I think you are missing the point. 1. Aerosoft's flight simulator that "may" appear in 2012 is hardly a concern for anybody. That entire product is in such early stages I don't think it is even off of the drawing board. If it is released, it too will not be a concern for Laminar Research.2. You can't compare the VC of one aircraft like the 747 and base XP's capabilities on that. To do so would be a huge mistake. The development of VCs in XP has nothing to do with the simulator, but rather the general lack of high-quality payware developers in the sim (there simply are not many). I encourage you to look up videos of the CRJ being developed for XP.3. There is, for all we know, no development team for another FS and no plans for another. Microsoft stating they are, "committed to the franchise", really does not amount to a hill of beans.4. Again, XP development does not revolve around other FS products.You seem to forget how many years XP has been around, and as it stands now, it is really the "only" sim still in development.The entire XP vs FS argument is pointless anyways since competition is good. IMO, somebody who really loves flight simming would support all groups, not just one.

1. You are right, Aerosoft's FS right now may not even get off the drawing board, and whether or not they actually produce a quality sim to today's standards, with their first attempt remains to be seen. There is no denying though that with their experience in the flight sim world, if anyone was going to attempt a project like this, other than MS, and Laminar they certainly have the know how and the in house resources to do this.2. The CRJ VC does look nice, and as I sid earlier, both sims are capable of producing high quality aircraft. The problem with X-Plane is there are a lot fewer quality models available for it then FSX has available for it, and most of them are coming from the same developer developing mostly GA aircraft. 3. I don't think MS would be hiring Project Managers, Software Engineers, and testers for their Flight Simulator Live project if they weren't serious about developing a new version. What that will end up being ultimately is still speculation, but I think it's safe to say it will be a PC app being it is being developed on the Game for Windows Live model. 4. True, except it does need more developers of that quality. The fact that this sim is still in development is one of the reasons keeping them away. It is a moving target. Whether true or not, the perception is there for the 3rd party developers that the platform is unstable when there are regular updates like is done with the X-Plane model. Now that REX has crossed over, this will be a good test to see if their fears are justified. If REX isn't affected by the periodic updates of the base program, then we may see other developers crossing over. If however they have to constantly fix things that break with these updates, it could slam the door on other 3rd party FS developers from crossing over to develop for X-Plane. That would leave only the developers that develop for X-Plane alone, which right now as far as quality developers are few and far between. Right now FSX is a 3rd Party developers dream, where they can just produce their products without fear of an upcoming update breaking it. This cuts their development maintenance and support costs. Leaving them free to go on to other projects.

I'm rooting for X-plane. I really am. With the FS series in doubt we need something to continue into the future. But until they improve the graphics (some things are nice, so it's not a huge leap), add AI capability, improve ATC to at least FSX levels, and have at least FSX quality airport scenery out of the box, I can't switch.I'm hoping X-plane 10 deals with these shortcomings. If they can put out a product that rivals FSX graphically and scenery wise, but has better performance and flight dynamics, I think they can completely take over the market. That's a big if though.Honestly, reading their outline from their X-plane 10 Congress (planning for X-plane 10), I'm skeptical it happens. Most of the stuff dealt with flight dynamics. I saw nothing on AI, and little on scenery updates. Until they make those as big of a priority as flight models, they'll never capture a majority section of the market.

I'd love to see how this thread would fair in an xplane.org forum lol

I'd love to see how this thread would fair in an xplane.org forum lol

LOL, I predict you'd see a preponderance of the phrases "eye candy", "unrealistic" and "M$".

Why is it that some members have to take this so personal that they resort to personal attacks. There's nothing absurd about my educated opinion about X-Plane.FSX is the platform of choice for the best devs. As long as developers continue to support FSX, and improve it with quality add-ons, I don't see why "I" would ever replace it.Just my opinion.

First off, that is not a personal attack. If it was, the Avsim staff would have deleted it. You are calling a program "One Star" when it is apparent you do not know much about it. Your "educated" opinion is involving a product you seemingly have limited experience with. In that, it is hardly "educated". I am not trying to convince anybody to choose X-Plane over FSX, nor am I bashing FSX at all. Your broad based generalizations are what irk me. "One star" program, "the best devs"..etc.. Your opinion of the "One star" is not necessarily somebody else's opinion, and the same goes for who you consider "the bests devs".

