I tried X Plane

[Geofa 108]

Someone pointed me to this thread. My name is Tom Kyler, developer of the MU-2 mentioned above. I have been discussing "x-plane" vs. "MSFS" for so many years now, I can't tell you how much I've seen this never-ending discussion twist and turn. I do not say one is better than the other. They are different. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. I somewhat feel like an ambassador for x-plane...not to convince others that x-plane is superior or better than MSFS, but to inform people of how the sim works, why it works the way it works, what it can do, what it can't do, what it will probably do in the future. I do work very closely with the Laminar team and while I won't go so far as to say what they WILL do for sure...I do certainly hear more than the average person.Over the years of reading many "A vs. B" forum postings...here's some observations and conclusions I've come to for myself.1.) X-Plane is totally misunderstood by new users. Documentation has always stunk and folks just don't know what to think2.) X-Plane CAN do whatever MSFS(FSX) can do, the architecture is in place now, there's just no products that show it off. The MU-2 is currently the ONLY plane available for x-plane that uses "manipulators". (allow 3D interaction with cockpit). I don't mean that to brag because it's not hard to do, but nobody knows about it...and so it goes with many many x-plane features. The lead scenery programmer is tossing in features so fast, he barely has time to document them all and so they go unused. This will change with time.3.) X-Plane market share has grown every year and new high quality products are beginning to show with more regularity.4.) If you were to take a poll of the "feel" of x-plane vs. the "feel" of MSFS, statistically, x-plane would get the nod, no matter how much Larry may disagree. I certainly am not going to conduct a formal poll to prove this point, but after 8 years of reading all sorts of posts...my mind is fixed on this point. Now that doesn't mean it "feels" the most accurate for everybody. I am certainly not going to tell Larry x-plane feels better because for him it most certainly does not. This isn't even worth discussing in my opinion.5.) People routinely confuse one feature they really want in a sim as being the basis for judging the whole sim. If a person wants real traffic and launches x-plane and sees no real traffic, then the sim sucks for them; however, if a person wants a better "feel" or "fluidity of motion" and x-plane provides that for them...then the sim is exactly what they want. So for one to say the sim is trash is totally subjective and without basis.And now..the BIGGEST topic to which I defend as an engineer.X-Plane is "solver". Anybody familiar with finite element based simulation techniques will understand what I am saying. A "solver" is a program that takes some input and processes it. It does not check the "quality" of the input, it just runs the simulation. "Plane-Maker" is the pre-processor or input to the simulation. If you create crappy input, you'll get crappy output...garbage in, garbage out. It is imperative to have an understanding of some fundamental engineering concepts to create the best flight model. Dare I say most developers are "hobbyists" and "tech-heads" and not engineers. Does this mean they can't develop a good flight model? Of course not, but it does mean they may be missing that one critical understanding of physical phenomenon which is required to make the model accurate. The line between stability and unstability is very thin.The table-based flight model used by MSFS can allow one to create a very accurate flight model whereas x-plane is subject to Laminar's aerodynamic algorithms; however, if you have an understanding of those algorithms, you can work within their limits and get a very accurate simulation out of them...x-plane wouldn't be where it is today if that were not so. So if I had to summarize my ramblings here...it is to let folks know that x-plane DOES have the basic foundation and architecture to do anything that MSFS can do. If feature A is not seen in x-plane...it is not because it can't be done...it's because it has not been done by a developer yet. X-Plane's approach to aero modeling IS a superior method of simulation independent of the accuracy of the algorithms. So in the end, the properly worded question for people is...."has the simulation experience I'm seeking been developed in x-plane yet?" if the answer is no....I suspect you'll argue for MSFS...if your answer is yes...you'll argue for X-Plane.My final and totally subjective and biased opinion...is that all things being equal...scenery, traffic, 3D content, etc....people will choose x-plane; however...things are not equal.

