Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Listening to this guy gives you quite a headache...http://www.fsbreak.net/podcast/22One thing he says during the interview:"Nobody fired from ACES or from Aerosoft has contacted me..."After listening to him for an 1 hour, I can imagine some reasons why they haven't called.


Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was an interesting interview, and it is always refreshing to hear that level of enthusiasm from a developer about his own product after so many years. Austin is not a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination, and although his manner can be a bit offputting, underneath it all I don't doubt his sincerity.One thing that did concern me is that Austin made specific references to how X-Plane will continue to chop and change on a very regular basis, as it always has done. This seems at odds with his claim that third part developers are all jumping on board in the light of the MS decision on FS. They never did so before because of that continually changing code, so why would they do so now, when they have an MS product to develop for which they can be certain will not change? I really find it hard to believe that developers would be keen to commit a long term project to a platform where the goalposts are continually being moved, and despite Austin's claims of the superiority of its core blade element flight model, if it is so good, why does he continually feel the need to mess around with it?I've had versions of X-Plane in the past, but to be honest I'm disinclined to buy a product that is effectively out of date a week after you have bought it. I know there are free updates, but one thing to be said for the fact that FS9 only ever got one patch, is that there is still stuff being made for it five years down the line. It's this above anything else that prevents me from buying the current X-Plane. Having said that, if even half of what Austin said about the forthcoming airliners which are supposedly going to show up in X-Plane, I'd be willing to change my mind.I have a lot of time for Austin, but if he wants third parties on board, he needs to give them a stable surface upon which to lay their wares.Al


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I know that that Airliner in question is the ether the MD-80 or the DO-328. This has been stated on the org and at x-plane freewarehttp://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=431852 and http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=431688The truth about the modeling of these aircraft, we will wait and see, but I don't doubt that Austin is serious about the detail being put in to these. It's one of the biggest complaints about the program that it has been poorly detailed in the default aircraft, and it appears that Austin is getting the message. This MD-80 has been years in the making, so it will be good if they know half what their doing.The improvements in 10 seem to be shaping up to be the big one. 9 seems to be more about flight model refinements, 8 was more about scenery refinements, and 6 was the big shift to 3d. 7 seemed to me more like a general overhaul, but i got into that one late and it was a long time ago, so i barely remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I found the comments regarding the Cirrus versus the Columbia/Cessna 400 to be the most interesting part of the conversation.2. Getting real world figures by importing an aircraft into plane maker, is a lot harder than Austin makes it sound. Since many known airplanes have to be tweaked with "voodoo", just like MSFS.................. I wouldn't trust a new design to be that accurate, fresh out of plane maker.3. Even though, Austin promotes blade element theory as superior to lookup tables, it's not. Lookup tables can often seem superior in making a sim airplane appear to fly realistically. At least that's my feeling on that subject. 4. As previously mentioned, the constant revisions will certainly keep 3rd party developers away. After all, numerous models for MSFS have taken many months or years to develop from start to finish. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AVN8tr

I'm happy with the development already in the X-plane world. So far with OpenSceneryX project you get far better airport scenery than anything you'll see on FSX. Heck even if you do an import of an FS airport it will display 10x better with the X-plane engine. About the physics models...as Austin said there is a way to patch things, and you don't need to wait for the developer to do so. Just load it up in planemaker maybe click a few things and save.. you're done. And as far as microsoft making useless sdks, lets see there was Simconnect 1, SP1, SP2, acceleration, ESP, which may or may not require .net 2.0 3.5 4.0. And to the OP.. it was a bad joke... but still there is a point to the fact that Microsoft prevents these people from even writing blogs about Flight Simulation let alone apply for a job or become a 3rd party developer even for the FS series. Tragic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm happy with the development already in the X-plane world. So far with OpenSceneryX project you get far better airport scenery than anything you'll see on FSX. Heck even if you do an import of an FS airport it will display 10x better with the X-plane engine.
I'd like to see an example of that. Use a stock airport, let me know what KDLH looks like in xp9

| FAA ZMP |
| PPL ASEL |
| Windows 11 | MSI Z690 Tomahawk | 12700K 4.7GHz | MSI RTX 4080 | 32GB 5600 MHz DDR5 | 500GB Samsung 860 Evo SSD | 2x 2TB Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | EVGA 850W Gold | Corsair 5000X | HP G2 (VR) / LG 27" 1440p |

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest hobofat
I'd like to see an example of that. Use a stock airport, let me know what KDLH looks like in xp9
I ditto this request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AVN8tr

Why that's not my job to sell more copies of X-plane... and actually duluth airport is covered by OpenSceneryX and Ted's Scenery.. so its FAR more detailed than even your stock FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I found the comments regarding the Cirrus versus the Columbia/Cessna 400 to be the most interesting part of the conversation.2. Getting real world figures by importing an aircraft into plane maker, is a lot harder than Austin makes it sound. Since many known airplanes have to be tweaked with "voodoo", just like MSFS.................. I wouldn't trust a new design to be that accurate, fresh out of plane maker.3. Even though, Austin promotes blade element theory as superior to lookup tables, it's not. Lookup tables can often seem superior in making a sim airplane appear to fly realistically. At least that's my feeling on that subject. 4. As previously mentioned, the constant revisions will certainly keep 3rd party developers away. After all, numerous models for MSFS have taken many months or years to develop from start to finish. L.Adamson
I agree, The method of creating an aircraft can easily turn out someting that is not "accurate". Non-pilots make an aircraft that looks ok but has questionable performance. If not verfied it hits the web as-is. Also, the visuals do seem to need a lot of time. I have purchased some airplanes that look ok outside for model aircraft display but inside were terrible. When asked, the author said he might get around to improvements some day.

regards,

Dick near Pittsburgh, USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why that's not my job to sell more copies of X-plane... and actually duluth airport is covered by OpenSceneryX and Ted's Scenery.. so its FAR more detailed than even your stock FSX.
Got a pic?

| FAA ZMP |
| PPL ASEL |
| Windows 11 | MSI Z690 Tomahawk | 12700K 4.7GHz | MSI RTX 4080 | 32GB 5600 MHz DDR5 | 500GB Samsung 860 Evo SSD | 2x 2TB Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | EVGA 850W Gold | Corsair 5000X | HP G2 (VR) / LG 27" 1440p |

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got a pic?
I'd like to see one too. So far importing fs scenery hasn't worked out too well for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cameron

Geof,What sceneries so far have given you issues that you are dissatisfied with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geof,What sceneries so far have given you issues that you are dissatisfied with?
I haven't been able to import any fs scenery with out problems-so I was curious to see the above mentioned scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cameron

Geof,Again, what sceneries? I seem to be converting sceneries just fine, as have the mass of others that use the FS2XPlane utility. I'm curious to know what you have that's not properly working, or what you may be doing wrong (or what can be done to correct the issue for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geof,Again, what sceneries? I seem to be converting sceneries just fine, as have the mass of others that use the FS2XPlane utility. I'm curious to know what you have that's not properly working, or what you may be doing wrong (or what can be done to correct the issue for that matter).
Just use the program-get floating buildings etc. =would like to see a successful venture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...