Frankly I wish more FSX users would try XP... I wish an XP user (not an FSX hater though) would show me the ropes. I tried the latest demo and found everything to look quite like FS9. The Cirrus Jet you get in the demo is unrealistic - I know I work them often in Duluth, I see how they fly etc etc. The LOWI scenery I think it is is "spruced up" for purpose of the demo I'm guessing. Their stock airports look like poop. I know it takes some tweaking out of the box but IMHO the GUI is NOT user-friendly at all. And the stupid thing about the visibility dropping to increase fps is lame. Like I said, I'd love to get up and running with the demo but just have not been able to.

Frankly I wish more FSX users would try XP...

Oh come on! I thought XP was a thing of the past now! I went from XP to Vista to Windows 7 and now you want me to go back to XP? Gimme a break!Oooooooooo... wait a minute... you mean that XP... sorry!(Juuuuuuuuuust kidding, of course!!! :( )

By the way, I've got X-Plane 9 on my system. I've tried several times to acclimate myself to it, but it just never takes. I put that down more to my extreme comfort with FSX than to shortcomings in X-Plane, although I've got quite a few niggles with it. Curiously, I'm finding that XP doesn't run any more smoothly for me than FSX, even with all the add-ons I've crammed into the latter. Probably, I just need to tweak a bunch of XP settings. I find I just don't have the time or heart for it, though. For now, FSX is my default virtual "world", and I like it there.

1. You are right, Aerosoft's FS right now may not even get off the drawing board, and whether or not they actually produce a quality sim to today's standards, with their first attempt remains to be seen. There is no denying though that with their experience in the flight sim world, if anyone was going to attempt a project like this, other than MS, and Laminar they certainly have the know how and the in house resources to do this.2. The CRJ VC does look nice, and as I sid earlier, both sims are capable of producing high quality aircraft. The problem with X-Plane is there are a lot fewer quality models available for it then FSX has available for it, and most of them are coming from the same developer developing mostly GA aircraft. 3. I don't think MS would be hiring Project Managers, Software Engineers, and testers for their Flight Simulator Live project if they weren't serious about developing a new version. What that will end up being ultimately is still speculation, but I think it's safe to say it will be a PC app being it is being developed on the Game for Windows Live model. 4. True, except it does need more developers of that quality. The fact that this sim is still in development is one of the reasons keeping them away. It is a moving target. Whether true or not, the perception is there for the 3rd party developers that the platform is unstable when there are regular updates like is done with the X-Plane model. Now that REX has crossed over, this will be a good test to see if their fears are justified. If REX isn't affected by the periodic updates of the base program, then we may see other developers crossing over. If however they have to constantly fix things that break with these updates, it could slam the door on other 3rd party FS developers from crossing over to develop for X-Plane. That would leave only the developers that develop for X-Plane alone, which right now as far as quality developers are few and far between. Right now FSX is a 3rd Party developers dream, where they can just produce their products without fear of an upcoming update breaking it. This cuts their development maintenance and support costs. Leaving them free to go on to other projects.

