Everybody agrees that no version of FS ever allowed its maximum potential to be used initially, or even after the expected computer upgrades.
We went along like lambs to the slaughter, as each incarnation made our computer installation obsolete overnight.
Well here's my story, and one explanation of how Microsoft left many of its loyal band of followers behind.
You will see that only once before did my computer catch up with the sim, back in the days of FS4, after a massive 4-year period of continual tweaking.
But FS5 was such a leap ahead, that we wouldn't have thought of going back to reap the full benefit of the previous version.
They came thick and fast, all the way up to FS2002, and you just couldn't keep up, never mind Moore's Law doubling computing speed every 18 months.
We got used to the idea of just never getting to the end of the sim.
Enter FS9, and three things happened:
- The addon market exploded, which drove computer upgrades inside the life of the sim
- FS9 stayed around longer than usual, and if you'd pushed the envelope, you got to its full potential.
Even if you didn't go all the way, chances were good you got more out of this version than any other before
- The first edition of FSX was so lousy, users stopped and thought about how well the previous edition ran on their latest computer rig, and how badly by comparison ran FSX.
It took two more years to get sorted, by which time FS9 had had nearly 5 years to mature, all the while being developed and refined and tweaked into a very stable and usable platform.
In my case, stepping up to FSX would have required a downgrade in almost every aspect of the sim:
in reliability, the way it looked, and the way it performed.
The major selling point of the new sim was nullified by the fact that, in order to see the great new textures and detail, you had to crank up the settings to the point that the sim was unusable.
And, you'd need to spend a few hundred dollars on (then non-existent) addons, to make it look as good as a sorted FS9 setup.
Those that did go with the new edition simply made a conscious choice to accept fewer features, in order to see some of the benefits.
So the FSX user group does multiplayer, and GA flights, and adventures.
And are able to tout perfectly reasonable FPS figures as a result.
People wanting more features - AI, complex sceneries etc - find solace in FS9.
Intel's next chip will up the clockspeed which means by 2010 you'd be able to run FSX to your hearts content.
Mmm yeah right...Just for fun, I continued my evolutionary table into the next edition: FSXI.
If Microsoft does what it's been doing all these years, look forward to a splendid retro-sim experience by 2013.
And the cost?
Over 20 years, maybe $50,000.
This is exactly what the Wintel cartel played for...
Unless I cant count to 3.................
.. FS6 
not VISTAR 
