Austin (X-Plane) writes about MSFS

[guenseli 1,606]

Of course X-Plane has its advantages...And one BIG advantage af MSFS is the huge community and the addon developers.Comparing naked(!) MSFS and X-Plane will smaller MSFSs advance . . . but it still has a clear advance.But apart from this, Austins behaviour reminds me of the behaviour of any MAC-User.They all sit on their 5% market share computers and sqwak that their nearly double expensive machines are the best of the world.I think with MSFS and X-Plane its the same with Windows and MAC: the hole world uses windows, but a small minority think it will be better and cooler as the rest.But more MAC doesn't mean computers... its just IPhones and Ipods and all the gadgets...ok, but apart from my polemic above, I admit Austins effort with X-Plane...Maybe one day will come when X-Plane reaches the status of a real competition to MSFS...

[JMEppright 3]

Suppose we had never been told about the closing of ACES and the cancellation of a never-officially-announced FSvNext?Would we really be in any different position than we are now? All we knew was that if there was going to be an "FS11," we couldn't possibly expect to see it released until at least late Q4 of 2010.Now I know that there wasn't even any "Alpha" code yet for FSvNext. A lot of pre-planning had been done, and the advances being made for TS2 were widely announced. It was likely that much of what was going to be in TS2 would have also been incorporated into any future FSvNext......but aside from that there was nothing but sheer conjecture that any FSvNext would ever be announced officially, much less released.So again I ask, how would the situation really be any different? We still don't know if - or when - any future FS will be produced.From my perspective, nothing is different at all. Freeware and Commercial modelers will continue to support FS9 and/or FSX as they see fit, irrespective of any possible future FS release.Good grief! There are still folks (admittedly few) who're producing FS98 models! ;D

Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention. My prayer is that the individual FSX programmers are sought out by aftermarket developers or better yet start enterprizes of their own. As for economic stimulus, I had previously thought I'd wait to upgrade to I7 equipment until the next FS version came out. That excuse just evaporated so maybe planning and spending will ensue :-)

[LAdamson 240]

I own X-Plane 8 & 9 in addition to FS9/FSX; and every MSFS sim before them.IMO, Austin Meyer and X-Plane has always been about hype. If the the flight models were better than MSFS about 15 years ago, then the airplaneslooked like toilet paper rolls with wings. I just wasn't that impressed, to get serious with the sim. These day's X-Plane hypes itself with the longstanding"myth", that it's blade element flight models are superior! Just throw the specs into plane maker, and out comes a true life replica.............at least they say!But in reality, the planes are too twitchy, so you tone down the sliders; waaaaaaaaaay down!. Then you notice a distinct lack of inertia, dampening, and weight to power. In other words, my senses don't tell me that I'm flying a little pea shooter or a 747. FS9/FSX on the other hand, seems to, quite well. I really compare X-Plane to operating a puppet on a string. The nose always seems to pitch up or descend as if directly linked to the stick/yoke.But getting past the "feel", the flight model should be correct.................right? Well not really! Many planes don't roll inverted without really getting screwed up! They might balloon with flaps, when the actual aircraft pitches down. Slipping and spinning isn't near as good as what I get with RealAir type flight dynamics for FS9/FSX. When the plane pops out of plane maker, you usually can't count on the "numbers" such as airspeeds being correct either. The planes need some black magic such as invisible surfaces to get close. Basically, an X-Plane model needs a programmer with a lot of experience, just like MSFS to get good flight models. Just don't count on the "blade element theory" as an easy way of making a predicatable and realistic model.So..........................How do I feel about X-Plane as a flying simulator? Well, it does seem smooth and fluid! It's kind of like a magic carpet ride, I suppose!I believe that many people think it has superior flight dynamics at first glance, just because of this fluid smoothness. And then you throw in it's default twitches to simulate turbulence I suppose. But real airplanes are not like this. You can get many, many hours of smooth air & don't need to be knocked around a lot. Since I never seem to get "feel" from X-Plane; I just basically don't like it for sim flights. About five minutes at a time, is all I can stand! For me, it's the topography of the global discs that interest me. They are actually quite good, with a lot of elevation data points. For $39, you can't beat them!But all in all, X-Plane is still years behind MSFS. Most airports are nothing but runways, the navigation systems such as GPS and FMS are very simple, and the 3D cockpits are seldom close to MSFS standards. Will many MSFS developers jump to X-Plane to raise Austins ego..............I doubt it. He already seems to have enough money to do about any thing he wants. I don't believe he deserves MSFS third party developers to make a sim, that he already thinks he has!...L.Adamson

[MatthewS 761]

I will gladly welcome any developer who can even closely match the quality and functionality of MSFS, but that is still a long way off in my opinion.

I would say the "quality and functionality" of MSFS is due to 3rd party developers more than the "core" MSFS product itself. The default planes in MSFS are not very good. But when you buy something like PMDG MD11X then its high quality experience.I think 3rd party devs might discover that X-Plane is a powerful / and maybe less restrictive "platform" than MSFS. For example, I read that in 9.22 Austin added support for 16 separate instrument dimmer "controllers" and spotlights, which means 3d cockpits can have 16 separately lit groups of controls, sort of like what PMDG has with the MD11X.

[Guest Mower]

XPlane is NOT going to supplant FSX.There are too many quality payware add-ons for FSX and didly sh*t for XPlane. Like the PMDG MD-11.Frankly, XPlane is for beginners.

[maxter 0]

I see nothing wrong with the above text by Laminar Research. This was posted on their website not on this forum. They are obviously within their rights to claim that X-Plane is the best simulator. As to the inclusion of "empathy" clause for laid off workers, give me break, this was text directed at the customer, how often when one airline goes belly up with layoffs you see competitors include empathy on their websites, or for that matter in any other industry. Lack of such language doesn't imply someone is insensitive. This is not a funeral procession. The problem is over-analysis of such texts and desire to find flaws and crticize.

Thanks Michael, once again how dare you inject a sense of reality, balance and perspective into the discussion, rather than hysteria and hyperbole... Isn't it interesting to watch tribalism at it's vicious best.Cheers mate,

[MatthewS 761]

XPlane is NOT going to supplant FSX.There are too many quality payware add-ons for FSX and didly sh*t for XPlane. Like the PMDG MD-11.Frankly, XPlane is for beginners.

Sure, FSX will most likely have a larger user base for the next couple of years.Check out this upcoming freeware X-Plane 777 by XPJets. Amazing!777 exterior screenshots777 3D Cockpit screenshotsEngine spoolup and reversers videoedit: OMG! checkout the detail of these 777 Landing gear

[Geofa 108]

I totally second Larry's opinion.I have bought a few xplane's in my time and was really into it briefly in the 1990'sI bought one a year or so ago and downloaded the demo 2 nights ago to check it to see if much had changed.I agree with Larry totally. Felt like a step back several years in lots of ways.It is very smooth-but then so many things are limited compared to fsx and if you turn them up you can get its' performance down pretty good.Just look at the visibility in the demo-limit fsx's and see what you get (an often missed performance enhancer).The part I can't live with are the flight dynamics. Some areas of the envelope seem a little better but the basic feel of the aircraft is not there, and I haven't found power settings etc. are close. I think too many equate smoothness with flight model-the two are not even close. The "smoothness" almost feels like there are no controls at all-I have the iphone version and it is the same-but I don't expect much of an iphone.I also can't live with most of the cockpit instrumentation-both the looks and functionality.As far as the default fs aircraft being bad-I can't agree. To me they are leagues above. They aren't perfect but nothing is.With all that in mind I will probably buy the latest incarnation of xplane again, because I like to support flight simming and since this may be the only game in town perhaps increased revenue will improve the product.

[bkeske 0]

OMG!

Alright, now you are starting to sound like Austin :(

[wcschulz3 18]

I do agree that a little empathy in the letter would have gone a long way. Having said that I am equally impressed that X-Plane has progressed to the level it is at now (it does show a lot of potential) and this coming from a team of coders probably smaller than most of the big FS payware addon companies.

Just a few comments. I'm a business professor (I teach entrepreneurship and strategy at the MBA and doctoral level), and want to approach this discussion from that perspective.I, for one, think that we should be quite astonished that Austin, and a very small team, have been able to build a viable and engaging flight simulator (that can be used in the proper configuration with hardware for FAA approved training), in the face of what was a huge, monolithic MS presence in the market. Sure, Austin may not have the best social grace, but very few truly great entrepreneurs (including Bill Gates, Steven Jobs) succeed because they are modest, humble, and not willing to sell their product.I've come to love both FSX (now that I have a new rig) and X-Plane, and have been importing scenery into X-Plane and enhancing panels and sounds of beautiful external models (that also fly very well), for a few months now. When conditions are IFR, I think X-Plane is far superior, while FSX is much better for VFR and for "traffic intensive" environments (which I also enjoy).Each major iteration of X-Plane has, indeed, been leaps in improvement--whereas the movement in the FS line has been very modest. If people try, and support the development of X-Plane moving forward, I think you'd be stunned at what a small, entrepreneurial, creative free-enterprise outfit can do. The MS franchise had become land-locked in a huge corporate bureaucracy that just months ago everyone was lamenting.We should be rooting for the upstart, brash entrepreneur. Austin will smooth out his social skills one day, but for now he's passionately engaged in a battle to build the world's best flight simulator--and a major "opponent" has just been vanquished (by suicide, it appears). So, he's earned the right to assure folks that he's taking the flag and continuing to run up-hill. I'll be running right with him as a customer.

[maxter 0]

Sure, FSX will most likely have a larger user base for the next couple of years.Check out this upcoming freeware X-Plane 777 by XPJets. Amazing!777 exterior screenshots777 3D Cockpit screenshotsEngine spoolup and reversers videoedit: OMG! checkout the detail of these 777 Landing gear

That's pretty darn impressive Matt, thanks a lot for posting those links.As with everything else, there is a certain critical mass required before things can really takeoff. I think that conceptually X-Plan probably has a greater potential thank the current iteration of MSFS, however this has not been taken up by the community. The next couple of years or so will be critical to its success. Let's see what the community can do to raise the X-P bar. I am sure that I will be willing to give it a try if people like Carenado would create their little masterpieces for X-P with all the added potential for systems modelling that X-P has.Cheers and thanks again,

[pontiuspilotus 6]

Sure, FSX will most likely have a larger user base for the next couple of years.Check out this upcoming freeware X-Plane 777 by XPJets. Amazing!777 exterior screenshots777 3D Cockpit screenshotsEngine spoolup and reversers videoedit: OMG! checkout the detail of these 777 Landing gear

Have you tried Tim's new MU-2 MatthewS? (http://www.x-scenery.com). Great 3D cockpit and exterior model. That 777 though is looking really good!

[ahuimanu 50]

Edit: More to the point, Austin should apologize publically for this rude and insensitive statement. Either that or be ready to receive TONS of hate mail.

Gee, I dunno... he said this stuff in the "privacy" of his own "home" over at his own website. The OP decided to bring it here for public ridicule. Mr. Meyers feels like he has an opportunity and said so, on his own site.In any case, I agree with else who say X-Plane != MSFS.I've tried both and there is NO comparison: MSFS > X-Plane by far.

[Guest garwig2]

For those who have tried both sims, What features does a clean install of FSX have that X-Plane does not? I hear that X-Plane does not have AI planes?Does it have ATC? How does it compare?-Gary

[michal 44]

What features does a clean install of FSX have that X-Plane does not? I hear that X-Plane does not have AI planes?Does it have ATC? How does it compare?

Avsim has a pretty good review of the latest X-Plane. I think if you read in its entirety many things will be clear in terms of features. Also it is not a matter of "counting" features rather evaluating qualitatively many aspects of the sim.