Will the 767 be available for FS2004?
Thank you

They should make a FS2004 version, that's if they want to make more profit from this add-on (767). FSX is up and running but the majority is running it due to peer pressure from developers. With this economy, I doubt we can update our PC's to run FSX.

-Don't forget about the little people.

I'm curious, why has Captain Sim chosen to stop developing for FS9?
With Microsoft terminating MSFS completely, I believe it has practically put FS9 and FSX on an equal level.


I have purchased almost all of Captain Sim's aircraft to use in both FS9 and FSX. �In fact I purchased the 727 for FSX first and liked it so much that I recently purchased the version for FS9 and love it too.

Both have their advantages and I use both interchangeably.
FS9 runs silky smooth and FSX runs pretty smooth, but looks much better graphically.
I'm sure with the importance Captain Sim puts into awesome graphics, FSX fits the ticket better. �On the other hand Captain Sim's releases for FS9 also look fantastic.

I also expect X-Plane to be putting out some mind numbing accurate releases within the next year or so too.
From what I understand, X-Plane is very developer friendly and may be something for CS to look at with some seriousness also.


At any rate, I am very excited about Captain Sim deciding to make a 767-300 for FSX, because I know it will be like no other, but I can assure you that if one was also offered for FS9, it would be on my computer and many others also.

Oh well. Looks like I will not purchase another CS product.

James F. Chams wrote on Jul 7^th, 2009 at 11:45pm:


You gotta link?? If I cant max out graphics, and get at least 40FPS, forget it. I am not impressed even with the high end systems.  FSX transition has been officially pushed back to summer 2010. I have lever d 767 so I can wait it out. Too bad though for CS, they can still make money on an FS9 version.

The time of FS9 has come and gone.  Those who wish to live in the past are going to increaqsingly pay a price for that.  With the Aces team disbanded and FS development stalled, hardware is catching up.  I support the decision among developers to not waste resources on this old platform any longer.

Let me guess ...

this has turned into another one of those FS9 vs. FSX "Yet Another Pointless Discussions" ....

You FS9 guys really love to argue your point endlessly ... Are any of you lawyers?  I could use another good lawyer. 

I agree,

Why not for FS9? Doh, it's an old version, why spend time and money developing for an old horse that only a handful of people use.

Get a new computer. I bet you guys are using Windows 95 too. 

Yes, FS9, AKA FS 2004, so coded in 2002-3.  Old by gaming standards.  Very old.  To expect new products to support or work on that decrepid old platform is ludicrous and delusional.

Well, at least if I revew this 7-7 no one can complain that I didn't cover the FS9 version!

I would rather see developers put effort into one platform, honestly.  And it isn't like FS9 is hurting for good add-ons.  If anything, there's more available for them than us.

hochwang wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 9:32am:



Clearly Both you and James Chams have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

To this day there is no computer in the world that can run FSX maxed out with airliners in a densely populated area in IFR conditions at 40+ FPS.

Show me one computer that can do it and i will be convinced.

FS9 is the one and only usable airliner simulator and that's it.

If you like to fly VFR GA aircraft at nice scenic areas, then �FSX is for you, but if you want to fly the heavy birds around the Globe, FS9 is the best sim.

Anyone who claims different is in complete denial.


But if Captainsim have stopped supporting and developing for FS9, then i am no longer a Captain Sim customer. So with those words i would like to say thank you to the CS team for providing excellent addons for FS9 and wish you he best of luck in the future.

I don't think people appreciate how smooth 15 fps is in FSX (although I always get more than that) compared to FS9, and how good things look with the sliders far from all the way to the right. �And actually, you can run nearly every slider all the way to the right, see Nick's setup guide. �I use REX with 100% clouds for a skyfull and Traffic X at 50-70%. �You have to use some common sense and make compromises for certain premium products but it is nowhere nearly as dire as you think. aal is right: the days of "needing" anywhere near 40 fps are long gone with FSX.

Having said that, I'm glad you're happy with your platform and it is indeed a good one for big iron.  Without a CS767 is just became a little less good, though.

James F. Chams wrote on Jul 9^th, 2009 at 6:23am:


Such a childish remark James! Never in the history of Flight Simulator and I should know ( I've been using it since it;s inception), �has there been such a lack of customer support in the community and by developers (Captain Sim in this case but not necessarily the only one....there are a few others) �Over the last 4-5 years that I migrated to FS9 (I always upgraded to a newer version of FS) I have spent Thousands...yes literary thousands of dollars on products from many developers (Scenery and Aircraft) for my Sim... And I don't like FSX!!!! And, �where in the past it has never been a problem because developers continued to make aircraft that worked in both the newer version of the Sim and the previous, they have now suddenly decided not to do it....WHY?

Are you trying to insinuate that because you have chosen to use FSX that the entire Universe has to follow in your foot steps? The fact you don't seem to understand is, that there are tens of thousands of users who regardless of what you and those like minded people out there think regarding FSX....It was and continues to be a disappointing version of FS that did not meet expectations and not worth throwing my hard earned money away for....

