FSX add-ons...the lack of?

[Chris Sykes]

I not one of those that will download anything that has the FSX slapped over it... Firstly on the scenery front, thats got to be FSX for me, no FS9 stuff or pre SP1... Aircraft is another matter for me... Firstly if its a real FSX model then its a yes aslong as its one that im wanting... If its a FS9 port then its going to have to fall to good FPS and if i want it...

For instance ive got a few ports that are used regularly on my FSX for instance, the DSB Buccaneer, UKMIL's Rods and Harriers, IRIS Tornados, and last the DG Hunters... However i really am wanting only proper FSX models as they give better FPS, results and visuals in FSX.

[Tweek]

If you look at the Avsim 'Top 100', only 4 files are for FSX, the rest are general or FS2004.

To be fair, a lot of those are WoAI files, so will have been downloaded en masse. Also, they seem to work in FSX aswell, so FSX users could have also been downloading them.

But yes, on the whole, FSX addons are far and few between in comparison to those of FS2004. As people have said, it's probably development times and a new learning curve that have contributed towards this.

However, payware addons are of a much higher quality than ever before, now to the point where I'll gladly purchase many aircraft of a high standard. For FS2004, I think I bought one payware aircraft, the CS F-104, and that was only because it was about £6! Now I feel I've got a much more realistic simming experience, and as such feel that the money I shell out on aircraft is money well spent.

But it is indeed a shame that so few freeware developers have taken up the FSX challenge. There may be more work involved, but I feel there's also greater reward.

[Garry Russell]

Why the assumption that freeware developers have not moved over because the extra work involved?

I know several that would do so if they could afford to upgrade their systems.

Garry

[Tweek]

Why the assumption that freeware developers have not moved over because the extra work involved?

Because many developers have expressed their frustration with "MS moving the goalposts" (that seems to be the phrase they use, mostly) on numerous occasions.

[Garry Russell]

That was a while ago now before things settles down with the SP

It was more a couldn't because it wasn't known what was wanted rather than wouldn't

Garry

[Michael davies]

:brick:

[TSR2]

Hi Michael,

You don't need Vista or DX10 to develope models for FSX. DX10 in FSX is a Demo only, so therefore, you don't need DX10, and if you don't need DX10, then you don't need Vista either. ;-)

[Michael davies]

:brick:

[TSR2]

True Michael, but DX10 in FSX is a demo, so why bother with it? When you switch DX10 demo on, sure all that works, but everything else goes to poo. (unless your just flying the one aircraft thats DX10 capable)

[Michael davies]

:brick: