When larabe hits the market, a sim capable of using it naively will shine.

Yes! I had forgotten about Larrabee! I hope X-Plane will add native support for it, Larrabee promises to be something really special... This is why X-Plane future is exciting, it can evolve and take advantage of new tech (Larrabee, better multicore support, GPU "compute shaders").

Xplane would be good except the lack ofA) quality ATC:( VC details and gauges that look believableC) airports that are alive like FSX's

a) There is SquawkBox works for XPlane... you can fly VATSIM and get real ATC.... but yes the inbuilt ATC is not that great.:( How about the newly released MU-2c) Use FS2XP to convert FS9 and FSX airports to X-Plane. Not sure if it converts animated objects though.

WRT X-Plane flight model:it has serious deficiencies in the post stall regimes; I hope Austin will tackle them sooner or later...in normal flight regimes, it's undoubtedly a lot more twitchy than all other flight sims.Since no one has yet made a _quantitative_ analysis of X-Plane flight model, it is unclear, to present day, if the flight model is technically correct or not..In the first case, the over-sensitivity could be due to the way X-Plane manages flight inputs from the low-res, no-feedback pc flight controls;for example, as a comparison, I know that basically all MSFS aircrafts have limited control authority: full excursion can only be reached using the trim. Maybe it's not the only "trick" MSFS uses to smooth out the differences between real and PC flight controls?.In the second case, it would be a more serious matter, since it would require a heavy revision of X-Plane flight model;At the end of the day though, this is quite a moot point, since in both cases the final result (the feeling of the aircraft) is compromised.Anyway, various tricks are used by some X-Plane developers to tweak X-Plane aircrafts and give them a more realistic feel.Also, we have to keep in mind that, e.g., RealAir aircrafts as well use a lot of tricks ("warping" the MSFS flight model) to spin, to perform the way they do, etc.

And I always hear that X-Plane has many limitations..............from the old timers. I give------------who has the most limitations? :( L.Adamson

I think X-Plane has actually less limitations, its plugin system is extremely powerful.

I absolutely 100% agree! The future is X-Plane. FS9/FSX will die a slow death for sure because the MSFS platform WILL NEVER EVOLVE whereas X-Plane will continue to evolve.It's a simple matter of evolution and survival of the fittest!

That's not the right attitude Matthew, especially on a MSFS forum.And remember that MSFS is still a big step ahead of X-Plane on a lot of features.Marco

That's not the right attitude Matthew, especially on a MSFS forum.

We are in the hanger chat forum.... but I don't see what's so bad about my statement. It's simply true that MSFS "platform" can no longer evolve anymore, eventually people will tire of it because X-Plane will continue to evolve and with 3rd party support offer a more compelling experience than FS9/FSX. Maybe that will take a few years, but it's inevitable, unless Laminar Research "drops the ball" that Microsoft has just thrown them.

We are in the hanger chat forum.... but I don't see what's so bad about my statement. It's simply true that MSFS "platform" can no longer evolve anymore, eventually people will tire of it because X-Plane will continue to evolve and with 3rd party support offer a more compelling experience than FS9/FSX. Maybe that will take a few years, but it's inevitable, unless Laminar Research "drops the ball" that Microsoft has just thrown them.

The MSFS "platform" has been constantly evolving, due to "so many" 3rd party developers, with many years of experience. That's why X-Plane is so far behind, at the moment. I suppose it all depends on what these people do in the future, doesn't it? Afterall, a new edition of Microsoft's Flight Simulator wasn't scheduled for about two more years. I don't believe these addon developers were just going to wait two years and do nothing.L.Adamson

We are in the hanger chat forum.... but I don't see what's so bad about my statement. It's simply true that MSFS "platform" can no longer evolve anymore, eventually people will tire of it because X-Plane will continue to evolve and with 3rd party support offer a more compelling experience than FS9/FSX. Maybe that will take a few years, but it's inevitable, unless Laminar Research "drops the ball" that Microsoft has just thrown them.

I believe that is true-but probably not for 6-8 years as I feel xplane presently is at least 4-6 years behind fsx in many aspects-perhaps more. Understandable when it is (or has) pretty much been a 1 person operation going against a multi person team.In the meantime the potential of fsx by third party developers has just begun to be tapped-and there are many things in the sim that are built for the future that also have not been tapped yet-but will. Yes it will come now exclusively from the 3rd party developers-but I am sure it will happen.None of the msfs users were expecting a new sim for at least two years, so really not much has changed except expectations of what the future may hold. I say there is no harm in investing $35 in Xplane just in case....

Also, we have to keep in mind that, e.g., RealAir aircrafts as well use a lot of tricks ("warping" the MSFS flight model) to spin, to perform the way they do, etc.

First, we must remember that none of these flight sims actually fly. The only moving air, is the CPU's cooling fan! :( And although X-Plane is attempting to create a synthetic flow of air molecules over a flight surface...............it simply doesn'thave the power of pure accuracy. Over the years I discussed tweaks for real aircraft such as root cuffs, vortex generators, etc. They canmake a big difference on the real airplane, but you can't tack one on to an X-Plane to see the difference. Another example is the new LSA Cessna. The proto-type was lost in a spin accident, when it couldn't recover. It now has a larger vertical stab, and it's not raked back as sharp. Do you think they could have found the answer with X-Plane? No................it took some good wind tunnel testing.Therefor, since we're "faking" flying anyway, I could care less how it's done, as long as the results & reactions are believable. And if RealAir does it best, then so be it. P.S.---- I have flown the Marchetti in real life, so I've got a good impression of what the simulated airplane should be like.L.Adamson

The MSFS "platform" has been constantly evolving, due to "so many" 3rd party developers, with many years of experience. That's why X-Plane is so far behind, at the moment. I suppose it all depends on what these people do in the future, doesn't it? Afterall, a new edition of Microsoft's Flight Simulator wasn't scheduled for about two more years. I don't believe these addon developers were just going to wait two years and do nothing.L.Adamson

I couldn't agree with you more! One example is the new EZDOK view utility providing realistic momentum effects for all phases of flight, that should be released soon. Does X-Plane have anything like that?? Sure there may come a point where, it may not be able to evolve much more than it is at the time, but like Larry said, I think that is a few years down the road. Maybe by that time MS will jump back in the ring! Case in point is MS Train Simulator 1. That sim is 7 years old now and it is still going strong in the train sim community!

Geofa, basically I agree with you, except on:

cockpit instruments-both function and looks, 3d cockpits, outside/inside aircraft visuals

http://www.xpjets.com/gallery/777exterior/ (still to be released, a couple of recognizable shots are slightly edited)http://www.dmax.it/storch.phphttp://www.dmax.it/c172g1000/

The graphic capability for aircrafts is definitely there, if not on par with FSX, at least with good FS9 addons. I hope more developers will explore X-Plane from now on.

I would do a compare of the 1 Beech Baron for xplane that appears to be available, and the two shots I have above and the default Fsx Baron-but I see the link is broken and no one seems to know where it has gone.

The only Baron I could find for X-Plane is this:http://x-planefiles.netfirms.com/webstore/...832aebf19829d6dhttp://www.3pointaircraft.com/baron.htmIt's a quite old, low cost payware, for X-Plane 8. I bought it a long time ago and it was very very twitchy. Probably needs lot of tweaking. I don't know how well it does wrt performance and specs, the author says it's tweaked to real flight specs.Marco

Well actually I think you nailed my complaint.Glass cockpits to me are fairly easy to make look good-after all-they are just another computer.When I look at the instruments that I use however and are typically found in the GA fleet (and not Larry's homebuilt where he can put all the latest and greatest)-like a stormscope (sorry but the xplane one looks like something out of fs4), basic steam gauges etc., nav/comms it really looks primitive. They do remind me of the look we had in the fs4 era.Myself-I am not really into glass , or complex airliners and in my prior post I am interested in realistic looking and working instruments, especially so I can match whatever aircraft I am flying at the time. I think the post I put above shows quite a resemblance though not perfect between the fs cockpit and my real one. By the way-that has been one of my big complaints about fsx. While every oil drip has been simulated on the outside aircraft models, bump mapping, flexing wings etc. the instruments have not become more realistic on fs since fs2000 or even earlier. How about glass reflections on these instruments and more of them?Luckily, Jean Luc has been extremely helpful in filling that void, but there is sore work to be done here on both sims.

The MSFS "platform" has been constantly evolving, due to "so many" 3rd party developers, with many years of experience. That's why X-Plane is so far behind, at the moment. I suppose it all depends on what these people do in the future, doesn't it? Afterall, a new edition of Microsoft's Flight Simulator wasn't scheduled for about two more years. I don't believe these addon developers were just going to wait two years and do nothing.

When I say MSFS platform I just mean FS9/FSX with FUSIPC/Simconnect, the base "platform" upon which 3rd party developers can build addons (aircraft/scenery etc). So these developers will always be constrained by existing FS9/FSX limitations. The X-Plane base "platform" can continue to evolve. It's already more advanced in numerous areas (the plugin SDK for example).

When I say MSFS platform I just mean FS9/FSX with FUSIPC/Simconnect, the base "platform" upon which 3rd party developers can build addons (aircraft/scenery etc). So these developers will always be constrained by existing FS9/FSX limitations. The X-Plane base "platform" can continue to evolve. It's already more advanced in numerous areas (the plugin SDK for example).

As I said before, there are limitations for FS9, but if you look at those add-ons I posted on the last page, especially the AirSimmer A320 and NLS A380 (the most advanced A380 simulation to date). There have been absolutely NO limitations for FSX yet... and that is probably because FSX was made for THE people to design add ons for it, so there had to be a huge range of extensibility (simconnect). So I do not know where you are getting FSX limitations from, because every project that I have seen has been successful or was not canceled due to "limitations".+Like Geofa said, FSXs power and extensibility had not been fully unleashed, and developers have just started seeing what the can do with FSX and there are endless possibilities for them. The games power still hasn't been fully unleashed. People are still making ideas for projects and seeing if its possible and I bet 100% of the time it was possible (again look at what EZDOK can do, its amazing and its with simconnect! The camera moves on landing based on how hard the touchdown was. Even though its simple, I bet NOBODY thought it was possible).

It is all about choices. I like this and you like that. There will always be dislikes and likes. Simmers and gamers of all platforms will always have these arguments. ENJOY WHAT YOU PREFER AND LET THE OTHERS ENJOY WHAT THEY ENJOY. PLAY NICELY NOW. :(

The X-Plane base "platform" can continue to evolve. It's already more advanced in numerous areas (the plugin SDK for example).

Matthew,Your displeasure with FSX flows freely and is recognizable even without my glasses on. And while I acknowledge your contributions to FSX scenery design, I feel I must inquire about your in-depth knowledge of the X-Plane plugin SDK. Is there a link to something that you have written and released with the XP plugin SDK? I spent a couple of hours browsing through the XP world earlier and didn't see a thread or link to your work.What I did see in my browsing of the XP world is many unsubstantiated claims about the product. Granted, there won't be anyone to step up and fund the research necessary to see if XP's methods of flight are truly better than MS's, but there are plenty of people willing to spread that as gospel. Fan-boyism at it's best! That's what I think.But... I did order X-Plane and will even get a free payware plane for doing so! I really don't have the money to spend, but I wanted to see for myself what all the talk was about and to not settle for some party line about which inconsequential feature was better in XP vs. FSX and vice a versa.I will see what a non-flat runway feels like in X-Plane, I hope, having downloaded the airport editor that's available. And I did notice one of the developers mentioning over 300 land class options, which sure beats MS's lousy 100+. Who knows, maybe I'll see if I can design a version of Chester-Rogers in X-Plane, just so Geofa has some place to fly around that he feels comfortable with...

I feel I must inquire about your in-depth knowledge of the X-Plane plugin SDK. Is there a link to something that you have written and released with the XP plugin SDK? I spent a couple of hours browsing through the XP world earlier and didn't see a thread or link to your work.

No I've not written anything with the Xplane plugin SDK. However I have written apps (for internal use only) using FSX Simconnect. IMO here are a few areas where the Xplane plugin SDK is more advanced than SimConnect:-1) Its possible to draw directly on the OpenGL internal and external plane textures every visual frame (Xplane calls your drawing "callback" method). A plugin can draw its own guages or "2d panels". MSFS is limited in the number of 2D panels it can use, and because the PMDG MD11 is using almost all the available panels, FS2CREW MD11X can only display 2 of its own panels. 2) Plugins can communicate with each other by publishing their own "datarefs" and sending messages. This means plugins can be tightly integrated. For example, a limitation with the PMDG MD11 and FS2CREW MD11X is that the user needs to manually tell FS2CREW the Vrefs via a FS2Crew dialog because FS2Crew has no way to interrogate the MD11 Vrefs. A XPlane MD11 could publish "Datarefs" for the VRefs which would allow a Xplane FS2Crew to read those VRefs directly, with no manual input required by the user. 3) Xplane plugin SDK allows for a camera to be dynamically placed anywhere in the world. In SimConnect you must use the SetCamera6DOF function which only controls the VC camera. This is fine for TrackIR , but you can not place the camera further than about 2,000 meters from your plane, which means you cant write a AI plane spotter to dynamically track AI aircraft if they are more than 2,000 from your aircraft.No doubt there are many others...