to attract new customers and also make sure that all the normal ones (which will outnumber the fans easily) still choose your next product.

If a development for FS9 wouldn't eat up resources, it could be easily made and and sold. But this downgrade path (when coming from a native FSX concept) isn't that easily to achieve and therefore the devs sum up the costs of extra development time and the expected sales in that regime.
Most current ones came to the conclusion that FS9 therefore doesn't pay off for them, especially on the aircraft side. The scenery side looks a bit better though.

So, in my eyes, the rather simple approach to just look at some 1000 forum flight sim fans won't lead to a picture of a market. And the decisions from the big devs to leave FS9 behind show you that they are looking at the vital numbers there, the ones which form their business and outcome.


Since that whole 'please do some FS9 versions!' thing isn't new, you may look into this or that dev's forum to see some explanations, mentioning those real numbers I spoke of, defining the outcome on the devs side. They have to live with that money since the love of their fans alone doesn't pay their bills.

Some exceptions are on the market of course but they only stress the existing rule that aircraft development for FS9 has nearly come to an end as the sales don't represent that fan bias at all.

CS is a current company, having switched over quite some time ago and, obviously, being very successful with that switching while most customers will be too, as seen.

Quote:

but at nearly 40% market share

when talking about FS9 therefore won't represent sales, but fan numbers only.
There are some current FS9/FSX titles on the market and they don't reflect those 40% you are speaking of, in sales.


Quote:

Thanks to the AVSIM survey that is live and will be running ALL YEAR LONG through 2011, we have a glimpse at the market for flight simulator use and I thought it wise to share this with you.

Sorry, this "glimpse" offers the same reliable picture as asking the question about the average beer consumption, in a pub.


I think another (mainly scenery) dev pointed out somewhere that 'if the people stating in forums that FS9 (still) is the way to go would actually buy that stuff in the same numbers as they drop statements, we would have built them already'.
So if you collect enough FS9 fans here, right in the CS forums, and also make sure that those thousands than buy the FS9 version, CS will build one.

I don't  see why to stick with it. There are more products that are much better in FSX now, its higher quality, developers are doing more than ever before and using techniques that make the realism so great, why stick with it?

Listen, If your a FS9 user thats great but if your making the choice to only be an FS9 user than your also making the choice to miss out on all of these awesome FSX addons!!! And you FS9 users need to suck it up, stop the crying and live with your decision. ITs as simple as that. ITs called life people you guys seriously spent all that time writing to support your point of view and i really think its going to make no difference

I agree. FS2004 was a good platform when it was the only one, and when FSX was first out. But now with FSX, realism is acheivable even easier and technologies that are impossible in FS2004 can be used in FSX . you can FSX for $20 now, so why not upgrade?

Most people own FS9 or FSX. Microsoft Flight is going to come out, and people are going to want to buy it (mostly FS9 users who are looking for a new Flight Sim). Once Flight comes out, many of those FS9 users are going to become Flight users, and creating addons for FS9 then will be like creating addons for FS2002 today.

boeing247 wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 4:48am:

Most people own FS9 or FSX. Microsoft Flight is going to come out, and people are going to want to buy it (mostly FS9 users who are looking for a new Flight Sim). Once Flight comes out, many of those FS9 users are going to become Flight users, and creating addons for FS9 then will be like creating addons for FS2002 today.

Will Microsoft Flight have backwards compatibility to FSX models in the same way that FSX does to FS9? Because of the money I have paid out on FSX add-ons, I would like to say yes, it will. BUT. If real progress is to be made in Flight Simulator itself, then it should not. And if we do lose that backwards compatibility, it doesn't matter, I will STILL be spending money on my favorite hobby. That won't change. The hard part is waiting for the developers to redo them for the new Flight Sim program. THAT'S PROGRESS! ;D

Mark

I'm not having a go at you boeing247. This reply is for everyone!

when microsoft flight is released you have to see first how it performs on current hardware configurations.

I remember FS9 was a hog on the pc's when it came out with very low frame rates.
When FSX came out, the same thing happened.

Flightsimulators from Microsoft have imo the intention to be run fine on future hardware configurations and have performance issues on the today's hardware.

I myself spend alot of money on addons for FSX, so for now i doubt i will move to a new flightsim. I finaly have a decent frame rate in FSX with some tweaks and like to fly in it.
With my case above, i bet alot of FS9 users have/had spend a huge amount of money to pimp up their FS9 installation and if there is no backwards compatibility, i doubt many will jump over to the new flightsim. FS9 didn't jump to FSX, so why should they jump to Microsoft Flight.

I am currently a FS9 user   8-) partly due to the fact im stuck with a laptop as my main pc  :'( i can get very good graphics on it with payware  ;) but as soon as the CS 732 comes out i am getting a new PC that can handle FSX properly  ;D
i would have liked to see FS2004 compatibility  but oh well....cant expect them to support it forever i guess :-/
8-) -jakema22

Mark wrote: Will Microsoft Flight have backwards compatibility to FSX models in the same way that FSX does to FS9? Because of the money I have paid out on FSX add-ons, I would like to say yes, it will. BUT. If real progress is to be made in Flight Simulator itself, then it should not. And if we do lose that backwards compatibility, it doesn't matter, I will STILL be spending money on my favorite hobby. That won't change. The hard part is waiting for the developers to redo them for the new Flight Sim program. THAT'S PROGRESS!

I totally agree. The pics and videos of Flight look amazing, and there will likely be that progress that you're hoping for. Hopefully, if FSX products are incompatible, CS may be able to upgrade them. (It's unlikely, but I certainly hope so.)

FS9 is too old and looks really bad by today's standards. FSX's performance is no longer an excuse (unless you can't afford a decent PC), so i see no reason to stick to FS9 now.

Last time i loaded FS9 and looked at the "sea" simulation i just pressed CTRL-C and tried to erase the image from my mind  :-?

I hope Flight will be as stunning as it looks on previews and that it makes proper use of the video card as well as multicore processors. FSX might be the best we have right now, but i wouldn't mind BETTER  ;D

With a lot of payware you can get FS9 looking very nice. If you wanted i could show you some pictures  ;) using CS payware aircraft,of course.

jakema22 wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

With a lot of payware you can get FS9 looking very nice. If you wanted i could show you some pictures  ;) using CS payware aircraft,of course.

With no payware, just a good computer, you can get FSX looking really nice too.

Anyways, like NaMc0, I'm looking forward to Flight, and I should have a new, higher-end system by the time it comes out, so I will hopefully be able to experience it in its full glory.  ;D