1. Agreed. However, X-Plane really does not cater to the same dynamic. Despite it being different "in general", it also functions on MAC and Linux. Aerosoft is a good group and I really enjoy their FS9 and FSX add-ons, but a flight sim from them is more likely to compete with MSFS than it is XP. 2. That is true, and that is the crux of the issue. It is also the main reason I roll my eyes at people who essentially bash X-Plane as a sim. It is not the sim that lacks the capabilities, it is the lack of developers making products for the sim. 3. Microsoft doing hiring for various technical positions has probably more to do with the FS project affiliated with that survey many of us took a while back. The survey, IIRC, that asked if we would like to fly birds in a game. FS does have a core group of followers, but that is hardly representative of the videogame market in general. The same goes for the MSTS fans. That product has a huge following, heck, MSTS2 wasn't far from being completed from the looks of it and now that project has gone the way of Dodo bird. The money is in "pick up and play" products, not full FMS capable with dynamic weather flight simulators. All of the add-ons advertised here, at Flightsim.com, at SOH, etc.. really amount to nothing for MS. The only people who even see these add-ons are the true sim fans who frequent forums such as this one. To those in the mainstream, these add-ons do not even exist. Would I continue to play FS9/FSX without these add-ons? Nope, and I am a diehard FS fan. Imagine those out there who could really care less about simming and just picked up FSX at Best Buy for some quick fun. Imagine those same people when they load up the game and their performance sucks, there are a ton of controls to learn, and they realize that a keyboard and mouse just won't hack it and they may need to buy a joystick.I honestly doubt MS laid off the entire, or majority of the FS team, thought, "oh no, we messed up", and is now planning to rehire an entire new team........for a product that could not make the bottom line the first time, but time will tell. If I were MS, I would be focusing on products that bring the dollars in, products that grab interest long enough to keep people entertained for a few hours, products that don't require a yoke or HOTAS arrangement to fully be enjoyed, products that don't require a herculean system to "crank up the sliders", products that have DLC online like the 360/PS3 have so they can increase revenue generation. As much as I am a fan of FS and flying in general, I just don't see MS picking up where they left off or continuing on the same path as they were on before. Unfortunately, quick-twitch gaming rules the day and those of us who enjoy following IFR procedures are in the minority. 4. While I understand the apprehension revolving around XP's continuous development, I also find it sort of hypocritical. Many folks want continued support for their products, they want to know the developer will be there to fix problems and provide support. X-Plane has this and now people complain that it is updated too often. It is safe to say that nearly all of FSX's shortcomings will never be fixed let alone even looked at. What you see is what you get. While X-Plane's updates may be a little tedious, at least the end-user is getting a product that will receive solid support and have quite a bit of longevity. As it stands now FSX will never improve. Add-ons will be released but they will never address any core deficiencies. Some folks debate the flight models between both products, FSX's capabilities will be the same 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now, while X-Plane's will more than likely improve (taking into account continued development) over time. As you already stated, groups like REX trying the X-Plane waters is important and only time will tell how it turns out. X-Plane is a good product with a lot of potential, it is a shame to see so many here automatically discount it (not directed at you, Tom).

1. Agreed. However, X-Plane really does not cater to the same dynamic. Despite it being different "in general", it also functions on MAC and Linux. Aerosoft is a good group and I really enjoy their FS9 and FSX add-ons, but a flight sim from them is more likely to compete with MSFS than it is XP. 2. That is true, and that is the crux of the issue. It is also the main reason I roll my eyes at people who essentially bash X-Plane as a sim. It is not the sim that lacks the capabilities, it is the lack of developers making products for the sim. 3. Microsoft doing hiring for various technical positions has probably more to do with the FS project affiliated with that survey many of us took a while back. The survey, IIRC, that asked if we would like to fly birds in a game. FS does have a core group of followers, but that is hardly representative of the videogame market in general. The same goes for the MSTS fans. That product has a huge following, heck, MSTS2 wasn't far from being completed from the looks of it and now that project has gone the way of Dodo bird. The money is in "pick up and play" products, not full FMS capable with dynamic weather flight simulators. All of the add-ons advertised here, at Flightsim.com, at SOH, etc.. really amount to nothing for MS. The only people who even see these add-ons are the true sim fans who frequent forums such as this one. To those in the mainstream, these add-ons do not even exist. Would I continue to play FS9/FSX without these add-ons? Nope, and I am a diehard FS fan. Imagine those out there who could really care less about simming and just picked up FSX at Best Buy for some quick fun. Imagine those same people when they load up the game and their performance sucks, there are a ton of controls to learn, and they realize that a keyboard and mouse just won't hack it and they may need to buy a joystick.I honestly doubt MS laid off the entire, or majority of the FS team, thought, "oh no, we messed up", and is now planning to rehire an entire new team........for a product that could not make the bottom line the first time, but time will tell. If I were MS, I would be focusing on products that bring the dollars in, products that grab interest long enough to keep people entertained for a few hours, products that don't require a yoke or HOTAS arrangement to fully be enjoyed, products that don't require a herculean system to "crank up the sliders", products that have DLC online like the 360/PS3 have so they can increase revenue generation. As much as I am a fan of FS and flying in general, I just don't see MS picking up where they left off or continuing on the same path as they were on before. Unfortunately, quick-twitch gaming rules the day and those of us who enjoy following IFR procedures are in the minority. 4. While I understand the apprehension revolving around XP's continuous development, I also find it sort of hypocritical. Many folks want continued support for their products, they want to know the developer will be there to fix problems and provide support. X-Plane has this and now people complain that it is updated too often. It is safe to say that nearly all of FSX's shortcomings will never be fixed let alone even looked at. What you see is what you get. While X-Plane's updates may be a little tedious, at least the end-user is getting a product that will receive solid support and have quite a bit of longevity. As it stands now FSX will never improve. Add-ons will be released but they will never address any core deficiencies. Some folks debate the flight models between both products, FSX's capabilities will be the same 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now, while X-Plane's will more than likely improve (taking into account continued development) over time. As you already stated, groups like REX trying the X-Plane waters is important and only time will tell how it turns out. X-Plane is a good product with a lot of potential, it is a shame to see so many here automatically discount it (not directed at you, Tom).

