Personally I like X-Plane, but Austin just pulled a real ###### move, you flat out don't act like that in this situation. He isn't even being really even acting like a decent person.

Ok, maybe the wording could have been a little more sensitive to the plight of ACES. Its a small team so they don't have a PR department to vet every statement.There are very talented people working for Laminar Research. This blog by developer Ben Supnik makes very interesting reading about the ongoing XPlane developmenthttp://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/

Sure, MSFS and XPlane both have good and bad points. However MSFS will never get any better since FS11 has been consigned to the dustbin. In 5 years you'll be using X-Plane and FS9/FSX will just be a distant memory! :(

As been said and demonstrated in previous posts, FSX and FS9 for that matter, has a long way to go before they won't be able to be enhanced. There are a myriad of ways FS can be enhanced by 3rd party developers. Besides the obvious aircraft and scenery, new modules with new functions can can be implemented via DLL's, More external apps that link into FS via Simconnect and/or FSUIPC. New gauges etc... X-Plane seems to be the one that's limited. If it wasn't, why don't we see more advanced weather tools, a replacement ATC system. FMC's and other GPS Glass Cockpits? FS Has all these abilities and more!!

X-Plane seems to be the one that's limited. If it wasn't, why don't we see more advanced weather tools, a replacement ATC system. FMC's and other GPS Glass Cockpits? FS Has all these abilities and more!!

The answer is: because 99% of developers were developing for MSFS, that used to have 99% of the market.If there will not be an FS11, the market share of X-Plane will gradually increase and more and more developers will move to it.For example, a complete FMC has been recently developed: http://fjcc.ufmc.googlepages.com/ufmcfeaturesThough, you're right on the weather system: it's significantly more limited in X-Plane compared to FS9/FSX.I agree that it will take another, say, 2-4 years for X-Plane developers to catch FSX up with regard to: weather, AI & ATC, 3D scenery, but I'm quite confident it will happen.Marco

As been said and demonstrated in previous posts, FSX and FS9 for that matter, has a long way to go before they won't be able to be enhanced. There are a myriad of ways FS can be enhanced by 3rd party developers. Besides the obvious aircraft and scenery, new modules with new functions can can be implemented via DLL's, More external apps that link into FS via Simconnect and/or FSUIPC. New gauges etc... X-Plane seems to be the one that's limited. If it wasn't, why don't we see more advanced weather tools, a replacement ATC system. FMC's and other GPS Glass Cockpits? FS Has all these abilities and more!!

I'm talking about the "core" simulator and not 3rd party additions. The FS9/FSX core is now fixed and will never be updated. The X-plane "core" is not fixed since it is in continual development (9.30 is not far away according to dev blog). XPlane already has 3rd party products for FMC and the Garmin "trainer", and many other excellent "plugins". Sure it might take 3 or 4 years for X-plane to topple FSX but it will happen. FSX's market share can only shrink and X-Plane grow. Will you even be able to find FSX on retail shelves soon, dont think so? IMHO Laminar Research should make X-Plane a touch easier to setup for novice users and then start selling it via retailers... the combined mac/win/linux version... would do well i think!

Not that there's profound interest in my ponderings, but while attacking the weeds known as my yard today I was thinking about the "evolution of X-Plane" and whether things will play out as I believe they should.First, will there be a convergence of design philosophy? Still waiting for X-Plane to appear in my mailbox, but have looked at their forums. Certain concessions are given about features that MSFS has which X-Plane doesn't. To increase market share these differences need to be properly evaluated, analyzed and implemented. But will this melding of philosophies be met with acceptance by the existing base of X-Plane or will there be resistance? There are a lot of users running Apple equipment and some do it based upon a dislike of Microsoft. So now enters MSFS features, input from former and or current users of MSFS expressing a divergence from the X-Plane norm. How that input is met will have a direct bearing upon just how many people switch versus those that decide to remain loyal to MSFS, no matter how long in the tooth it may get.Second, if X-Plane does evolve, gain market share, forums explode with new users, addons coming out from every which place, at some point in time the business model or more specifically, the developmental model must be seriously analyzed. Will the primary developer, Austin, take a more hands on approach to running a booming company? Or is his talents more in tune to being a code-generator? If it's code based, could he or would he bring someone on board to oversee the runnings of the company? Sooner or later, being the Boss and the code-master becomes too great a responsibility. Simple business analysis and historical trends say that this is a decision that will have to be made, some where down the line.It should be interesting to watch the next few years to see how it all unfolds.

