I am a newbie coming over from FSX. So far, I have only flown the 172, but I do like the feel of it and the stability and smoothness of the framerates. A few suggestions for the next version of X-Plane. I played around with the months slider in the environment window and the seasons don't change at all!? Unless I am missing something, this is going to be quite unrealistic in the Northeast in January. I was hoping for some nice fall colors let alone snow in winter. Secondly, the scenery is very good regarding the mountains, terrain, and water areas. But is it possible to make the urban areas like they are in the real world? My home area is in the right area, water and rivers are great, but the generic urban textures aren't even close to being accurate enough for me to navigate. Streets run diagonal to the way they really are in my hometown, and it would be great if streets and buildings, housing developments, etc. were in the right places - such as in Google Earth. (I downloaded the G2XPL but don't know where to begin in setting it up such as with changes in the ini file.)Also, a suggestion for the next manual. The current one is written well in plain English, but the section on the Autopilot covers all different types together. It is hard to tell what one is being described, as to whether it is a small plane or larger airliner. How about specific instructions for each separate aircraft such as the online manual with FSX? Please don't take this the wrong way. There is a lot of good here to impress FSX users. I am just mentioning some things that I would like to see in the sim that I miss from FSX as a FSX user for so many years. I'd love to enter a complete flight plan into the Garmin with approach procedures, etc. rather than just navigating point to point. In the Cessna, I still can't figure out the altitude part of the A/P. The only way I found to descend is to disingage the altitude button which also seems to disengage the Loc / GPS function as well. I'd be interested in what the plans are for XP10. Regards, Tom

X-Plane is a great simulator, I consider it better than FSX and even purchased V7 some time ago. But it has one major drawback: The lack of add-ons. There's not even a single PMDG-style airliner available for X-Plane. For me, there's absolutely no indication that this situation would ever change in the future, developers produce for MS FS. As long as I miss my favourite planes in X-Plane, I refrain from purchasing it.Andreas

X-Plane is a great simulator, I consider it better than FSX and even purchased V7 some time ago. But it has one major drawback: The lack of add-ons. There's not even a single PMDG-style airliner available for X-Plane. For me, there's absolutely no indication that this situation would ever change in the future, developers produce for MS FS. As long as I miss my favourite planes in X-Plane, I refrain from purchasing it.

Bingo! I think you expressed the opinion of many MSFS/X users who have tried X-Plane. You're right that this situation is unlikely to change. The sim has so much potential, but unfortunately Laminar Research just doesn't get it. Until third party developers at the level of PMDG and Aerosoft become part of the X-Plane development community, the product will remain a wanna-be.- Jev

Bingo! I think you expressed the opinion of many MSFS/X users who have tried X-Plane. You're right that this situation is unlikely to change. The sim has so much potential, but unfortunately Laminar Research just doesn't get it. Until third party developers at the level of PMDG and Aerosoft become part of the X-Plane development community, the product will remain a wanna-be.- Jev

Just wait for X-Plane 10. Laminar Research finally gets it. They are designing 2 jetliners with PMDG quality. Everything you can think of is being modeled. From FMC to cabins to engine bays. Austin Meyer has said the lack of payware quality is a problem and wants to address it. I own FSX and X-plane and if X-Plane gets quality add onsIt will corner the flight sim market because it's a great sim.

Just wait for X-Plane 10. Laminar Research finally gets it. They are designing 2 jetliners with PMDG quality. Everything you can think of is being modeled. From FMC to cabins to engine bays. Austin Meyer has said the lack of payware quality is a problem and wants to address it. I own FSX and X-plane and if X-Plane gets quality add onsIt will corner the flight sim market because it's a great sim.

If you have insight about XP10 I would be particularly interested in knowing what, if any improvements are being made to the ground textures, especially at low altitude. That's one of the biggest turn-offs for me in XP9.

