I tried X Plane

[LAdamson 240]

On the xplane board it seems the word is this is the fault of different combinations of hardware. However, since the universal initial comments of anyone who tries xplane is squirelly, disconnected and too twitchy, there seems to be something quite universal here that could be fixed.

Now you be sure to tell them that.................including artificial stability! :( I can't, because I'm "banned" from saying anything. :( L.Adamson

[Cedhed 0]

I just had a thought. If there is going to be a huge exodus of people from FSX to X-plane, I feel sorry for some of the smaller XP payware devs. Basically from what I have seen they have been able to rely on the small userbase and lack of competition to enable the success of releases that, in the FSX world, would not be quite as well received.Just a quick example from an advertiser on X-plane.orgX-plane. $14.95Virtualhanger 182FSX, $19.95Carenado 182Now I'm not meaning to pick on this dev, or to insinuate their aircraft is not of good quality. I'm sure they put quite a lot of effort into the model's design and construction. And in fact that is my point. It's difficult for a single hobbyist to compete with a talented and motivated team of designers and artists. Working by yourself around a standard work schedule with free/cheap tools can yield you a nice flyable plane. But it takes a huge investment of time and tools to make a seriously pro quality addon.The same thing happened when the MSFS payware community matured, A lot of smaller developers got shaken out due to the time and expertise required to create a competitive aircraft package.Not saying that's a good or bad thing. Just that I see trouble on the horizon for the smaller independant XP payware devs.

[n4gix 4,947]

As a developer, this just comes with the territory. Computer tech moves fast and I for one welcome the little problems that crop up as signs of progress because it makes the whole product better and the market bigger. Bigger market means more features and more new developers. Some of the steps are backwards, but many are forward. X-Plane is about two orders of magnitude brighter than it was just 1 and a half years ago. In my own experience, I prefer to call it a minor PITA rather than a major one.

Nearly all of the releases from Eaglesoft take anywhere from a year to two years of mostly full-time work from conception to release. It simply isn't feasible to build this level of quality and detail for a product that morphs so quickly.Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the Sandel SA4550 is lacking 90% of the functionality of the real SA4550... :(

[Murmur 3,944]

I just had a thought. If there is going to be a huge exodus of people from FSX to X-plane, I feel sorry for some of the smaller XP payware devs. Basically from what I have seen they have been able to rely on the small userbase and lack of competition to enable the success of releases that, in the FSX world, would not be quite as well received.

I completely agree with you, but at the end of the day I see that as a good thing. I don't think there's a single X-Plane payware developer who currently makes any appreciable amount of money given the smaller market share (and also, given the fact that X-Plane community is a little more "disposed" towards freeware add-ons), so I think/hope none of them will "suffer" a lot. On the other hand thanks to the likes of Carenado the end user will enjoy much better products at a lower price.Marco

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Nearly all of the releases from Eaglesoft take anywhere from a year to two years of mostly full-time work from conception to release. It simply isn't feasible to build this level of quality and detail for a product that morphs so quickly.Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the Sandel SA4550 is lacking 90% of the functionality of the real SA4550... :(

I think it might be possible to test the flight dynamics changes over a period of time to see how things change in handling between versions on average. That might allow the developers to help understand the nature of handling changes from patches.Now that 9.30 B4 is out, I think it might actually be a good idea to do a small test with a custom design, I'm working on my own projects right now, so I might create a basic flight testbed that can test fm changes between versions and updates. It might very well disprove some beliefs about upkeep.(it should be noted that most issues with FMs having massive changes unless something big changes in the fm (rare) is just from poor design, like most of the default aircraft)

[teropa 4]

I think it might be possible to test the flight dynamics changes over a period of time to see how things change in handling between versions on average. That might allow the developers to help understand the nature of handling changes from patches.Now that 9.30 B4 is out, I think it might actually be a good idea to do a small test with a custom design, I'm working on my own projects right now, so I might create a basic flight testbed that can test fm changes between versions and updates. It might very well disprove some beliefs about upkeep.(it should be noted that most issues with FMs having massive changes unless something big changes in the fm (rare) is just from poor design, like most of the default aircraft)

But still, if the core changes (with regard to FMs) even a bit, all the time, where does that leave payware aircraft developers? It leaves them to the obligation of constantly patching and tweaking their existing products, since it is not feasible (and not even fair to the paying customer) to design anything that is specific to version 1.015.200A but is just a little broken in 1.015.300. No customer (and self) respecting payware developer can continue selling an unpatched plane even if it seemingly worked in both versions. That is bad PR and lots of angry and confused customers. What's more, the developers would have to sell and deliver a huge amount of patches over a usual sales period of say 2-3 years, since the core simulation product will have changed so much in that time. This will be a major pain in the rear in support sense. What I am after is this: In MSFS the developers are free to develop for the certain core simulation for X years and once they get anything out, it will be mostly functionality patches, bug fixes etc., not compatibility revisions for Core version y.z. For small outfits I bet it is a daunting voyage to undertake multiple aircraft projects in such an environment. Perhaps even one, since it requires a hefty amount of work from the developer side even to keep up with the nearly constant updates. To buy each major release, to try and test each small release with the published work. A lot of things to do which isn't there in MSFS world.I do think that unless the XPL platform gets more "fixed" in the compatibility arena, there will not be a surge of payware developing for it. XPL could also handle the compatibility issues inside the core platform, somehow providing compatibility options in the sim itself, to select for each aircraft/model a specific operation mode, and that way each payware aircraft would function as designed in the new versions too, but the newest goodies would then be left out so to speak. I don't know. If I developed payware stuff I would probably steer clear of XPL at the moment.Tero