Geof, as far as I understand, you can model your aircraft with the tools included, and this will make it fly, indeed, you might want to, like in FS, trick the sim in exagerating some surfaces. Then, you can use a different 3D model for "viewing". In turn, you have an invisble 3d model for the flight, and a visible 3d model for rendering. This shall help you out this way.As for the gauges, this seems very easy (easier than FS with its XML). You take a panel, add a gauge image, add an element (like a needle) and link the needle to a sim variable (they call it dataref). That's it! easy to do your own.Of course, for advanced avionics, you'd have to wait a little longer if the default do not match, just the time for the Reality XP GNS WAAS to be released for example...From a development perspective, sure enough, I can understand it is not easy when you are used to deal with MSFT technologies like GDI+ or the FS SDK: you have much to do yourself. However, it gives you much (way much) more control.

I follow this forum from a long time and I have been simming since FS 5.1That's the first time that I feel like posting something here.A tale of two philosophiesMSFS strives to achieve the illusion of flight in a computer bycoding directly the physical effects and the feel of flight as one perceived it visually in the various views (VC, Outside etc).That not only applies to the flight model and the concomitant lookuptable but a myriad of other things like the smoke produced by the friction of tires, etc. Interestingly, and maybe in reflection of this,there's a folder in the FS main directory that is named just that "effects". X-plane strives to achieve the illusion of flight in a computerby modeling back the causes that make an aircraft fly the way it flies.So the abstraction model of reality is pushed back from the effects toat least a simulacrum of the first causes, hence the element blade theory based flight model used by x-plane to compute the envelope of flight given the geometry and physical characteristics of an aircraft, like dihedral angles, weight, power of the engine and so on. In X-plane that too not only applies to the flight model but also in such things as the modeling of friction of tires.Of course, since there's no computer power capable of simulate the whole chain of events that make a phenomena, that abstraction model must stop at some "deep" point at which you have to code directly the effects of the sources of cause that came before. I own X-plane 9.22 and I consider that maybe it have potential, but to my surprise I see in this forum people knowledgeable in X-plane saying that you have to tweak the geometry of planes by creating invisible airfoils if one want a reasonable similar with reality aircraft behaviour. If that is so, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a deep abstraction model of simulation ? What's the point in modeling the first principles or causes of flight if you have to make invisible parts of that principles, otherwise the aircraft would appear to be a monstrosity ? If you need that kind of "tweak" why not go directly to table parameter flight model ? Furthermore as I said above it is a fact that there's no enough computer power, and never will, capable of simulate the whole chain of events that make a phenomena, so that any abstraction model must stop at some "deep" point at which you have to code directly anyway. Then again why not go directly to table parameter flight model ? I also subscribe with already mentioned problems of ATC, flight modelfeeling, poor interface facilities and cockpit appearance and legibility.I will also put one of my own. X-plane is too damn dark, and I am not just talking about the aircraft reflection on the exterior view, The light model appear to be tweaked to better frame-rates and as a consequence if you want to make some VFR you have to fly at midday and in summer, and even so continue to be dark, only a little less so. I don't know how it is in a Mac, but in the PC there's is no amount of adjusting the monitor and video card capable of resolve that. At least I couldn't. In summa. yes FS9 an FSX are a very long way to be perfect. Nonetheless they seem to me on the perspective of a user, specially FSX, hundreds of thousands miles ahead of X-plane in almost all aspects with exception of the mesh that in X-plane is quite good, but I will not say superior than FSX.Sorry for the english, it's not my native tongue.

In summa. yes FS9 an FSX are a very long way to be perfect. Nonetheless they seem to me on the perspective of a user, specially FSX, hundreds of thousands miles ahead of X-plane in almost all aspects with exception of the mesh that in X-plane is quite good, but I will not say superior than FSX.