For me, there's absolutely no indication that this situation would ever change in the future

You're probably not paying attention as you're a MSFS user, totally reasonable BTW; however, nwjetflyer is right...there are two airliners in the works for x-plane that while possibly not up to PMDG "quality" in terms of full systems simulation is definitely better in the 3D department. Now that's not to say the systems simulation isn't there, it is.... but there's a few things yet to squeeze in to make it as full featured as possible. The POH for these models are being referenced...and as many systems features as can be crammed in are...and any systems that is NOT simulated will probably be added in the future. Also, these are "default" x-plane aircraft. PMDG are 75.00 add ons. Now there's still a great room for improvement no doubt...but these projects will get done eventually.Flaps 30: The world is a pretty big place. x-plane has real street locations for the US if you turn you roads setting up to high! I'm not sure about the rest of the world...finding and implementing the data is the issue. Laminar resources are a bit thinner than Microsofts I would guess.Seasons....we all know full well seasons are not currently implemented, but it's not like Laminar is avoiding it. We have user_1 wanting airliners and user_2 wanting seasons and user_3 wanting ATC. The best I can tell you is that laminar has increased the number of people working on the sim to address these issues. I can guarantee that there is not one feature in msfs that laminar doesn't know about and decide where that feature fits into their development program. here's my take as an x-plane developer, laminar contractor, and 10 year vet of x-plane. All these fun features will find their way into x-plane in due time. We all want em..me too! We work on what we can as fast as we can...and you decide when x-plane is right for you. No doubt the "airline pilot" fans are the biggest crop of MSFS users...so things like FMS ops and aircraft systems simulation and ATC are high on the list...but a lot of other things are too. What is not in question is that this takes time and it's perfectly understandable for folks to stay with msfs until x-plane fits their needs...but to insinuate that laminar just doesn't get it? c'mon...I won't stand by as a contributer to default x-plane content and let you tell hundreds or thousands of people I don't get it!Rightseater: what kind of improvements are you referring to? higher resolution? better "generic textures" I assume you're not talking about ortho-photo scenery...even MSFS doesn't ship with that.

You're probably not paying attention as you're a MSFS user, totally reasonable BTW; however, nwjetflyer is right...there are two airliners in the works for x-plane that while possibly not up to PMDG "quality" in terms of full systems simulation is definitely better in the 3D department. Now that's not to say the systems simulation isn't there, it is.... but there's a few things yet to squeeze in to make it as full featured as possible. The POH for these models are being referenced...and as many systems features as can be crammed in are...and any systems that is NOT simulated will probably be added in the future. Also, these are "default" x-plane aircraft. PMDG are 75.00 add ons. Now there's still a great room for improvement no doubt...but these projects will get done eventually.Flaps 30: The world is a pretty big place. x-plane has real street locations for the US if you turn you roads setting up to high! I'm not sure about the rest of the world...finding and implementing the data is the issue. Laminar resources are a bit thinner than Microsofts I would guess.Seasons....we all know full well seasons are not currently implemented, but it's not like Laminar is avoiding it. We have user_1 wanting airliners and user_2 wanting seasons and user_3 wanting ATC. The best I can tell you is that laminar has increased the number of people working on the sim to address these issues. I can guarantee that there is not one feature in msfs that laminar doesn't know about and decide where that feature fits into their development program. here's my take as an x-plane developer, laminar contractor, and 10 year vet of x-plane. All these fun features will find their way into x-plane in due time. We all want em..me too! We work on what we can as fast as we can...and you decide when x-plane is right for you. No doubt the "airline pilot" fans are the biggest crop of MSFS users...so things like FMS ops and aircraft systems simulation and ATC are high on the list...but a lot of other things are too. What is not in question is that this takes time and it's perfectly understandable for folks to stay with msfs until x-plane fits their needs...but to insinuate that laminar just doesn't get it? c'mon...I won't stand by as a contributer to default x-plane content and let you tell hundreds or thousands of people I don't get it!Rightseater: what kind of improvements are you referring to? higher resolution? better "generic textures" I assume you're not talking about ortho-photo scenery...even MSFS doesn't ship with that.

As far as the ground textures I'd vote for higher resolution and I still have to agree with a user that said cities look like someone took a toybox a scattered it all over the place. I do like the look of generic mountain areas/trees / water/rivers which I think xplane does much better than fs.I am wondering about performance though-as with the present xplane if I turn settings anywhere near to what I have with fsx the sim crashes-and that is after it tries to turn the visibility down to less than 20 miles. Just wondering how seasons, atc, better modelled aircraft, custom aircraft to the quality of fs, higher resolution textures, more realistic clouds, can be added to the sim (all requiring more processor load) just to get it to where fsx is now ,and reasonable performance can be maintained. Seems like just catching up to the features of fsx right now would make the sim grind to a halt-at least based on present experience.

