1. use of directX2. SH like PMDG, FTX orbx, Fsdreamteam, aerosoft, flytampa, hi-fi simulations and so on3. better menu

1. use of directX2. SH like PMDG, FTX orbx, Fsdreamteam, aerosoft, flytampa, hi-fi simulations and so on3. better menu

X Plane is programmed in OpenGL on a MAC. It's installable on Linux, Mac and Windows. DirectX does not allow this.Aerosoft are developing for X Plane. They have been for several months. IIRC, the European version of X Plane, sold through Aerosoft, will have European airports installed.

1) Auto-populate airport buildings like FSX did somehow. It's a deal breaker for a lot of simmers when they load up their local airport and there's nothing there.2) Rework the AI system to at least allow easy 3rd party integration so you aren't limited to a few random AI aircraft. That way freeware or payware providers can work with it to provide realistic traffic.3) Fix the interface and streamline it.4) Add landmarks to cities either by hand or through land class. People like to fly around their home areas. If that's NY, it needs to look like NY. If it's Beaumont, TX (like me right now), downtown needs to be where it's supposed to be. It doesn't have to be 100% right. Just generally correct to give the illusion of realism. Those would go a long way in bridging the gap

1) Auto-populate airport buildings like FSX did somehow. It's a deal breaker for a lot of simmers when they load up their local airport and there's nothing there.2. Rework the AI system to at least allow easy 3rd party integration so you aren't limited to a few random AI aircraft. That way freeware or payware providers can work with it to provide realistic traffic.3) Fix the interface and streamline it.Those would go a long way in bridging the gap

1. Rendering and settings->Airport detail2. I think it took about a year before Ultimate traffic was made for FS9. 3. Could you be more specific?

1. Rendering and settings->Airport detail2. I think it took about a year before Ultimate traffic was made for FS9. 3. Could you be more specific?

1. Some random buildings isn't what I mean. I mean the way it's done in FSX, with at least semi-correct building placement at most regional/major airports (over 1000 of them). I've seen mention they were trying to do this for XP10 a few weeks back in another topic. If it can be done, it's a big thing and should be done ASAP.2. That's great. But the system needs to at least be viable for 3rd party development. Can something like ultimate traffic even be reasonably designed with XP10's current AI system? Seems unlikely, but we will see. 3. It needs to be easy to use and visually appealing. The opposite of what it is now. The top complaint about XP going back years is the UI.

1. Some random buildings isn't what I mean. I mean the way it's done in FSX, with at least semi-correct building placement at most regional/major airports (over 1000 of them). I've seen mention they were trying to do this for XP10 a few weeks back in another topic. If it can be done, it's a big thing and should be done ASAP.2. That's great. But the system needs to at least be viable for 3rd party development. Can something like ultimate traffic even be reasonably designed with XP10's current AI system? Seems unlikely, but we will see.3. It needs to be easy to use and visually appealing. The opposite of what it is now. The top complaint about XP going back years is the UI.

1. I haven't had a proper look around X Plane 10, and the demo area is limited to seattle, so it remains to be seen what international airports look like.2. There is an SDK for aircraft development. I can't see why there won't be one made available for 3rd party AI.3. In your opinion, is it reasonable to assume that because you are very well accustomed to something that is NOT X Plane, that it's harder to get around in? Not necessarily worse. Just different. My opinion would be yes.

1. I haven't had a proper look around X Plane 10, and the demo area is limited to seattle, so it remains to be seen what international airports look like.

I've interfaced with the lead scenery designer on this very forum. Every indication I've gotten is that XP10 will suffer from what XP9 did. Barren airports outside of hand designed KSEA. It'll be up to 3rd parties to populate the rest. That's enough of an answer for some, but for many simmers it could take years or an eternity to see their airports populated by 3rd parties.

2. There is an SDK for aircraft development. I can't see why there won't be one made available for 3rd party AI.

In FSX, the base system was expanded and built upon to produce real world traffic because it was possible to do so. In XP10, the base system limits you to 20 AI and that's saying nothing of what kind of computer power it takes to actually use 20 AI planes because of how it's designed.There in is the question. Can something like UT even be done in XP10? Again, it doesn't seem likely with it's current makeup.

