Consider what has been discussed on this board - a number of MSFS users have pointed out a number of serious usability problems with X-Plane. Since we patch frequently, I can start fixing them now! Some of them are architectural and will take time to overcome, but for others, it's just a matter of writing the code, so why not make X-Plane better in the shortest possible time frame?cheersBen

My DVDs arrived! But I think I'll skip the 9.3 beta or maybe not, I'll see.I mentioned to another person that I'll be interested to see what Hawaii looks like and if I recognize anything. And if there are opportunities for improvement within the XP environment.I hope that any comments I make will be objective and fair. There's plenty of impassioned postings floating around, but not a whole bunch of mid-level facts for anyone hoping to compare and or switch to XP.There's still a lot of life in FSX, contrary to some of the naysayers. Heck, I was even flying a sunset flight around the Big Island last night in FS9 and I thought it looked really great... :(

Your blog Gauged Approach seems to indicate you work for EagleSoft on the Citation X 2.We know your views on flight dynamics, apart from that, why is X-Plane 9.22 (or 9.30 when its RC) a "serious 'no-go'"? Maybe you can enlighten the developers of the MU-2 or Hurricane as to why its a "serious 'no go'".

Speaking as a Software Engineer, one of the main reasons X-Plane is not conducive to 3rd Party Development is it's constant update strategy. This makes the platform very unstable from a developers point of view. Good Addons take time to develop. They can't have the platform constantly changing during the development cycle. Even if they get it released before a new version, it would be short lived as a new version of X-Plane would probably be already in the works. This may not affect addons such as aircraft or scenery, which may maintain compatibility with a new version. Addons like ATC replacement or weather generation programs would almost certainly not be.

Well I have been putting xplane it thru its paces for the last few days and for what it is worth I'll report some of my perspective of good and bad so far -coming from fsx...Good:*Rain effects-best I have seen in a sim-very realistic and blow any version of fs away*Snow-also very good-also better imho than anything in the fs series*Water-I like much better than fs-just less cartoony and more real looking imho*Rivers-also more realistic looking*Flocks of birds-I was stunned to see some right where I usually do at my airport. I have added birds to my local airport in fsx via instant scenery but the xplane ones look more real and from what I understand are global-and I also understand you can hit them. I haven't ever hit a bird but have come close and I witnessed a bird strike while waiting for takeoff this summer.With the recent US Air crash and the yearly statistics on bird crashes I hope simmers realize birds(avoidence) are an important of flying and flight simming.*Sloped runways-extremely nice* Ground roll-much better than fsx-just feels and sounds more real-the dips in the runway and the motion of the aircraft on roll really make it!* Plane maker-I will be able to do a credible rendition of my aircraft-looks very nice! I'd post a picture but it will be a while to I get close. If I can figure it out anyone can.* Smoothness and lack of stuttering-incredible.*Along with cars-trains-very nice!Bad:* I have constant video driver crashes. I noticed that the recent version was supposed to improve nvidia problems-hasn't on my end. I can rarely work more than 10 minutes either in the sim or planemaker without a video driver crash. I have no troubles with fsx or any of my other programs and have the most recent drivers.* Control setup.Just doesn't really support a hat switch the way it should work. My Goflight gear/flap module works with the latest plugin but the gear lights stay red all the time. My expensive Elite avionics panel is sitting useless. Response time in changing views with hat switch manually programmed is slow and jerky. I frankly feel claustrophobic in the planes. (I have spent a great time calibrating).* Flight models. While I like the ground handling-what was mentioned in the above post is very true. No sense of momentum. The plane (and I have tried quite a few) feels permanently like you are flying in slow flight. (I have calibrated my controls). Way too over reactive and instant response. I tried chandelles and pulling the nose up and the ball stayed centered with no rudder input on my part. Perhaps bad modelling by the makers-but again tried quite a few aircraft. Flaps seem to universally cause huge ballooning. I haven't tried numbers yet as a Baron does not seem to exist for the moment-but I did read comments from another Baron driver who said he gave up on Xplane as a useful ifr trainer as the numbers were not close. That is my recollection but perhaps things have improved? If numbers are not on (as they are in FS) though-it really does not make a useful ifr trainer-which at least for me is one of my biggest priorities. We have every approach in Fs for the world along with some very good add ins like Reality xp's Garmin 430-kinda hard to part with those if you want to do serious Ifr training.*Ground textures-very blocky and look like something way from the past-even set at the highest setting.*Roads-minimal and many broken* Autogen-randomly scattered with what appear no land class data. Factories, farms, houses all stuck in a random fashion.Turn the autogen to high and you get some really wierd stuff!*Lake database-very primitive- lakes seem to be there but don't resemble the real world counterparts e.g.I took off from my home airport and between lack of roads to follow, crazy autogen, and lakes that have no resemblance to reality I was instantly lost. Vfr at least in my area of the country is impossible- I was completely lost in a matter of seconds . In fs I can follow the local roads and find an exact replica of the lake I live on, along with cities,roads and rivers, where they should be etc. No chance here. I finally found my lake which was represented as a little square.The class D airport I fly out of in fsx has a credible generic representation-even my hangar is there. The one in xplane is pretty much devoid of everything except the runways.*Lack of many aircraft or scenery enhancements-and many are frankly not of good quality. Nothing that I could find that really matches up to a typical good fsx add on aircraft/scenery-either payware or freeware-at least what is available now.* The resolution issues I mentioned above. It seems that most of the planes are best designed for 1280x1024 resolution. Higher resolution than that the panels and instruments will look blurry, or you will get a small panel that doesn't fit the screen*3d cockpits-Just way behind the fs ones in all respects. Primitive looking and instruments blurry-at least in my resolution.In short-lots to like-but many limitations that will be problematic for the typical fs user-both versions.There is lots of potential though and again for the low cost, I'd recommend having a look!It also does appear to me that many developers stay away due to the rapid changes. Perhaps with more support xplane will be able to grow faster, and the expectations of fs'ers will allow some areas that need to be addressed to even be close to fs9/fsx in capabilities to be addressed.