Yes, higher resolution. I would like to see the same difference we saw going from FS9 to FSX. The textures at low altitudes are just too blocky and unattractive to me. I'm not saying that I need to see individual blades of grass, just something more defined than what I see in XP9. Do that and add a high-quality GA Twin (Baron, Baron, Baron, Baron) and I'd be in XP heaven.

As far as the ground textures I'd vote for higher resolution and I still have to agree with a user that said cities look like someone took a toybox a scattered it all over the place. I do like the look of generic mountain areas/trees / water/rivers which I think xplane does much better than fs.I am wondering about performance though-as with the present xplane if I turn settings anywhere near to what I have with fsx the sim crashes-and that is after it tries to turn the visibility down to less than 20 miles. Just wondering how seasons, atc, better modelled aircraft, custom aircraft to the quality of fs, higher resolution textures, more realistic clouds, can be added to the sim (all requiring more processor load) just to get it to where fsx is now ,and reasonable performance can be maintained. Seems like just catching up to the features of fsx right now would make the sim grind to a halt-at least based on present experience.

I couldn't say Geofa...it'd take more comprehensive data from more sources. I've heard several people say that MSFS runs considerably slower with similar settings to x-plane, but I honestly don't know..i've never compared myself. There's a lot of factors gauging performance. I do know that laminar tests everything on several level of video cards...and I also know that there's a myriad of things that can affect performance AND that some video cards have more issues than others. I myself have to lean on the fact that computers gets faster as do cards and things will just adapt. I'm using an old P4 machine with 8800GT card. I figure a new i7 based chip and state-o-the-art video card will help things considerably..as soon as I can get rid of all my kids...and I haven't forgotten about the Baron. I'm pushing to make do one as a default aircraft for xplane to fill the "GA twin' void.

You're probably not paying attention as you're a MSFS user, totally reasonable BTW; however, nwjetflyer is right...there are two airliners in the works for x-plane that while possibly not up to PMDG "quality" in terms of full systems simulation is definitely better in the 3D department. Now that's not to say the systems simulation isn't there, it is.... but there's a few things yet to squeeze in to make it as full featured as possible. The POH for these models are being referenced...and as many systems features as can be crammed in are...and any systems that is NOT simulated will probably be added in the future. Also, these are "default" x-plane aircraft. PMDG are 75.00 add ons. Now there's still a great room for improvement no doubt...but these projects will get done eventually.Flaps 30: The world is a pretty big place. x-plane has real street locations for the US if you turn you roads setting up to high! I'm not sure about the rest of the world...finding and implementing the data is the issue. Laminar resources are a bit thinner than Microsofts I would guess.Seasons....we all know full well seasons are not currently implemented, but it's not like Laminar is avoiding it. We have user_1 wanting airliners and user_2 wanting seasons and user_3 wanting ATC. The best I can tell you is that laminar has increased the number of people working on the sim to address these issues. I can guarantee that there is not one feature in msfs that laminar doesn't know about and decide where that feature fits into their development program. here's my take as an x-plane developer, laminar contractor, and 10 year vet of x-plane. All these fun features will find their way into x-plane in due time. We all want em..me too! We work on what we can as fast as we can...and you decide when x-plane is right for you. No doubt the "airline pilot" fans are the biggest crop of MSFS users...so things like FMS ops and aircraft systems simulation and ATC are high on the list...but a lot of other things are too. What is not in question is that this takes time and it's perfectly understandable for folks to stay with msfs until x-plane fits their needs...but to insinuate that laminar just doesn't get it? c'mon...I won't stand by as a contributer to default x-plane content and let you tell hundreds or thousands of people I don't get it!Rightseater: what kind of improvements are you referring to? higher resolution? better "generic textures" I assume you're not talking about ortho-photo scenery...even MSFS doesn't ship with that.

