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....

Wow... nice generalization.

X-Plane has advantages and disasvantages compared to MSFS..the weather system is purposely designed to enable precise ifr training, in terms of precise clouds base, runway visibility, the ground is never visible in overcast conditions, etc.;

Unfortunately the winds in Xplane are HORRIBLY exaggerated. 5 gusting to 10 tosses the plane around like its 20 gusting to 40. It does give you true IMC as you mention though which is hard to get in FS without framerates dropping horribly.

.the failures modeling is much better than MSFS, you have various options to fail every single instrument and system of the aircraft. It works natively on any aircraft and not only on purposely designed add-ons;

FS has a fairly decent failure system that will work for any plane built in - you are correct on the ASI failure though.

.some things like carburator icing, wing icing, windshield icing are natively modeled (also anoxia at altitude as well, actually);

FS9 and FSX both model icing, not windshield icing though. The icing in both sims are unfortunately near instantaneous though.

So, at the end of the day, it all depends on what your interests are. I agree with the fact that overall FSX is still quite ahead, mainly because of AI traffic, ATC, less twitchy default flight models and better scenery in terms of autogen/airports.If, in the near future, X-Plane will fill most of these gaps (maybe helped, I hope, by more and more developers moving from MSFS to it), it's going to become the de-facto standard replacing the unfortunately halted MSFS as the dominant flight simulator.Marco

Quite true - not sure if it will become the defacto standard though, its not like FSX has been pulled off the shelves. I can see some migration but until they get better aircraft and most importantly a better user interface I think FS9 and FSX will remain the standard for most people. It seems to me the biggest appeal for X-Plane is for those who like to fiddle and tweak more than just jump in and have a fun flight.The only pull to switch for me would be Dreamfleet, Carenado, Flight1 etc. developing for Xplane, until then I'm staying put. A realistic aircraft seems to me the obvious most important part of a flightsim.

While the version you made in FS98 (same year 10 years back remember?) is still the best ever? What about the FS2000 version. Stil flyable in FS-X because you used the real numbers or did things change in the code in 10 years time. You must have had a real horifying experience to keep a grudge that long...

Of course not! My point is I can't make a version of my real aircraft that is useful for rw training in xplane with its' tools-today or 10 years ago. I also can't kind find one made by anyone else...because...I don't think it is possible in xplane.It was with fs2002-2004 and still is today. I did my Baron in the same fashion in a couple of hours for fsx. No problem putting in a kln94 (true not 100% functional from friendly panels), or a rw garmin 430 from reality xp (that is), or doing a little tweaking on present gauges to make a Century IV autopilot,or alternator warning lights that look like my plane, or dual manifold, rpm gauges. Of course I can make the gauges from actual photos in fs so that makes it pretty easy to recreate reality,and I don't have to fudge on the real dimensions of the plane to get it to fly somewhat realistically-the numbers are pretty much on-and if they are not a fm can be tweaked to do so without changing the entire outside structure.I took a look at the present xplane and saw that still is not possible.My point is the same limitations that existed in xplane 10 years ago that kept me from doing this still exist now.A lack of instruments that match the real world, a lack of ease of making custom instrumentation not included, and the big one-a flight model which can not fly by the numbers or be tweaked to without compromising the real aircaft's structure.I don't have any grudges-I buy xplane every couple of years-I like to support flight simulation-even when a particular sim does not meet my needs. I think I even have 9.0-or at least 8.0. For the cost of xplane-I would encourage everyone to buy it.But it seems we are talking the details here of what each sim can and can't do.Marco-as far as I know-there is still no dual manifold /fuel flow which is present in a huge number of complex constant speed props... As far as ifr flying-at least my training was and is to fly by the numbers. Something xplane just doesn't seem to be able to do. I can't get past that limitation, let alone the "feel" that is missing.Believe me-if I can get a duplication of my cockpit in xplane, with a fm that flies like the real bird-I will be the first to happily convert to xplane.But as the comment I see all the time "serious" simming-this is my world of "serious" simming.After a couple of hours in fsx-a real looking and real flying bird..Compared to the real..Can xplane produce this?If he is going to make a statement like the opening thread-then this is what I require to make the switch...

Of course not! My point is I can't make a version of my real aircraft that is useful for rw training in xplane with its' tools-today or 10 years ago. I also can't kind find one made by anyone else...because...I don't think it is possible in xplane.