I have not been able to do any testing of X-Plane 9 although I do have the PFC FAA certified version of X-Plane 8 on my computer. I am not 100% sure of the current status but it was my understanding that v9 did not have the ability to utilize the PFC hardware (Cirrus Cat II) so this fits into the discussion regarding the developers embracing or not embracing X-Plane. I whole heartedly hope Austin can clearly see the need to support this dollar level of hardware since no one in his right mind is going to plonk down another 5k to update hardware so they can upgrade from v8 to v9. I have attempted to search for info regarding this on X-Plane's forum but found that you are not allowed to search for only three letter words (PFC) so it ends up quite difficult to even search for an answer on their own forum... once again... think about it.

Thanks Geoff for what seems a very fair and balanced mini review.If as Ben indicates, the X-P developers take some of the many criticisms on board, given their reasonably high frequenct update schedule, it will certainly be worth having a look in the not too distant future.Cheers and thanks again,

* I have constant video driver crashes. I noticed that the recent version was supposed to improve nvidia problems-hasn't on my end. I can rarely work more than 10 minutes either in the sim or planemaker without a video driver crash. I have no troubles with fsx or any of my other programs and have the most recent drivers.

Geofa - X-Plane uses OpenGL drivers, while FSX uses DirectX drivers. So it is pretty common for us to see problems in X-Plane that don't happen with FS X. For example, the ATI Catalyst 8-12 drivers had a bug (now fixed in 9-1 fortunately) with OpenGL that caused X-Plane's drawing to be corrupt. It could be that that is what is happening here. (In other words, a working FS X does not regress the bug into X-Plane fully because it could be OGL vs. DX, not X-Plane vs. FS X...)I have gotten a series of reports in the last few days from NV users with card problems - if you can PM me or email me with the specificsof the crash, I'd like to take a look...it may be the same problem they are reporting. Bearing in mind that you have better things to do with your time and limited patience, if you have it in you to email me pictures, I would like to see these two bugs:

*Ground textures-very blocky and look like something way from the past-even set at the highest setting.

I would like to see a screenshot of this!!

*Lake database-very primitive- lakes seem to be there but don't resemble the real world counterparts e.g.