Whoa, hold on there. You got the wrong guy. I never said Laminar doesn't get it. That was someone else in this thread. I'm glad to hear LR is listening and will improve the sim over time and is putting priority on certain features. I already said above that XP9 impressed me. I am working on improving and updating my system to get as much out of it as I can. I bought it only last February (A Gateway FX 6800 01e, Intel core i7 cpu 920@ 2.67 ghz.) and have been told I could probably use more DDR3 memory. Even after being told my new system would be fine for FSX, I was disappointed that I had to turn down some settings in FSX as well as X-Plane 9, but for the most part, the visuals are pretty good. My biggest frustration with XP-9 is not being able to file a complete flight plan, fly an instrument approach procedure from a Garmin database (I have only flown the Cessna) and it would be great if urban textures were more accurate. I will try to crank up the roads a bit more as long as it doesn't hurt my performance. A post suggested getting G2XPL for Google Earth textures. I eagerly downloaded it but the documentation seems more for the experienced computer expert, and I was afraid to try tweaking the mentioned ini file so as of now, I haven't tried it. I love the intro and history of X-Plane in the manual, and the "plain English" style of the manual. I do think however that more aircraft - specific instructions are needed. For example, in trying to use the Cessna autopilot, I referred to the manual but the description begins with what appears to be the Cessna type autopilot then ends with the more complicated airliner/fmc type. Simple English but not to the specific knobs and switches I needed. As a matter of fact, right now X-Plane 9 is all I am flying. I just got the Matrox TripleHead2Go with a three monitor setup but I am experiencing problems using it with FSX with the 2D instrument panel or any 2D sub panels. I would use the 3D panel alone except that I can't even open a 2D subpane in the 3D view without the lockup. I get a flashing cursor lockup and the 2D instrument panels disappear into a black rectangle. With XP-9 all panels and views seem to work fine. Until I solve this problem with FSX, XP-9 is all I will be using. I only meant to make suggestions to help improve the sim which is now apparant that Laminar is already doing. I look forward to trying XP-10 when it finally comes out. Regards, Tom

Sorry Flaps, definitely wasn't addressing you on that specific point...poor writing on my part! The whole "flight plan / Garmin / EFIS / moving map / airspace" thing is really on everybody's list and I'm very hopeful it will make it in there sometime soon. Speaking of which..is anybody aware of "non-US" data sources for airspace information? I'm aware of the national aviation database here in the US, but not abroad.

I couldn't say Geofa...it'd take more comprehensive data from more sources. I've heard several people say that MSFS runs considerably slower with similar settings to x-plane, but I honestly don't know..i've never compared myself. There's a lot of factors gauging performance. I do know that laminar tests everything on several level of video cards...and I also know that there's a myriad of things that can affect performance AND that some video cards have more issues than others. I myself have to lean on the fact that computers gets faster as do cards and things will just adapt. I'm using an old P4 machine with 8800GT card. I figure a new i7 based chip and state-o-the-art video card will help things considerably..as soon as I can get rid of all my kids...and I haven't forgotten about the Baron. I'm pushing to make do one as a default aircraft for xplane to fill the "GA twin' void.

:( :( :( B)

:( :( :( B)

Tkyler-as you see you have two rabid Baron drivers waiting with much anticipation now. B) One thing-I think it is important to try the competition ..In my case-I have no loyalty and use the sim I consider best-always have. I have all the sims and always have.Seems to me that is good-why not get a copy of fsx and a few typical add ins and see what it has to offer so perhaps one can put xplane/fsx in perspective and improve perhaps both.They always say-they build a Lowes across the street from Home Depot-competition is good for everyone. If you don't really know what the competition is there is little incentive to improve (and perhaps take a few ideas).I have to say -I have run some compares of performance between xplane and fsx-and when I turn fsx down to what xplane settings are (one can't of course completely do this when I am running much higher res textures/clouds etc. in fsx)-but reducing visibility in fsx and turning autogen down to xplane comps only-fsx performs better. I know that goes against the grain and standard mantra-but again I have no loyalty...

I totally agree and will probably get a copy as soon as I can secure a faster machine. My personality is such that the "feel" of the x-plane as I perceive it (because I know larry perceives it different :-)) is at the top of my list..which is why FSX will probably never quite do it for me. But I do look at all the features it does have and say to myself...x-plane needs that...and forward we go to try and do it. At least it gives me something to do after work!

I wish someone from Aerosoft would bother to read this thread... Apparently they think they can roll out a simulator in less than 3 years time. Oh GOD talk about competition! Anyways even if the two new planes aren't PMDG quality hopefully they'll make one boeing and one airbus.. and we can cut and paste the systems into forming an entire fleet.