Is it the case that there's no SDK for creating third-party gauges in X-Plane?As a third-party developer, my main concern is stability of the platform. MS/ACES has been struggle enough with an average life-cycle of about 2.5 years. From what I've seen, X-Plane morphs much more quickly... Given that any serious project for FS can take anywhere from twelve to twenty-four months, that rapid a change in the platform doesn't engender much confidence that my investment of time and resources would be productive.

Last night I discovered that the XPlane 9.22 demo has a C172 included. I was gobsmacked when I loaded the plane and looked at the 3D cockpit. It is beautifully modeled and with very smooth fluid FPS too.It would be interesting to hear what any real world C172 pilots think about the flight dynamics. Compared to FSX the flaps tend to be a bit too effective (a little ballooning), but maybe I'm going too fast when I drop them on approach. The nice thing with XPlane is that you can load up the aircraft in the PlaneMaker application and tweak the external model, 2D and 3D cockpit, and I think the flight dynamics.

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.

Have you seen the C172 that's included in the XPlane 9.22 demo? Excellent 3D cockpit and external modeling, definitely Carenado level of quality.

Of course not! My point is I can't make a version of my real aircraft that is useful for rw training in xplane with its' tools-today or 10 years ago. I also can't kind find one made by anyone else...because... I don't think it is possible in xplane.

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.

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.

Thanks Jean Luc-I've done both those before and was not very satisfied with the results. I'll take another look at planemaker but that is pretty much the way it worked before.

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...

Renowned developers like yourself is just what Xplane needs! What do you think about Xplane compared to MSFS as a development platform for "plugins" such as the Reality XP line of products?

Obviously I have used both sims, and I obviously am biased in what I like best. I do think there are some very cool features in XP that I wished I had available to me in the world of FS. With further development we would have had those and more as well.I do think that XP needs to be careful with their support for conversion tools where content made for FS can work in XP. I think that is asking for a lawsuit. Any content is the intellectual property of whomever created it. Converting it to use in another product seems a direct violation of the ownership of the IP unless it was expressly allowed by the creator and owner of the IP. I can imagine add-on developers getting seriously ###### if their FS content (aircraft, scenery, etc) started showing up as XP add-ons without approval or any revenue going to them. I know I would be pretty upset...

As far as I know, Austin's always been a bit brash.

Yeah, the message style is typical of Austin and often rubs people the wrong way, he loves and believes in his product. Good on him, even if it is often annoying. I don't have to love him to see his comments for what they are, attempting to captialise on a business opportunity that his competitor gave him. He didn't cause our current situation and can you really blame him for producing a similar product and daring to advertise it!I couldn't see anything that he said that was bad about Aces and telling a huge number of your potential customers that his products is fantastic and here are some resources to make getting into it easier. I cannot see the problem there either, not many companies survive yelling out that their product sucks and hide when their competitor goes belly up.One thing about Austin, he supports his product with frequent updates and is fairly hands on with the community and always has been. The Aces team I had faith in because, like the X-Plane development community are accessible and love flight simulation. MS I don't trust because we are nothing to them. Until a new Aces forms with accurate flight simulation as a goal we are a little stuck for options in the long term.

I do think that XP needs to be careful with their support for conversion tools where content made for FS can work in XP. I think that is asking for a lawsuit. Any content is the intellectual property of whomever created it. Converting it to use in another product seems a direct violation of the ownership of the IP unless it was expressly allowed by the creator and owner of the IP. I can imagine add-on developers getting seriously ###### if their FS content (aircraft, scenery, etc) started showing up as XP add-ons without approval or any revenue going to them. I know I would be pretty upset...

If Laminar Research provides tools to convert MSFS scenery that seems fine to me. What if I have developed my own MSFS scenery and I want to use it in XPlane. What is the problem there?If I have purchased 3rd party MSFS scenery and I choose to convert it over to XPlane for my own use I see no problem with that. I've already paid for the scenery, and am not using it in MSFS anymore. I have no moral issues with that and who is going to know anyway?Of course, converting 3rd party MSFS to XPlane and then uploading it for others to use is wrong. That should not happen.But I don't see how Laminar Research can be held responsible for what the end user does with its tools. It's like saying a gun maker is responsible for the actions of a person who shoots someone with the makers gun. IMO Microsoft made a big mistake pulling the plug on ACES and the FS/TS/ESP franchise. Without FS11 I see no reason to purchase Windows7 since X-Plane uses OpenGL and not DirectX 10 or 11.

The thing is that what makes X-Plane special is the current closely knit community full of freeware authors doing their thing (just like in the good old FS98 - FS2000 days) . A large influx from the FS camp could easily destroy that community sense.