Very good information Tom-and I look forward to checking out your Mu2(edit-I just purchased).The problem I see-is most of us don't are not engineers or programmers and just want to start using the sim and experience what it is capable of. In my case, I need a Baron-pure and simple. Now-I have been plodding along tweaking this and that, and at this point I think I can say I have a better flight model in most respects than the one in the default fsx one. But, almost all the aircraft that are available that at least I have flown in xplane, just don't make it. I believe the foundation and architecture is there-but it needs to manifest!There are some other problems. To get all the instrumentation on the 2d panel, one has to have the panel "centered" as if you are flying from the middle of the plane. Without pop up 2d panels, this seems to be a limitation and this perspective is not realistic for a pilot. I will have to give your mu2 a try-but all the 3d panels I have seen so far look "hasbro" like and seem several years behind the fs ones. Take a look for example at the fsx Flight one Mustang, or the Real Air Marchetti and compare .It is a different sim, and I am finding some of the "reality" aspects that have not been done on fs yet are what are drawing most of my simming time to Xplane now.I again will take a look at your Mu2 and purchase to see what a state of the art Xplane aircraft can do-however to be honest-I have never flown a Mu2 and frankly don't have all that much interest therefore in simming in one. There are quite a few aircraft I have flown though-and their representation presently in xplane are quite poor. I really hope this will change.<edit>-and if I have you here-I purchased and got a download link-clicked on it and it stopped after 2.4 mbs. I went back to the link to re download and it says 0 downloads remaining,"delivered" and that the link expires March 1-I purchased at 11:50 pm on Feb 28 and 10 minutes later it is Mar 1? Any help appreciated as now I can't get a link to download...

[tkyler 88]

Geof,I am not the owner of X-Aviation, but selling through there as a vendor. Please contact them here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/contact_us.phpThey are very polite, professional, and quick both to me, and to all of our customers based on feedback. I would expect them to treat you with the same speedy service they do for everyone else. Most people report getting issues resolved within minutes!

[Geofa 108]

Geof,I am not the owner of X-Aviation, but selling through there as a vendor. Please contact them here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/contact_us.phpThey are very polite, professional, and quick both to me, and to all of our customers based on feedback. I would expect them to treat you with the same speedy service they do for everyone else. Most people report getting issues resolved within minutes!

Will do-thanks! <edit-somehow got it now-off to try>

[Guest dougwells]

Geofa and others,Having the RW flight characteristics are important. Just as important for me as a RW pilot is the click for click accuracy of the avionics package.- Does anyone know if Xplane has the equivalent of a "RealityXP" Garmin 430 emulator. It truely needs to be click for click accurate and not just look like the GNS430 unit (ie, the default GPS in FSX looks alot like the 430 but no way could you learn to use your RW 430 with it).- Also, is there a Piper Saratoga (PA32) available in XPlane that is pretty realistic?Thanks

[tkyler 88]

Will do-thanks! <edit-somehow got it now-off to try>

Geof,Glad to hear you got it solved. Sounds like X-Aviation was quick to respond?Just as a gentle reminder, there is some documentation to read through in the docs folder of the download. Other things to know:X-Plane 9.30 is currently "incompatible" with the MU-2. You will get a heavy roll to the right. 9.22 is the officially supported version, and what you should be flying in, as it's in non-beta status. Laminar is aware of the problem in the 9.3 beta.I suggest adjusting your render field of view setting to 65. I believe by default it's set at 45. This will give you a broader view of the panel, and help greatly to improve your flying experience.Most importantly: Have fun!

[Geofa 108]

Geofa and others,Having the RW flight characteristics are important. Just as important for me as a RW pilot is the click for click accuracy of the avionics package.- Does anyone know if Xplane has the equivalent of a "RealityXP" Garmin 430 emulator. It truely needs to be click for click accurate and not just look like the GNS430 unit (ie, the default GPS in FSX looks alot like the 430 but no way could you learn to use your RW 430 with it).- Also, is there a Piper Saratoga (PA32) available in XPlane that is pretty realistic?Thanks

Doug-I think Jean Luc is working on it as we speak. We can only hope. The avionics are for sure sub par right now.

Geof,Glad to hear you got it solved. Sounds like X-Aviation was quick to respond?Just as a gentle reminder, there is some documentation to read through in the docs folder of the download. Other things to know:X-Plane 9.30 is currently "incompatible" with the MU-2. You will get a heavy roll to the right. 9.22 is the officially supported version, and what you should be flying in, as it's in non-beta status. Laminar is aware of the problem in the 9.3 beta.I suggest adjusting your render field of view setting to 65. I believe by default it's set at 45. This will give you a broader view of the panel, and help greatly to improve your flying experience.Most importantly: Have fun!

Yes-the response was instant quick-more than excellent!I will read thru the docs tomorrow-unfortunately I am using 9.30. I was unsatisfied with the before 9.30 as my monitor resolution of 1920x1200 was not supported. With the beta better but not perfect yet.

[maxter 0]

Yes-the response was instant quick-more than excellent!I will read thru the docs tomorrow-unfortunately I am using 9.30. I was unsatisfied with the before 9.30 as my monitor resolution of 1920x1200 was not supported. With the beta better but not perfect yet.