I agree FSX is ahead in several, but I think X-Plane 9.22 is ahead in these area's* Faster FPS, no stutters and no texture "blurries". Also gauge refresh rates are high and very fluid.* Superior rotor physics* Wheel physics (watch the way the gear/struts react upon landing/takeoff and bumpy runways)* Sloped runways* Lights that illuminate and not wash out the objects/ground markings they illuminate* Volumetric "fog"* Cloud shadows* Better water physics (including waves)* Flexible replay system and ability to create .MOVs* Inbuilt plane editor (including making your own custom gauges)* Better map view* Library system which makes it easy to regionalize scenery* X-Plane has better multicore support (eg for scenery loading)* Ships with 6 double side DVDs of global scenery (mesh, coastlines, roads/rail, land class etc)* probably a few more i cant think of right now...Regarding flight dynamics I think both FSX and Xplane have their pros/cons. I like the fact that x-plane attempts to simulate actual airflow over the aircraft as opposed to FSX lookup tables. I think there is potential for X-plane (version 10 maybe?) to take advantage of GPU hardware to model the physics and this will result in unparalleled fidelity in the flight dynamics.

I own X-plane 9.22 and I consider that maybe it have potential, but to my surprise I see in this forum people knowledgeable in X-plane saying that you have to tweak the geometry of planes by creating invisible airfoils if one want a reasonable similar with reality aircraft behaviour. If that is so, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a deep abstraction model of simulation ? What's the point in modeling the first principles or causes of flight if you have to make invisible parts of that principles, otherwise the aircraft would appear to be a monstrosity ? If you need that kind of "tweak" why not go directly to table parameter flight model ?

Your reasoning is absolutely right. I'll try to explain better.1) When I referred to "tweaks", I was not referring to hidden wings and things like that, but instead to small adjustments in order to match more closely the real world performance figures;2) As far as I know, the vast majority of X-Plane aircrafts does not use hidden wings or other similar gross tricks, they simply model the aircraft using the correct geometry;3) Some authors may use hidden wings, modified control geometry, or other tricks, in order to render their aircraft flight model less sensitive. BUT we have to remember that at present day no one actually ever made a qualitative analysis of the accuracy of X-Plane flight model, so the supposed over-sensitivity could be only due to the way X-Plane manages control inputs.

Furthermore as I said above it is a fact that there's no enough computer power, and never will, capable of simulate the whole chain of events that make a phenomena, so that any abstraction model must stop at some "deep" point at which you have to code directly anyway. Then again why not go directly to table parameter flight model ?

For two reasons:1. The deeper you go into the abstraction model, the better you can simulate subtle and non-linear effects;and (maybe more importantly)2. The deeper the abstraction model, the easier is for anyone to model an aircraft (you just need the geometry, airfoils and some other data and you're done).

cockpit appearance and legibility.

I just bought this Hurricane for X-Plane:

As you can see from the video, the quality of its virtual cockpit is comparable to the best MSFS 3rd party add-ons.

In summa. yes FS9 an FSX are a very long way to be perfect. Nonetheless they seem to me on the perspective of a user, specially FSX, hundreds of thousands miles ahead of X-plane in almost all aspects with exception of the mesh that in X-plane is quite good, but I will not say superior than FSX.

Woah. Hundreds of thousands of miles seems too ungenerous to me.I find the rendition of the scenery in X-Plane much more believable than MSFS. The latter to me looks much more cartoonish.Obviously MSFS has a great advantage in terms of autogen and airport detail.Marco

For two reasons:1. The deeper you go into the abstraction model, the better you can simulate subtle and non-linear effects;and (maybe more importantly)2. The deeper the abstraction model, the easier is for anyone to model an aircraft (you just need the geometry, airfoils and some other data and you're done).

For 1. Same in the table approach. As you expand the table with more data and better the code in treating the interpolation of that data the more subtle effects you simulate. Only you do this directly. Also the table parameter approach doesn't rule out non-linear effects. This should be deal in code to treat the transition between data points considering the whole of the data like mass, power etc .For 2. yes i concede this point, but only if the model function the way it purpose to function with no need for tweaks outside the claimed necessary data (geometry,mass etc)

I just bought this Hurricane for X-Plane:

As you can see from the video, the quality of its virtual cockpit is comparable to the best MSFS 3rd party add-ons.

Sorry, but at least in the video mentioned, the cockpit is too dark. There's whole cockpit segments in this video where I can't see a thing. It seems I can't fly that without squinting my eyes. It's not my computer since the outside view in the same video it's as clear as X-pane allows it to be. Now, I know that the virtual cockpit in FS9 and FSX has some light problems too, but way less than X-plane. (FSX still less so)

Woah. Hundreds of thousands of miles seems too ungenerous to me.

Not so much, maybe Mr Austin Meyer could use a x-plane to catch FSX :)

I find the rendition of the scenery in X-Plane much more believable than MSFS. The latter to me looks much more cartoonish.Obviously MSFS has a great advantage in terms of autogen and airport detail.