Most of those that speak so highly of FSX are first time simmers or never really invested in any previous Flight Sim, thus making it easier to switch. I can see that for those that have moved over to the slide show are happy and I'm more the happier for it. Especially those that claim that 10-15 frames is smooth ( full scenery 'another company' 747 at 'FSDT' KJFK with all the traffic in the world and 33FPS...Now that's smooth and something you can actually enjoy a 6 hour flight on) ....But that is no reason to put anyone down for suggesting a FS9 version of a particular product, especially if they are customers!!

Anyways, since I get the 'News letter' from CS whenever something new is released....I would like to ask....Will you be releasing a CS 727 (the updated version) and the new 767 for your very loyal yet reluctant FS9 customers?


Frank Severino
Part-time painter....

Tim Capps wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 12:16am:


almost 3 years have passed since FSX was launched, after three years it should run flawlessly with everything maxed. There should be no need whatsoever to compromise anything in FSX by now, but that's not how it is unfortunately..

Microsoft and ACES screwed up big time on this flightsim, and i simply can't understand why anyone would run a highly complex airliner in FSX at EGLL with rain, fog and alot of ai traffic in FSX.

You will only get a slideshow with maximin 2-5 fps even with today's top end hardware, where in FS9 you get 40+ FPS with no problem.

And Hammer: thinking you can run IFR and heavy airliners in FSX with all settings maxed is denial. FS9 does the job flawlessly, FSX simply don't. It doesen't matter how old a product is, what really matters is how good it works.

Also FSX don't work wery well in today's technical climate as it can't take full advantage of either multi-cores or SLI. Only clock speed can help performance on it, just like in FS9.. so FSX is indeed based on an 8 years old (if not older) platform.

The latest isn't always the greatest, and FSX is a prime example of that.. it's an epic failure for IFR and heavy Iron flyers.

15-20 FPS in FSX is actually smooth for the most part so tha is a point,

Yeah I know FSX is not coded to use thye GPU properly, blame that on either lazy programming or attempts to stay backwards compatable.

You see, it is statements like "you can't fly heavy aircraft in FSX" and "I need 40+ fps to be flyable" that are just not credibilty enhancing.  Generally, if you want to argue, you get further by coming within shouting distance of reality.

There are ways to get good performance in FSX and fly heavy airplanes any way you want, but it would obviously be a waste of time to discuss them in this thread, which is indeed pointless, or, rather, has a point that is a waste of time for most people.

*Yaaaaaaaaawnnnn*

IMHO it's a good thing that ACES is shut down. �They werent gonna fix FSX anymore, instead moving onto FS11, and so now the hardware can catch up to FSX.

Flight sim is a hobby for many of us. �Hobbies usually require money for upkeep etc.

Anyone who denegrates the FS activity by calling it just an $80 game is disqualifying and discrediting themselves from having an opinionn we need to hear.

So please find a cheaper hobby and quit trying to hold the rest of us back. 'Cause that's what happens when developers feel compelled to waste resources on a 8 year old decrepid sim.

[quote author=Hammer link=1246585581/30#34 date=1247917491]
Anyone who denegrates the FS activity by calling it just an $80 game is disqualifying and discrediting themselves from having an opinionn we need to hear.
quote]

Well guess what its not always "STOP HAMMER TIME" in the real world.

Not sure what "FS Dream World" your living in but it obviously doesnt cost you much in the way of hard earned dollars. Im sure your parents will get you the next latest and greatest PC.

Your attitude alludes to not really appreciating a the value the dollar. But thats just and observation.

FS is a GAME and a HOBBY belive it or not, a Hobby that cost money.

Not everyone has an abundance of desposable income as you "must" have.

And to say that anyones opinion is invalid due to what is reality only goes to prove your living in said "Dream World".

It appears when logic and facts are brought into play that your true inabilty to be constructive shines through.

Whats next swearing ???...

When you actually want to debate the prospect of an FS9 release instead of just telling others to do this or that or "get over" or "move on" or similar, then please reply with some validity yourself.

Cant see that happening any time in the future to be honest.

For everyone else that runs FS9 we can only hope or go elsewhere.

Let's skip the FS2004 vs FSX debate, it's not even relevant.

I have both, and also have the CS 707, 727 and 757 for FS2004. I've been using MSFS since FS2 and I don't like losing planes/scenery when upgrading. Not all my addons work in FSX, nor do they have replacements and this includes the CS 707! For that reason I'm sticking with FS2004 as my main sim for now.

Point is there is still plenty of interest in FS2004 so I would ask CS to reconsider releasing an FS2004 version of the 767, possibly even with reduced functionality compared to the FSX version if need be. I don't see how this would set back FSX users in any way: the FSX version is already available.

I think it's pointless to continue this thread as Captain sim aint listening and secondly I would like to ask "why are fs9 users holding back fs10 users? seems like a rather dumb and totally incorrect  statement to me.