Yes! This commitment is demonstrated by them releasing a major new version almost every year, and several updates during the year. Unlike the Microsoft approach of once every 3 years (and what would have been 5 years in the case of FSX to FS11). Ok. Are you using 9.22 because they made lots of panel improvements in version 9. Version 8 is not as powerful panel wise.

Yes-9.22...

Yes! This commitment is demonstrated by them releasing a major new version almost every year, and several updates during the year. Unlike the Microsoft approach of once every 3 years (and what would have been 5 years in the case of FSX to FS11).

And, that's not always good...Yes, X-Plane does release new versions and many updates. Unfortunately, these "every few months" updates often screw up 3rd party airplanes and scenery. This is a fact! And as long as that is happening every few months, 3rd party developers might be somewhat hesitant to participate. Many of the 3rd party people I've worked with for MSFS products will spend many months or even years developing one product. L.Adamson

Look Geofa,If you need help with your first steps in X-plane you can either do that in the X-Plane forum here (difficult to find and not wel read) or you register on www.x-plane.org. Post in a few threads there, read a few FAQ's and eventualy post the questions you still have in a new thread.

Someone made the comment the other day, at X-Plane org..............that a lot of participants seem to be "Austin worshipers". I suppose the context of the post was good natured enough, that it didn't get censored or eliminated. As to my self, I'm on X-Plane org's censored list. Anything I say, has to be reviewed by a moderator. If I even mention RealAir in the "other flightsims column", the thread will be locked. Of course the moderator does a "put down" of RealAir in comparison to X-Plane..............first, before locking the thread. Kind of reminds me of that movie, called the "Village". L.Adamson

And, that's not always good...Yes, X-Plane does release new versions and many updates. Unfortunately, these "every few months" updates often screw up 3rd party airplanes and scenery. This is a fact! And as long as that is happening every few months, 3rd party developers might be somewhat hesitant to participate. Many of the 3rd party people I've worked with for MSFS products will spend many months or even years developing one product.

Someone already posted here addressing this... The changes are usually minor and easily addressed by 3rd party devs.It's better that X-Plane continue to evolve and improve rather than stagnate out of fear of breaking compatibility with old versions.Of course no one ever need worry about FS11 breaking compatibility with FSX/FS9 since the FS11/TS2/ESP2 platform has been scraped by Microsoft and will never evolve.

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.

Once Rob got into the workings of MSFS, he found that he could do a lot more than he expected. And as it is, his models created for MSFS are now known around the world as the best yet, in terms of flight modeling. He also does the flight models for several other 3rd party developers. And as a side note, the MSFS models such as the Decathalon worked better aerobatically that they did for FLY. Something that always bugged me about FLY, was the delay between adding in spin inputs to the actual spin. The break needed to be very fast, but FLY gave you about two or three seconds to think aboutit. I've done a lot of real world spin/recoveries including inverted. The models for MSFS are not perfect regarding spins/recovery, but they are still the best.L.Adamson

I think he is speaking of the default panels that don't work in a 1920x1200 resolution....I spent all day working on a custom panel-so far the same limitations as when I did one before. I'll keep at it though.

Geofa - X-Plane supports native panels at any res between 1024x1024 and 2048x2048. It will zoom a panel as long as the aspect ratio i adequate. So...- Try the default P-180. Does it not fill your 1920 x 1200 monitor?- If the panel you are working on is 1920 x 1200 and does not fill the 1920x1200 monitor, PM me and I will take a look at your files...the sim can definitely do these large sizes - I wrote the code!Now if you run the P-180 at 1920x1200, you're going to see some ugly chunky artifacts in 922...this is because the panel is only 1600x1200 or so, and thus must be scaled up. The scaling is nearest neighbor (read: fugly) in 922, but will be bilinear in 930, so once 930 goes through beta, the P180 should look good.One last note on panel sizes...the issue with the king-air panel you posted is two-fold:1. Obviously, it's a 1024x1024 panel, so it needs to be redone to really look good.2. X-Plane has limits to how much it will zoom a panel..this isn't a function of the quality of scaling (which is bad in 920 and will be decent in 930) - it's a question of usability. If you have a square panel that's about 1/3 window and you zoom it onto a 2:1 aspect ratio screen, you can't see much out the window and still see the six-pack. We've been debating this with our users, but we may end up allowing more zoom, which will plug the "gaps" on the side of the panel.

Yes, X-Plane does release new versions and many updates. Unfortunately, these "every few months" updates often screw up 3rd party airplanes and scenery. This is a fact!