Goeof, please post your experiences when you have a moment. Having experimented with Pro Pilot, Fly, FlyII etc, I am always open to alternatives and I know that you will do any review with a reasonable level of objectivity. There are many of us who will be waiting with much anticipation methinks.Cheers and thanks in advance,

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Geofa and others,Having the RW flight characteristics are important. Just as important for me as a RW pilot is the click for click accuracy of the avionics package.- Does anyone know if Xplane has the equivalent of a "RealityXP" Garmin 430 emulator. It truely needs to be click for click accurate and not just look like the GNS430 unit (ie, the default GPS in FSX looks alot like the 430 but no way could you learn to use your RW 430 with it).- Also, is there a Piper Saratoga (PA32) available in XPlane that is pretty realistic?Thanks

I confirm the GNS WAAS 530 and 430 are being developed for XPlane (this has started since NOV08). The target release is March, provided and I can finalize some "missing links" between XPL and GNS Simulation (the "gauge" part of the product is entirely done, with some never done before concepts in XPL...)

[MatthewS 761]

I confirm the GNS WAAS 530 and 430 are being developed for XPlane (this has started since NOV08). The target release is March, provided and I can finalize some "missing links" between XPL and GNS Simulation (the "gauge" part of the product is entirely done, with some never done before concepts in XPL...)

Excellent news! Any chance of a teaser screenshot?

[Murmur 3,944]

- Also, is there a Piper Saratoga (PA32) available in XPlane that is pretty realistic?

Jason Chandler's Piper Aircraft Series includes a Saratoga:http://www.c74.net/xplane/_a_saratoga.htmlIt's a low cost package, and uses default X-Plane GPS.I think Jason's aircrafts should perform quite close to real ones, but they're subject to the common over-sensitivity of many X-plane aircrafts, so you'll have to tune the joystick control sensitivities and, in case, tweak aircraft's inertial properties in Plane-Maker.Marco

[n4gix 4,947]

Over the years of reading many "A vs. B" forum postings...here's some observations and conclusions I've come to for myself.1.) X-Plane is totally misunderstood by new users. Documentation has always stunk and folks just don't know what to think.

That could be expanded just a bit more to include new developers. Even those who're very experienced in FS development will miss the relatively robust SDKs that MS supplied, even with their warts taken into account.This lack of good documentation is -in a nutshell- the true "Achille's Heel" with regards to increaseing the developer base. Of course, as you've mentioned, the code base changes so often that's keeping documents up-to-date is well neigh impossible. :( I thank you for the insights into XP, as well as your gift of time to do so. :(

[tkyler 88]

That could be expanded just a bit more to include new developers. Even those who're very experienced in FS development will miss the relatively robust SDKs that MS supplied, even with their warts taken into account.This lack of good documentation is -in a nutshell- the true "Achille's Heel" with regards to increaseing the developer base. Of course, as you've mentioned, the code base changes so often that's keeping documents up-to-date is well neigh impossible. :( I thank you for the insights into XP, as well as your gift of time to do so. :(

Well I have a very rapidly growing pile of information for developers that, when released, should clear up a lot of issues. I'm somewhat taking it upon myself to compile the information that new developers will need. So this too...is somthing that is begin addressed, but will take time.

[MatthewS 761]

Well I have a very rapidly growing pile of information for developers that, when released, should clear up a lot of issues. I'm somewhat taking it upon myself to compile the information that new developers will need. So this too...is somthing that is begin addressed, but will take time.

:( :( :(

[nudata 10]

The 5 minute Demo - My only experience thus far. However, my question should be relevant despite the demo source. The Cessna in the demo has a "3D" panel. The clarity of the instruments seem slightly less than some FSX aircraft. So, does X-Plane provide for instrument clarity that rivals Real Air products? I rarely look at the aircraft's exterior thus the cockpit texturing, coloring and clarity of the panel are a focus for me.

[Geofa 108]

The 5 minute Demo - My only experience thus far. However, my question should be relevant despite the demo source. The Cessna in the demo has a "3D" panel. The clarity of the instruments seem slightly less than some FSX aircraft. So, does X-Plane provide for instrument clarity that rivals Real Air products? I rarely look at the aircraft's exterior thus the cockpit texturing, coloring and clarity of the panel are a focus for me.

Dick-Per tklyer's suggestions above go to your rendering menu and change your render field of view setting to 65-or a different number-see if that makes it better.