The impression of cartoonish look is because FSX scenery reflects more lightthan X-plane. The more shadow and "opaqueness" in X-plane gives impressionof "serious" reality by obscuring the pixels. IMHO I think that should X-plane address this overall "darkness" of the sim it would be a great step in the right direction. I hope and I am looking forward for that.Regards,Der Wanderer

For 1. Same in the table approach. As you expand the table with more data and better the code in treating the interpolation of that data the more subtle effects you simulate. Only you do this directly. Also the table parameter approach doesn't rule out non-linear effects. This should be deal in code to treat the transition between data points considering the whole of the data like mass, power etc .For 2. yes i concede this point, but only if the model function the way it purpose to function with no need for tweaks outside the claimed necessary data (geometry,mass etc)

This "which one has the better flight dynamics, MS or X-plane?" is the same kind of red herring as the "what creates lift, Bernouilli or Newton?". Both models are "correct" in allowing you to more or less represent certain aspects of flight (albeit from a different mathematical approach), and both are "wrong" because like any (mathematical) model they are a simplification of reality. It's a non-issue. Any flight model, be it in FS or X-plane, is as good or as bad as the craftmanship of its creator to work with the given tools.

Hi,A few things:"Besides the obvious aircraft and scenery, new modules with new functions can can be implemented via DLL's, More external apps that link into FS via Simconnect and/or FSUIPC. New gauges etc... X-Plane seems to be the one that's limited."What X-Plane's SDKs are capable of is not the same as what is widely commercial available via third party add-ons. The fact that there are more add-ons for MSFS doesn't mean it has a DLL interface that does more. It means that either more people are selling third party add-ons, that this audience is more aware of the MSFS products, or (as I suspect), both!So if I may, these are some things you _can_ do in X-Plane 922r1. Some of these capabilities have been in the sim for years.- You can use photos to build 2-d cockpits.- You can use plugins to access sim variables, draw popup panels, and add UI.- You can use plugins to change the weather.- You can build a mesh out of orthophotos; x-plane will 'page' the textures up and down using multiple cores - a lot of cores if you have them.Murmur is correct: the add-ons market is not about capabilities, it is about market share and units. When I talk to FS third party developers, I always hear the same question: "how many units are there out there?" If we had an SDK with capabilities not found in MSFS (and sometimes we do) it would not matter.Regarding table vs. blade theory simulation, I think people have covered the pros and cons of blade theory. I would only mention that blade theory has the potential to be predictive. A segment of X-Plane users build planes that simply don't exist in real life, and their goal is not to model existing peformance numbers as accurately as possible. This is a use that requires blade theory.The Dark UI: I am pretty sure the problem is _not_ a fundamental problem in our shaders or lighting model, but rather some kind of gamma-correction issue on Windows. I am adding this to my list of things to look at in the 930 patch.UI Usability: if you have serious comments on the usability of X-Plane's UI and time for a discussion, please email me off list. I have been steadily working at UI usability and tweak a few more things with each patch. So feedback is useful!Finally, I think MeshMan's comments on the growth and scalability of LR are spot on. MSFS and X-Plane have very different approaches not only to the sim but to the business of creating a flight simulator; those approaches are natural for their relative size. X-Plane is possible because of its size, and MSFS is possible because of its size.cheersben

Let me preface my comment by saying I have not yet downloaded X-Plane yet. Aside from the comments made on both sides, all seemingly valid from either perspective, I often wonder why we are as tribal about our favourite sim as is evidenced by the 4 pages above.Rather than knock the "opposition" I would have thought given the relatively low adoption by the major developers of either flavour of sim, one would encourage people to partake in the hobby, not discourage one from trying the "other" sim. More unbelievably, one reason being given is that the Owner/developer has engaged in "smart**** publicity" whatever that may be??? How childish, surely we can rise above that??Anyhow, what is it with the 3 - 4 props windmilling in each video of an X-Plane aircraft? Is this a limitation of the sim or is it just the aircraft developers do not believe in clear spinning disks? Or is my version of the suspension of disbelief somewhat misplaced.Here's to a long future of many enjoyable hours of simming, regardless of which sim you support.Cheers,

This "which one has the better flight dynamics, MS or X-plane?" is the same kind of red herring as the "what creates lift, Bernouilli or Newton?". Both models are "correct" in allowing you to more or less represent certain aspects of flight (albeit from a different mathematical approach), and both are "wrong" because like any (mathematical) model they are a simplification of reality. It's a non-issue. Any flight model, be it in FS or X-plane, is as good or as bad as the craftmanship of its creator to work with the given tools.