I would like to see a comparison of the area:- X-Plane global scenery (e.g. what we ship)- MSFS default scenery (e.g. what they ship)- Google Earth or some reference.My email addy is: bsupnik at xsquawkbox dot net.cheersBen

Ben,Thanks for your reply! It is very positive to see your presence on the board and speaks well ofthe product.I am at work all day and typing on my iPhone to reply-but I will get to your requests as soon as possible.I'll do 1 better & send some compares of the 2 sims to real shots. I have lots of shots from my flights of almost any us state I can compare if you have any wishes.I just started installing windows beta 7 on my flight sim computer before leaving for work this morning so if no troubles should have something in a couple days.

I have one question only. Is it possible for me to program and use gauges such as these in X-Plane?If so, then I may well be persuaded to take a closer look at X-Plane as a development platform.Note: this image has been downsampled from its native 1680x1250 resolution. It is also not an ESDG project!

I have one question only. Is it possible for me to program and use gauges such as these in X-Plane?If so, then I may well be persuaded to take a closer look at X-Plane as a development platform.

JeanLuc (of RealityXP) said on page 2 of this thread:-

Just wait for the GNS WAAS to be released! this will be our first product on this platform. The learning curve is high, but the capabilities to interact with XPL at any stage of its rendering pipeline, as low level as any single pixel, is simply outstanding and exciting for me! imagine the benefits of what are 3d gauges in the VC in FS, but in 2D too?

JeanLuc (of RealityXP) said on page 2 of this thread:-

I thank you for the reply, but that really doesn't answer my question. I've read Jean-Luc's reply of course.It's my fault for not being a bit more specific... Does OpenGL support gradient blending, such as used on the PFD's horizon? What programming languages are supported? Is there a native gps engine, or must one be created from scratch for each project?Is it possible to access information to code a TCAS?Is there any native data support for approaches, or must theprogrammer code his own dataset for every airport?

I thank you for the reply, but that really doesn't answer my question. I've read Jean-Luc's reply of course.It's my fault for not being a bit more specific... Does OpenGL support gradient blending, such as used on the PFD's horizon? What programming languages are supported? Is there a native gps engine, or must one be created from scratch for each project?Is it possible to access information to code a TCAS?Is there any native data support for approaches, or must theprogrammer code his own dataset for every airport?

Plugin SDK may be helpfulhttp://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/phpwiki/index.php?FrontPage

Plugin SDK may be helpfulhttp://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/phpwiki/index.php?FrontPage

Question,Was it a good thing, linking this thread to a post at X-Plane Org? And of course, as usual, all my postings there are moderated and deleted. They might want to delete this link too...L.Adamson

Question,Was it a good thing, linking this thread to a post at X-Plane Org? And of course, as usual, all my postings there are moderated and deleted. They might want to delete this link too...L.Adamson

Gee... I wonder why your posts over at X-Plane org are moderated/deleted? You certainly have nothing nice to say about X-Plane in this thread. It's almost like you are on a "mission" to discourage anyone from trying X-Plane, just because you don't like Austin. :(

Gee... I wonder why your posts over at X-Plane org are moderated/deleted? You certainly have nothing nice to say about X-Plane in this thread. It's almost like you are on a "mission" to discourage anyone from trying X-Plane, just because you don't like Austin. :(

Remember, I'm the one that gave the default X-Plane 172 more credibility than others. Yet, it looks as though the postings and links are gone at X-Plane org. And it's just as well, IMO.L.Adamson

Remember, I'm the one that gave the default X-Plane 172 more credibility than others.Yet, it looks as though the postings and links are gone at X-Plane org. And it's just as well, IMO.

My post is still there with the link back to AVSIM.You can find it here and I have quoted it below

There are a lot of complaints from FS9 and FSX users that the X-Plane flight model is not accurate.If you can make the default C172 fly very close to the "numbers" then this would serve to show the FS9/FSX critics (mostly real world pilots) that it is possible to make accurate flight models in X-Plane.IMHO you would be doing X-Plane a great service by demonstrating the accuracy of the flight model.Btw this discussion about X-plane over at AVSIM might be of interest.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=242107