I put an immense amount of care and effort into making sure that third party scenery does _not_ get broken during updates, whether they are free patches or paid upgrades to the next major version. I tell scenery authors: if a new version breaks scenery that worked on an existing version, they should report a bug to me, so I can fix the compatibility problem.cheersben

I am one of those that buys X-Plane but never installs it (the demo is enough). I have bought a copy since V7 (right after I bought FS for the first time) in support of XPL. Being a Mac user, I really want to like XPL. I used MSFS for about a year before getting to fly an actual plane. When I took off in the Varga I got exactly what I expected. There we no surprises to me in the way the plane handled. The pilot was very impressed with my skills.If I had used only xplane, I would have thought that when I pull back on the stick I would get a tail strike, then the nose pitches up so high to get the stall warning, then smashing my front gear back on the runway trying to get it under control, etc etc etc. I jest a little. I realize this has more to do with my joystick, but it works damn fine in FS and I have wasted enough time trying to tweak it. There also seems to be a problem with "that inertia feeling". For me, xplane is unusable and I don't really care to get it to work. My frustration limit has already been exceeded with X-Plane.I am hoping that Austin can deliver a product that I can enjoy within the next year or so, because right now I just don't dig it. I will keep buying it but never installing it. Waste of hard drive space. Scott

Geofa - X-Plane supports native panels at any res between 1024x1024 and 2048x2048. It will zoom a panel as long as the aspect ratio i adequate. So...- Try the default P-180. Does it not fill your 1920 x 1200 monitor?- If the panel you are working on is 1920 x 1200 and does not fill the 1920x1200 monitor, PM me and I will take a look at your files...the sim can definitely do these large sizes - I wrote the code!Now if you run the P-180 at 1920x1200, you're going to see some ugly chunky artifacts in 922...this is because the panel is only 1600x1200 or so, and thus must be scaled up. The scaling is nearest neighbor (read: fugly) in 922, but will be bilinear in 930, so once 930 goes through beta, the P180 should look good.One last note on panel sizes...the issue with the king-air panel you posted is two-fold:1. Obviously, it's a 1024x1024 panel, so it needs to be redone to really look good.2. X-Plane has limits to how much it will zoom a panel..this isn't a function of the quality of scaling (which is bad in 920 and will be decent in 930) - it's a question of usability. If you have a square panel that's about 1/3 window and you zoom it onto a 2:1 aspect ratio screen, you can't see much out the window and still see the six-pack. We've been debating this with our users, but we may end up allowing more zoom, which will plug the "gaps" on the side of the panel.I put an immense amount of care and effort into making sure that third party scenery does _not_ get broken during updates, whether they are free patches or paid upgrades to the next major version. I tell scenery authors: if a new version breaks scenery that worked on an existing version, they should report a bug to me, so I can fix the compatibility problem.cheersben

Yes-the 180, 172 and f4 fill the screen but look very blurry. The default jet does not fill the screen.I understand the image size problem (a limitation of gl?) but fs users are used to running in different resolutions so I expect this will come somewhat as a shock.

Yes-the 180, 172 and f4 fill the screen but look very blurry. The default jet does not fill the screen.I understand the image size problem (a limitation of gl?) but fs users are used to running in different resolutions so I expect this will come somewhat as a shock.

Wait -- there is _not_ an image size problem. The 2-d panel can be 2048x2048 pixels in its largest size. I think most users are running at a res that is smaller than that, or at least don't expect their 2-d panels to be larger than 2k x 2k without scaling. The OpenGL limit on images is 4096 on a side, and X-Plane's limit on images is 2048x2048 per side. (Where this would be a real limit, like in airplane exterior textures and orthophotos ,we allow the use of multiple textures to throw even more pixels at it.)I was under the impression from your post that you had not been able to fill the screen with your panel. My point here is that the default fleet is not showing off the full capability of the sim, so third party authors who are asking the question "what can X-Plane do" should base their answers on the actual system capabilities, not samples of existing planes. Same thing regarding photo-based panels - the sim _can_ do this, even if some of the planes don't.The F-4 is a different creature: it uses a front-view of the 3-d cockpit when you are in "2-d" mode...this is one of many authoring options a plane author can pick. So if the F-4 looks blurry, you just need to turn up the tex res, which defaults to pretty low in the default settings for users with lesser video cards.If the C172 fills the screen in 2-d, that surprises me - it should not in the current version because it is a square panel and you have a large monitor.cheersben

Well, I wouldn't count out the majors jumping ship or at least catering for both/all three platforms in the future...What's next for Microsoft FS?It certainly would be great if a Rob Young or a Steve Small would put their prodigious talents towards a X-Plane product just to see what the platform is capable of. The reason I suggested these two names is that they are known quantities and have produced some exceptional results in the world of flight modelling. But then again the methodology by which X-P does it's stuff is different so I wonder if it would be a fair comparison?Cheers,