The bottom line, is that I've flown real aircraft for a long time, and flown desktop simulations since the invention. At this point in time, my preferencefor both "feel" and "reaction" goes to models for MSFS; and especially those created by RealAir Simulations. Rob Young (RealAir) started by re-programming aircraft for FLY many years ago. Since that time, he went all out in creating advanced rudder control to make slips very authentic. This also allowed simulated aircraft the ability to do snap rolls, tailslides, knife edge, etc. And at the same time, we got spins, secondary spins, and recoveries. These simulated airplanes have won many awards, and have received very positive feedback from even pilots who flew WWII fighters.RealAir's effect of torque, propeller slip stream, P-factor, and power to weight in the WWII Spitfire is "unbeatable" anywhere. These planes are truly delightful to feel the effects of required rudder on takeoff, or power management during the landings. I just have not seen or used any X-Plane creation that can comes anywhere close. For judgement purposes, I've flown aerobatic routines in the Pitts S2B, North American P-51D Mustang, and Marchetti SF260(note: the P-51, just a passenger, as a friend owned one)L.Adamson

For 1. Same in the table approach. As you expand the table with more data and better the code in treating the interpolation of that data the more subtle effects you simulate. Only you do this directly. Also the table parameter approach doesn't rule out non-linear effects. This should be deal in code to treat the transition between data points considering the whole of the data like mass, power etc .

True in theory, but in the case of the lookup table, the deeper you go with the complexity of the table, the more difficult and awkward it becomes both for the programmer to develop the flight model, and more importantly for the final aircraft designer to "fill in" the required data.While in the case of a higher astraction approach, the opposite is true.

For 2. yes i concede this point, but only if the model function the way it purpose to function with no need for tweaks outside the claimed necessary data (geometry,mass etc)

Yes, you're right. But obviously, as of today, not even the most complex full CFD codes can obtain 100% accuracy in every flight condition, so a certain degree of "tweak" is to be expected anyway, even in professional applications!So the point is, how much tweak can be considered acceptable? If X-Plane would yield, say, a 90% accuracy, that would be a good result, and easily tweakable to match real world performance figures; while, say, a 70% or less accuracy would probably be unacceptable. What's X-Plane accuracy in normal flight regimes? I don't know.I know that in post stall conditions, X-Plane flight model is currently quite poor (without using tweaks), and MSFS lookup tables have an advantage in that their data can be directly modified to yield expected results.

Sorry, but at least in the video mentioned, the cockpit is too dark. There's whole cockpit segments in this video where I can't see a thing. It seems I can't fly that without squinting my eyes. It's not my computer since the outside view in the same video it's as clear as X-pane allows it to be. Now, I know that the virtual cockpit in FS9 and FSX has some light problems too, but way less than X-plane. (FSX still less so)

Oh ok, I thought you were talking about the graphical quality of the cockpit and gauges, not the lighting.Yes I agree, the lighting in X-Plane is too dull, there have been numerous complaints on the forums about that.I hope developers will tackle it soon.

The impression of cartoonish look is because FSX scenery reflects more lightthan X-plane. The more shadow and "opaqueness" in X-plane gives impressionof "serious" reality by obscuring the pixels.

Mmm... IMHO the difference is not due to shadow (or at least not only). In any case, I find the X-Plane rendering/lighting of the scenery more believable than FSX, in spite of the excessive dullness of the lighting that, I agree, should be corrected.Marco

Rob Young (RealAir) started by re-programming aircraft for FLY many years ago. Since that time, he went all out in creating advanced rudder control to make slips very authentic. This also allowed simulated aircraft the ability to do snap rolls, tailslides, knife edge, etc. And at the same time, we got spins, secondary spins, and recoveries. These simulated airplanes have won many awards, and have received very positive feedback from even pilots who flew WWII fighters.

I'm not arguing with you on that. But what would happen if Rob Young tried his hands on X-plane? Are you saying that Rob couldn't reproduce all of the above within X-plane, because of some intrinsic limitations of the blade model? Mind you, I recall very well that Rob during the heydays of Fly! wasn't at all pleased with the way FS handled flight modeling.