3. In your opinion, is it reasonable to assume that because you are very well accustomed to something that is NOT X Plane, that it's harder to get around in? Not necessarily worse. Just different. My opinion would be yes.

This wasn't a "what X-plane users prefer" thread. It was what needs to happen for it to compete with FSX on a grand scale. The current UI is the single biggest complaint about XP. The developers can ignore that if they wish but it's a problem.

In your opinion, is it reasonable to assume that because you are very well accustomed to something that is NOT X Plane, that it's harder to get around in? Not necessarily worse. Just different. My opinion would be yes.

What is really lacking - is a "Get Started Guide" that will take a new user by the hand and guide him (or her)through their first flight.A different UI is something you can get used to, if you have a guide to take you through it..It seems hard for an XPlane veteran to appreciate how difficult it is to find your way aroundin XPlane... It starts with the Mac standards that are difficult to grasp for a Windows user..Simple things like menus that get wiped out when another message pops up and a lackof "Apply" or "Save" buttons to confirm selections. Or the way you select an airplane..Then the settings that are scattered around in various places..Again, if it is your goal to introduce this Sim to a new set of potential customers,real work needs to be done to introduce it properly..If it is your goal to keep this as a "better sim" for XPlane fans,no need for any thing like that..

What is really lacking - is a "Get Started Guide" that will take a new user by the hand and guide him (or her)through their first flight.

http://www.x-plane.com/files/manuals/X-Plane_10_Desktop_manual.pdf

Goran, with all due respect... think of a new user who has just downloaded 4 GB of Demo dataand gets told to put DVD1 in the drive to get started...I'm not trying to be difficult here - but that is the problem you are up against.It is solvable, but it takes a willingness to put yourself in the position of an XPlane newbie

Goran, with all due respect... think of a new user who has just downloaded 4 GB of Demo dataand gets told to put DVD1 in the drive to get started...I'm not trying to be difficult here - but that is the problem you are up against.It is solvable, but it takes a willingness to put yourself in the position of an XPlane newbie

Hey, no problem. I know where you are coming from. I have literally helped around half a dozen people so far to get started in XP9 over the last few months. In saying that, I think the last book of instructions, or quick start guides for FS was back in FS5. That was a good book to follow. Contrary to popular opinion, there are a few people who are more than willing to help new users get started. I will always make time to help someone if they genuinely want it. If something doesn't make sense, and it's not in the instructions, post in these forums, or x-pilot or x-plane.org (although the reception might be kinda frosty at x-plane.org)If you take a look at some of the threads where people ask for help, they almost always get it.

Just my thoughts...If XPlane is going to compete with FSX, it needs in my opinion--a. A total rework of the interface and menu system. Simple user configuration 'presets' should be available, with the advanced settings left intact.b. A menu to choose the aircraft like FSX where you don't drill down/up through directories.c. The installer should create a desktop shortcut to the executable.Just the little touches... and this could be a serious contender.

I agree with all these points.I feel XP's GUI is similar to a learning experience with first time Linux users. I used Linux in college, mostly to play around with. As far as a practical solution to my computing needs... lol... not what I'd want to use day in and day out. XP's GUI needs some serious work if LR is to attract many new users. I think sometimes we forget that the people in these forums are the hard core guys. There's many millions out there who never touch a forum, never buy payware, or even know it exists. Those are the types LR needs if they want the business. Those are the type Microsoft attracts with their simple GUI.

We all are looking for a sim that suits our wishes and what every inividual feels is "needed and obligatory", right? Some find that in FSX, some in X-Plane, I myself still cry tears of joy when remembering Fly!. That's all fine.One thing I do not understand is: Searching for "this sim" that might be giong to be used for several years (!) from now (used by users, further developed by the developers), people are not willing to take a learing curve of something between 8 hours and 2 days? You rather accept some presets without much flexibility? It's about the "beauty of the GUI" for you?I respect that opinion. I just do not understand the logic behind it.

It's very logical. LR's goal is to attract new customers, is it not? In order to do that I believe making a more user friendly GUI is a good starting point.

The question is: Is it really a priority? I do not think so. Most of the settings are explained in the manual, they come with pop-up tool tips, and lay the flexibility in the hands of the user - i.e., you have the power over the software to configure it to your personal liking.I liked this from day 1 when I started using X-Plane 8.