1. Depending on how good and how complete a sim Aerosoft produces, it may very well compete with both FSX, and X-Plane on both the PC and MAC, since the MAC can boot as a PC. Linux is the only O/S that would be isolated from such competition.3. Time will tell. IMHO I think MS will produce a good sim at a level higher then the previous, as they have done with every version. I think this time, you will see more addons coming from MS itself, via it's Windows Live concept. As long as they don't limit 3rd party development, which would be a big mistake, I don't see this as a problem.4. Every time people say FSX is dead it will never improve. A new addon comes out making the sim even better. One of the newest and innovative is EZCA o (or EZDOX as it's sometimes referred too.) which provides realistic motion sensation in turbulance, landing etc.. as well as add new type of camera's. The 3rd Party is constantly exploiting features not previously used before. Look at *******'s shader mod. He turned the whole sim from using Shader 2.0 to Shader 3.0 improving it's looks and performance. It seems to me unless Austin lifts X-Plane's limits X-Plane 9 is more restricted from developing then FSX. 3rd party developers will never be able to break the 25 mile visibility limit without reverse engineering the limits LR put in. Same goes for AI. To my knowledge there is no 3rd party effort to fix it's ATC. Is it because there is no interest, or is it not possible in X-Plane 9? FSX not only supports different and unlimited AI packages, but there are also 3 separate ATC replacement solutions available. Now hopefully X-Plane-10 will fix and add the missing features to make it a better contender, but right now FSX has the greater potential for improvement then X-Plane 9. That's not conjecture, that's fact, based on development already done.

1. Depending on how good and how complete a sim Aerosoft produces, it may very well compete with both FSX, and X-Plane on both the PC and MAC, since the MAC can boot as a PC. Linux is the only O/S that would be isolated from such competition.3. Time will tell. IMHO I think MS will produce a good sim at a level higher then the previous, as they have done with every version. I think this time, you will see more addons coming from MS itself, via it's Windows Live concept. As long as they don't limit 3rd party development, which would be a big mistake, I don't see this as a problem.4. Every time people say FSX is dead it will never improve. A new addon comes out making the sim even better. One of the newest and innovative is EZCA o (or EZDOX as it's sometimes referred too.) which provides realistic motion sensation in turbulance, landing etc.. as well as add new type of camera's. The 3rd Party is constantly exploiting features not previously used before. Look at *******'s shader mod. He turned the whole sim from using Shader 2.0 to Shader 3.0 improving it's looks and performance. It seems to me unless Austin lifts X-Plane's limits X-Plane 9 is more restricted from developing then FSX. 3rd party developers will never be able to break the 25 mile visibility limit without reverse engineering the limits LR put in. Same goes for AI. To my knowledge there is no 3rd party effort to fix it's ATC. Is it because there is no interest, or is it not possible in X-Plane 9? FSX not only supports different and unlimited AI packages, but there are also 3 separate ATC replacement solutions available. Now hopefully X-Plane-10 will fix and add the missing features to make it a better contender, but right now FSX has the greater potential for improvement then X-Plane 9. That's not conjecture, that's fact, based on development already done.