[Murmur 3,944]

I do think that unless the XPL platform gets more "fixed" in the compatibility arena, there will not be a surge of payware developing for it. XPL could also handle the compatibility issues inside the core platform, somehow providing compatibility options in the sim itself, to select for each aircraft/model a specific operation mode, and that way each payware aircraft would function as designed in the new versions too, but the newest goodies would then be left out so to speak. I don't know. If I developed payware stuff I would probably steer clear of XPL at the moment.Tero

I agree with Tero. I'd go as far as to say that the only reason big payware names would not start developing for X-Plane today, is the "moving target" issue.Austin needs to understand that.There's another thing to consider though: many changes and updates are 100% retrocompatible, so they're not actual issues for developers.For example, any change to the weather engine is a non-issue (at least until there will not be any wx add-ons);all the changes to default scenery (airports, textures, etc) are a non-issue;in general, any addiction to the graphical engine (new effects, lighting, etc.) are non-issues.Also, many (but not all) features that gets added to aircraft in terms of systems, functionality, panel, etc. retain retrocompatibility.At the end of the day, the only real issues are flight model changes, and those changes to aircraft features that break compatibility (e.g. the recent changes to the engine modeling).So if Austin wants to keep a constant flow of updates to his product, he should focus on those numerous retrocompatible changes, and leave systems/flight model changes that break retrocompatibility to major versions.Marco

[boshar 6]

X-plane. $14.95Virtualhanger 182FSX, $19.95Carenado 182

So did you test any further then just look at the pretty pictures? I can assure you that the FSX add-on doesn't fly 1 meter in X-Plane ;-)If you like the Caranado model that much I can give you some pointers how you can get the 3D model from Carenado into the X-Plane add-on. Its releatifly easy to do. But how realistic is it flying your aircraft from the outside.

[GusRodrigues 1]

I've tried X-Plane demo.The issue was already said by Geofa. Low time to test the sim. Only 10 min of sim time with joystick is little to have enought time to explorate the simulation as it is. Also, you spend at least 5 minutes to learn and configure the sim.The only thing that I though in Xplane was annoying, were the rendering of textures and scenario, because appear to be much darker than it should be. but cloud shadows, sun effects, rain, snow, aircraft lighting were outstanding.

[LAdamson 240]

I've tried X-Plane demo.The issue was already said by Geofa. Low time to test the sim. Only 10 min of sim time with joystick is little to have enought time to explorate the simulation as it is. Also, you spend at least 5 minutes to learn and configure the sim.The only thing that I though in Xplane was annoying, were the rendering of textures and scenario, because appear to be much darker than it should be. but cloud shadows, sun effects, rain, snow, aircraft lighting were outstanding.

You can pause the sim, to make configurations.L.Adamson

[Murmur 3,944]

.The only thing that I though in Xplane was annoying, were the rendering of textures and scenario, because appear to be much darker than it should be.

Try raising the "Gamma" value in the Rendering settings menu ( the default value is 2.2 ).Marco

[Geofa 108]

Try raising the "Gamma" value in the Rendering settings menu ( the default value is 2.2 ).Marco

Also shows a matter of taste. I find the "dark" textures of xplane actually very close and less "neon" than fs. But changing the gamma settings should allow everyone to set it just as they like.

[tf51d 284]

I believe that gamma setting is a new feature on the 9.30 beta's, if tou are still using 9.22 or lower I don't think you have that option.

[spilok 1,136]

Tried XPlane yesterday, and my first day was very frustrating. I can't get it to go full screen, and the XPlane forum tells me to "Search" to find out how to do it. No one there gave me an answer. I also think the planes are extremely twitchy, and need a lot of work.XPlane installed itself in my Users folder, not Programs, and I do have problems starting XPlane. It initally says that it's Not Responding, and eventually I'm able to get it to respond.Think I'll delete it today and try to reinstall it in my Programs Folder. Overall, XPlane just doesn't seem to have the sophisticated "Real" look that FSX has.Stan

[Geofa 108]

Tried XPlane yesterday, and my first day was very frustrating. I can't get it to go full screen, and the XPlane forum tells me to "Search" to find out how to do it. No one there gave me an answer. I also think the planes are extremely twitchy, and need a lot of work.XPlane installed itself in my Users folder, not Programs, and I do have problems starting XPlane. It initally says that it's Not Responding, and eventually I'm able to get it to respond.Think I'll delete it today and try to reinstall it in my Programs Folder. Overall, XPlane just doesn't seem to have the sophisticated "Real" look that FSX has.Stan

Stan-Under "rendering" there is a box to click that says something like "match screen resolution". Clicking that should give you a full screen.As for the twitchies-right on the money. Unfortunately you have to change that yourself-at least on the default aircraft. See my post above on the subject-start with the right handed joystick setting and you should be able to get it to settle down nicely.One of the things I did also was run a driver cleaner and reinstall my video driver. I really didn't expect much to happen-but it took care of constant crashes I was having with xplane.Concerning visuals-try different areas-I'd suggest O05 (chester rogers) for instance. I think you will fine the terrain, water stunning (make sure they are both turned up in your rendering options). I think you will find although you give up generic buildings at airports, and high res ground textures, you get incredible water-lakes, rivers, with beautiful reflections of clouds and mountains, and cloud shadows on the terrain. You give up some things but you get others.Most importantly, like that fine glass of wine you are holding-give it some time to breath. I was very frustrated for about a week-but found sticking with it well worth it....and ...ahem-the new beta seems to have added even much better stability and feel-but my left alternater needle now goes bezerk and the plane turns itself in level flight...and I had it all working quite nice..oh well... :(