"My point here is that the default fleet is not showing off the full capability of the sim" Most fs'ers who will try the demo (including myself) will of course try the default planes-they are what the program comes with... is it unreasonable that one would expect the default included planes to show what the sim is capable of? Fs'ers are used to running the sim with many resolutions, windowed , full screen, and multiple monitors. Many have monitors much larger than mine-mine is two years old and a common monitor/size. Perhaps this is a windows/mac thing?I have the texture res's maxed but it appears the panels that can stretch are done in a lower res than my screen resolution-thus stretching to my monitor size causes blurriness, and the ones that are incapable of stretching stay in their resolution and are sharper-but too small-thus the picture of the twin above. Yes-the built in capability may be there-but a good deal of simmers don't expect to have to tweak from the start and I at least think it would be a reasonable expectation from users that the default planes should work from the start on the wide variety of setups out there-at least we are used to that with fs/windows environment. I have never had to redo a default fs plane so that it would display properly- in any resolution.To be honest-I like many would prefer not to be a 3rd party author and am really not one in my case. However, if the program does not include the aircraft I need to train on I try-to a limit. But I'd prefer to at least fly the defaults for a while until someone makes my aircraft or tools are available for me to easily duplicate it.I understand that one can build one's own plane (I have been trying but it appears gauges are not scalable but the entire bitmap has to be redone-a whole other can of worms if I am understanding the process correctly) but understand that fs'ers who will be trying this program will probably meet this screen resolution situation immediately.Again-the thread is about fs'ers migrating to xplane. Just giving you a heads up on what some of the issues are going to be. I'd like to see you succeed.Yes the 172 loads at this resolution-though quite pixelated:

It certainly would be great if a Rob Young or a Steve Small would put their prodigious talents towards a X-Plane product just to see what the platform is capable of. The reason I suggested these two names is that they are known quantities and have produced some exceptional results in the world of flight modelling. But then again the methodology by which X-P does it's stuff is different so I wonder if it would be a fair comparison?Cheers,

My understanding is that both Steve Small and Rob Young concede that flight modeling in MS FS is more of an art than a science. For certain variables or parameters they have to input values that are far from realistic, but in the end what matters are the results. Same thing with X-plane. You may have to tweak the blade element model using very unorthodox methods at times, but i'm still awaiting a valid argument that a realistic feel can't be simulated in X-plane by definition. And by valid argument, i don't mean: i own the demo version and i've used the defaults. Larry?

My understanding is that both Steve Small and Rob Young concede that flight modeling in MS FS is more of an art than a science. For certain variables or parameters they have to input values that are far from realistic, but in the end what matters are the results. Same thing with X-plane. You may have to tweak the blade element model using very unorthodox methods at times, but i'm still awaiting a valid argument that a realistic feel can't be simulated in X-plane by definition. And by valid argument, i don't mean: i own the demo version and i've used the defaults. Larry?

I'm not Larry but I would suppose anything is theoretically possible. Until you see it though it is hard to judge. You know when you see it!I have spent many hours the last few days going thru xplane (not the demo). I think I will post a "review" in the review section-not so much on the sim itself but on the compare to fsx and what "converts" will see-both the strengths and weaknesses from a "converts" perspective in all realms in the spirit of this thread.

My understanding is that both Steve Small and Rob Young concede that flight modeling in MS FS is more of an art than a science. For certain variables or parameters they have to input values that are far from realistic, but in the end what matters are the results. Same thing with X-plane. You may have to tweak the blade element model using very unorthodox methods at times, but i'm still awaiting a valid argument that a realistic feel can't be simulated in X-plane by definition. And by valid argument, i don't mean: i own the demo version and i've used the defaults. Larry?

I agree, I have previously heard Steve many times speak of the tweaking that he has to perform to get the models to perform to the excellent standards that we have become used to.But in the long run, as long as the visual component looks realistic and the model behaves realistically in the sim, then who cares? I certainly don't. My interest is in the ability of both sims being able to "simulate" reality to as great an extent as possible. It is for these reasons I have been particularly attracted to the A2A Accu-Sim developments as well as some of the previous FSD products.I certainly hope that X-P can push this envelope into the future. I see healthy competition only as a positive going forward.Cheers,

One thing I didn't notice in the hundreds of replies in this thread is this (maybe I missed it...)As it stands, creating add-ons for X-Plane is a bit dicey...Why?Austin likes to make big changes to his code frequently.This is scary for anyone who develops complex add-ons.Personally, I don't think the future is X-Plane, unless X-Plane makes some radical changes.From what I understand, X-Plane is basically a one man show more or less (which is amazing), but if X-Plane wants to replace Microsoft he's going to have to hire a whole new stable of programmers and graphic artists and support staff.Perhaps he'll do this. But if he does it'll be tough. Austin is a coder. Coders are generally good at coding. It's rare to find a really good coder who is also really good at running organizations because the skill sets required can be quite different.It's kinda like why airline pilots often make lousy businessmen. Being good at flying airplanes does not necessary equate into being good at running companies and dealing with people.My two cents,