Hi all !Did you see this video ?

:(

Actually its not X Plane 10, its some of the smaller features currently in development, scenery, AI, weather effects etc... and some of the add on planes that will be in the XP10 release, inside XP9.What what is being talked about in the developers forums XP10 will be a leap and bound beyond XP9. With many, many more extras not yet publicly acknowledged by the XP Team. I think XP10 will (finally) get alot of folks excited about XP

Yes, :( as I said in the title here and as it's explained in the comments of the video, it's a planes preview. It's a good way to promote a new sim. But who in the world is using default aircrafts ? Every advanced MSFS and X-Plane 9 user is using 3rd party add-ons. Why should this change ? I think folks should already be excited about X-Plane 9.My X-Plane 9 screenshots: It's already the best sim for general aviation and helicopters. If you need good add-ons, don't miss the X-Aviation sale: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=1064Happy flying ! :(

Snip.....

"Advanced users" are the minority. MSFS and XP extend FAR beyond Avsim and other online websites. Most users who shop in stores more than likely have no idea who most add-on developers are, nor do they care. Many of the folks who frequent B&M stores pick up products like XP and FS because they have "cool" looking airplanes on the front, not because they have the opportunity to pay $30, $40, $50, etc.. etc.. for another airplane/add-on.So, when you ask, "Who in the world is using default aircraft"? The answer is, most people. Because "most" people are not interested in advanced simulation. The better a product's default aircraft are, the better chance there is people will be drawn into a product, and perhaps even delve into more of the advanced add-ons down the road.I can't speak for anybody else here, but if a product had some great default aircraft and I was less inclined to purchase more expensive add-ons because of it, I am all for it.For all the add-ons I own, the products that are often referred to as "lite" are the ones that in fact get the most use. :(

Arklight1, I think you may find that besides avid simmers, a lot of real-world pilots like to use, where available, add-on aircraft that more closely represent what they fly.

At 1:09 you see Lady Liberty herself. I also noticed the Sydney Operahouse, so it appears as if they have finally wised up and started putting landmarks in the default scenery. I also noticed some nice new aircraft, and even better, it looks like they added quality 3d cockpits and decent models for most if not all of the defaults now. Furthermore I noticed the airports and it looks like they may be a bit more detailed for at least the major ones now.I guess I'm going to have to wait for the betas/demo and try it out.

"Furthermore I noticed the airports and it looks like they may be a bit more detailed for at least the major ones now."Well... Innsbruck looked pretty amazing, too!Fingers crossed... I wanted a good reason to buy an iMac anyway.

Arklight1, I think you may find that besides avid simmers, a lot of real-world pilots like to use, where available, add-on aircraft that more closely represent what they fly.

True, but I imagine the general audience of flight sims has been people just looking to fly, not people necessarily looking to fly complex instrument procedures into IMC in a $30 add-on. lolBetter aircraft "out-of-the-box" represents more value and bang for the buck, and that is something everybody looks for in a product.

"Better aircraft "out-of-the-box" represents more value and bang for the buck, and that is something everybody looks for in a product. "Agreed - and I like the progress the FS series has made over the years... but the vast majority of non-pilots who buy the software wouldn't know the difference if we're talking about performance or subtleties in controls, systems, gps, etc.As far as add-ons, I've purchased two that I use to supplement my RW training; I'm not doing complex instrument procedures - I don't have my PPL yet, but getting close... I'm just trying to remember where the dang avionics switch is in the Warrior ;)Also, I purchased the RealityXP 430, as there's one in one of the planes I use for training, and it's great. (Wish there was a KNX 135 somewhere..)Seriously, though, I'm curious as to how many RW pilots don't seek to find the sim-equivalent of what they're really flying out there, or aspire to fly. If there's more than a handful I'd be surprised.

"Better aircraft "out-of-the-box" represents more value and bang for the buck, and that is something everybody looks for in a product. "Agreed - and I like the progress the FS series has made over the years... but the vast majority of non-pilots who buy the software wouldn't know the difference if we're talking about performance or subtleties in controls, systems, gps, etc.As far as add-ons, I've purchased two that I use to supplement my RW training; I'm not doing complex instrument procedures - I don't have my PPL yet, but getting close... I'm just trying to remember where the dang avionics switch is in the Warrior ;)Also, I purchased the RealityXP 430, as there's one in one of the planes I use for training, and it's great. (Wish there was a KNX 135 somewhere..)Seriously, though, I'm curious as to how many RW pilots don't seek to find the sim-equivalent of what they're really flying out there, or aspire to fly. If there's more than a handful I'd be surprised.

I've been trying to find something that is realistic in XP for the past 3 years, but haven't found anything yet. The MU-2 looks like it may be good, but that doesn't fit the profile or equipment I fly. I wish PMDG would update their 1900D as that's what I may be flying if I get an interview this month. So far, FSX does a better job with helping me practice my instrument procedures because both the aircraft and navdata are more up-to-date and accurate.