The good old FS98 - 2000 days is a big part of the problem. Since those days, flight simming has become much more advanced, just as modern day electronicss have. It takes a lot of effort, time, and experience to produce realistic models these days. Many months or even several years. The best of the best 3rd party vendors (for MSFS)these days, are those that gave freely ten or twelve years ago to sims such as MSFS & FLY. And FS98/FS2000, is really where X-Plane IS these days, when it comes to cockpits and systems. To be part of the X-Plane crowd is like going back ten years, and I just don't have any interest in doing that. I like modern day equipment and the lastest moving map GPS's. I also have no interest in populating my own airports with more than just runway/ taxiways. For some, that's fun, but not for me. It looks like it's going to take X-Plane a long, long time to catch up.L.Adamson

Obviously I have used both sims, and I obviously am biased in what I like best. I do think there are some very cool features in XP that I wished I had available to me in the world of FS. With further development we would have had those and more as well.I do think that XP needs to be careful with their support for conversion tools where content made for FS can work in XP. I think that is asking for a lawsuit. Any content is the intellectual property of whomever created it. Converting it to use in another product seems a direct violation of the ownership of the IP unless it was expressly allowed by the creator and owner of the IP. I can imagine add-on developers getting seriously ###### if their FS content (aircraft, scenery, etc) started showing up as XP add-ons without approval or any revenue going to them. I know I would be pretty upset...

Hi Paul, I hope it is not too hard for you for now, and that you will go through. What a waste of talent and energy, it is beyond imagination and caught us all by surprise. All my sympathy to you and your team, you are always welcome whenever you come in Montreal!!

Renowned developers like yourself is just what Xplane needs! What do you think about Xplane compared to MSFS as a development platform for "plugins" such as the Reality XP line of products?

Thank you for your kind words Matthew! How do I compare? very hard to tell in a couple lines. For a starter, I've developed Gauge XTreme, a complete abstraction layer atop the FS SDK to get much more features, in a 100% C++ way. There is a post in the avsim forum panels and gauge in which I show the source code of the dropstack done with the Gauge XTreme framework (people coding with the SDK will see the difference, but in short, GXT is to FS development what MFC is to Windows Development).Then, we are used at Reality XP to code low level (I've coded True Display XP, a vector drawing engine that runs ~50 to 100 times faster than GDI+ and ~20 times faster than AntiGrain), so coding in XPL, since it is also quite low level (no "gauge" notion) it is not too hard.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?Mind you, there are shortcomings in the SDK, and it is really less easy to code for XPL than for FS, I'm fine with this.This is my sole uneducated opinion while working with XPL. Development has started more than 2 months ago on this platform, and we are still learning every day.

The good old FS98 - 2000 days is a big part of the problem. Since those days, flight simming has become much more advanced, just as modern day electronicss have. It takes a lot of effort, time, and experience to produce realistic models these days. Many months or even several years. The best of the best 3rd party vendors (for MSFS)these days, are those that gave freely ten or twelve years ago to sims such as MSFS & FLY. And FS98/FS2000, is really where X-Plane IS these days, when it comes to cockpits and systems. To be part of the X-Plane crowd is like going back ten years, and I just don't have any interest in doing that. I like modern day equipment and the lastest moving map GPS's. I also have no interest in populating my own airports with more than just runway/ taxiways. For some, that's fun, but not for me. It looks like it's going to take X-Plane a long, long time to catch up.L.Adamson

From what I've seen of the 9.22 demo, it's more technically more advanced than FSX in many areas, especially with regard to scenery and visuals. Also, I think the XP9 plugin SDK is more advanced than FSX Simconnect!As far as flight modeling goes... Maybe FS9/FSX is better at hitting the right numbers at the moment, but I think X-Plane is capable of that too as developer skill increases. I had a look at the XP9 plugin SDK and I think it is possible to augment the flight model via a plugin. The plugin SDK supports writing to the many airfoils variables of the plane data. I assume this would allow the flight model to be dynamically changed by the plugin during flight! Additionally maybe its possible to develop a tool that could goal seek the correct airfoil settings for a given aircraft so that exact "numbers" can be hit. Here are some interesting linksXP9 Plugin SDK documentationXP9 Plugin SDK Data RefsAlso, the plug SDK allows plugins to communicate with each other by publishing data. This means a FS2Crew style plugin could actually communicate directly with a PMDG MD11 plugin or a FSPassengers plugin or a Radar Contact plugin etc. In other words 3rd party XP9 plugins could be tightly integrated.Here's a good site that discussions XP8/9 scenery with tutorials.http://scenery.x-plane.com/index.phpOh btw you can use FS2XP to convert MSFS scenery to XPlane.