Could that be because it was the first one you released?
We are not *that* naive, and I'm quite able to judge sales. I was obviously not speaking about total sales only, but also sales in the same amount of time.
Anyway, it doesn't change much: Zurich is our best selling scenery, probably together with JFK and in this case, yes, JFK has sold less, but only because it has been released many months after.
So, we could say they are BOTH best sellers, with the difference that Zurich had a VERY good freeware alternative, compared to JFK that only had a very outdated commercial version. It DID NOT make ANY difference, since both sold very well and in comparable numbers. My point, exactly.
I just seems as though the FS9 versions are simply thrown together from the FSX version.
That what we always said. If we wouldn't do this, there would be no FS9 version to begin with. Would you prefer no FS9 version, instead ? What should we do more, other than openly saying that, and letting you TRY the scenery, BEFORE purchasing it ?
There are far less features yet the price is the same
As we explained, many times already, we DO NOT "take away" features from the FS9 version. What you are seeing in FSX, it's COMING FROM FSX! Should we *remove* what FSX gives us for free, just to please FS9 users ? You are getting exactly the SAME scenery as in FSX, the only thing you are missing, it's what's coming from FSX itself so, if you made the choice to use FS9, maybe you weren't that interested in those features, otherwise you would use FSX instead.
The road traffic for example, which I think is what one of the things your are referring to: we DON'T create it in the FSX version. It comes out automatically, when we draw a road! It's FSX that fills the road with traffic. The SAME road is featured in our FS9 version but, since FS9 doens't have that feature, the road is empty. But, what you are buying from US, it's just the same!
Another FSX-only feature we have in the sceneries are the user controlled animations or ParkMe. Everything is done with Simconnect, we wouldn't know how to do that without it. So, if you were able to convince Microsoft to create Simconnect for FS9, we'll gladly support it but, I doubt it will ever happen...
In fact, at every airport in the world in FS my frames are locked at 27 except for ORD and JFK. I realize that both are massive airports, but the performance in ATL, LHR, CDG, FRA and so on should be comparatively similar, however they far outperform ORD and JFK.
That's something new, you really should check better because, I can easily surpass 25 fps at JFK on FS9, and I have about 37 fps where it matters ( on the runway of course ) and way higher with KORD. So, the simple fact you are seeing JFK and KORD as being the same, leads to believe something is not right, because KORD is usually way faster, of course mainly becasue what's around the area.
The JFK area it's a very problematic one, because you have several airports very close together AND a major detailed city, that is already visible from JFK.
Users are generally very satisfied with JFK performances, considering where it is placed, and usually nobody complains about KORD!
Anyway, you are wrong comparing different airports, even if they are "large". Being large is not just the only parameter. If we put our JFK in a flat area with nothing else around for miles, like at KATL, it would be much faster than every KATL around.
So, the real question you should ask is, instead: are there other sceneries for JFK or KORD that are faster than ours ? Because, every other comparison it's just wrong.