You won't get any arguments from me regarding FSX being the more complete sim experience. XP does have it's shortcomings, but it also has quite a bit going for it. People are starting to notice the validity of it as a good development platform. The big question for developers is whether or not the cost outweighs the return. With a smaller community, XP may not have the monetary draw that FSX or even FS9 does. On the flip side, there is not much competition over there either. If a solid payware group from the FS series side of the house wanted to create an add-on and price it reasonably (reasonably being a relative term), they would have a good chance of cleaning house. The CRJ that is being worked on has a huge following and it is not even out yet. When people ask what the best payware aircraft in XP is, nine out of ten times the response is going to be the MU-2 or the Falco. Having said that, outside of the JGX Corvallis (a personal favorite of mine), there just aren't many choices. There's a wide open door for a high-visibility FS series developer to roll right in there and just grab market share. The big plus regarding XP is that many of the shortcoming you mentioned are known to the developer as well as the community and I am sure things will get addressed eventually. FSX can only really improve with regards to scenery and aircraft. The core engine itself is, for all intensive purposes, is dead from a development perspective (although kudos to Lotus for beating the VC rain issue and creating some awesome lighting effects). If X-Plane has an engine issue there is a decent chance that it can be modified, corrected, and/or built upon by the actual developer of the product. The lack of AI and the limited viewing distance are known "dislikes" from both camps, we will just have to wait and see if they are corrected and/or enhanced. A lot of people have high hopes for XP 10, lets see if it delivers.

As far as the visibility (and maybe also the ATC and AI) issue goes, I'm not sure LR is going to change it. X-Plane also has a pro version (Much more expensive) which doesn't have that limitation so I have to think one of the reasons it's on the consumer version, is to prevent would be customers of the pro version from using the cheaper consumer version instead. If that is the case, I'm not sure they'll give that up too easy.

No I am not nuts Mitch.I was actually refering to the quality of aircraft-virtual cockpits, instrumentation etc. The majority are substandard compared to anything for fsx, and the ones that are touted so far as the best it can do I would put in the mid range of quality for a typical fsx aircraft. Do you own fsx? I ask because I find many xplaner's that make such claims do not.But since you bring up flight dynamics, that is one of the reasons I don't use xplane much. It does a nice back and forth dutch roll that is very believable but past that the feel is wrong, and most often the numbers too. That includes screaching brakes on the takeoff roll when rudder input is used. You are wrong-I fly a twin engine high performance complex in real life. Before that a complex high performance single. 21 years of flying. Time in lots of different aircraft both single and twin. I assume you are implying that I can't possibly know how a plane performs and feels because of that? I will confess total ingnorance on jet aircraft-but singles and twins I think I know pretty well. If xplane did what I fly best, trust me-I'd be using it.... as you mention scenery-that is the second reason I don't use it much. The forests and mountain areas are very nice but when you get in the urban areas like where I live, it looks like a wasteland after a bombing. As I have mentioned -there are other things that xplane does very well, and why I suggest everyone gets a copy to try it out. I also think true flight simmers should support every sim.But these two areas you mention are actually what keeps me away.I am glad "smaller" sim companies are using xplane. There must be a reason the "bigger" sim companies are using fsx (esp).When someone says it is not debatable, one is nuts, and misleading people I think your post speaks for itself.

Really?Please educate me. Which companies are using FSX? Please I need to know this as I deal on a weekly basis with Flight Safety and many other smaller companies. I'm dieing to hear which companies are using FSX?Thanks Geofa,Mitch

I did not mean to be contradictory.Let me put succinctly,X-PLANE is a one star simulator. FSX + Acceleration has evolved into a 5 star platform that developers and simmers love.I hope I cleared that up.

"I hope I cleared that up."Yes you have. FSX is merely a game for "game" developers.Thank you,Mitch

Really?Please educate me. Which companies are using FSX? Please I need to know this as I deal on a weekly basis with Flight Safety and many other smaller companies. I'm dieing to hear which companies are using FSX?Thanks Geofa,Mitch

Lockheed-Martin for one, also Northrop-Grumman - i don't think you can classify either of them as "Game" developers! - Oh, and Flight Safety!

Frankly I wish more FSX users would try XP... I wish an XP user (not an FSX hater though) would show me the ropes. I tried the latest demo and found everything to look quite like FS9. The Cirrus Jet you get in the demo is unrealistic - I know I work them often in Duluth, I see how they fly etc etc. The LOWI scenery I think it is is "spruced up" for purpose of the demo I'm guessing. Their stock airports look like poop. I know it takes some tweaking out of the box but IMHO the GUI is NOT user-friendly at all. And the stupid thing about the visibility dropping to increase fps is lame. Like I said, I'd love to get up and running with the demo but just have not been able to.

Learning from your experience, I won't. I'd rather have the more user-friendly FSX, and have Aerosoft sceneries on them.