Yeah, what ever! Keep dreaming that! XP even made it confusing to install the world scenery.

Not in recent versions. You get a big, friendly map that lets you click on the areas you want to install/uninstall. It couldn't be easier.

I've had a ton of fun playing the XP10 demo.. i already liked XPlane 9, it's just that i thought FSX was better in many respects. However, many of the things that made me go back to FSX are now also in XP10. As far as low-leveling and VFR flying, i think XP10 is now on a par with FSX. As far as nighttime flying, XP10 far surpasses FSX.One thing that still annoys me about XP10 however is that the visibility range is still kindof limited.. can't even see mount Rainier from Seattle, which is just weird.Time for Austin to start working on a scalable landscape generator, so they can draw things in the distance without needing the full detail mesh (which is what happens in XP10 right now.. no popping or blurries though, which is nice).Anyway, i have a feeling that a bright future lies ahead for Xplane, especially with more and more devs moving their way.. we have yet to see what will happen to Flight in that regard. I hope MS hasn't alienated all of them.. that'd be a major footbullet indeed.

Not in recent versions. You get a big, friendly map that lets you click on the areas you want to install/uninstall. It couldn't be easier.

Just to let y'all know, I don't hate XP, I just had a bad experience with XP-9.

Just to let y'all know, I don't hate XP, I just had a bad experience with XP-9.

lol, I think EVERYONE had a bad experience with FSX when it first came out.Wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not, I bought FSX based on the strength of the demo. For that matter I bought XP10 for the same reason.

lol, I think EVERYONE had a bad experience with FSX when it first came out.Wouldn't you agree?

No, I would disgree with that generalization.I just tried the XP demo. Pretty, but that's about all I can say positive about it. It's not that it's horrible... it's just not good enough for purchase. The base flight models are severely (not marginally) flawed. They're far, far worse than any of the base FSX flight models. The King Air C90 flat out shocked me at how horribly wrong it's flight dynamics are. Not a 'wee bit'... like WAAY off.Either the weather in XP is unsafe for casual flight (constant, severe turbulance)... or the inherent stability that aircraft have (by design) is completely absent from XP.As for the user interface... I'll be nice and not even say anything further regarding it.I could go on and on... but to be honest... it's not what they claim with regards to realism (I found certain laws-of-physics requirements in flight dynamics missing)... and it's certainly not worth the asking price for it's flaws.

I have to agree the default aircraft in xplane 10 don't show xplane it off to its best-but then some of the defaults in fsx that were from prior versions such as the Baron don't fare so well either for fsx.I am in a unique position that I own the Carenado F33a for FSx and just bought it for Xplane so can compare apples to apples (also owned one for 11 years so very familiar).Did a back to back compare tonight and I can say xplane not only captured the feel 10 fold of the real bird but allowed me to do things on the sim that fsx simply can not. For instance-on takeoff on xplane when the air becomes active over the wing I can pull back on the yoke slightly and just sit there and allow the nosewheel to slowly come off, hold it and the plane flies of when it is ready. The rudder usage on takeoff feels normal-fs is a wallowing of back and forth. Fsx just pops off at a certain time. The controls feel fluid and sportcar like in xplane like the real bird-fsx feels like a tank...and then there was the short final I could accomplish in xplane due to its extreme fluidity and drive the plane right above the runway and hold it off for a greaser that seemed to take forever before kissing down-I just can't seem to do in fsx-in fact I find landing very difficult in fsx. Sure a few of the numbers are off on xplane-I had to hold 23-24" on downwind with the gear down to hold altitude and the real bird is 20". Not a big deal though-and if you really want to feel as close on a computer screen to what the real bird feels like I can attest that this was the experience. I feel like I experienced a new high in simming tonight-at least on this bird.The interface is a little clunky-but really-it doesn't take that long to get used to it-either the views. I prefer the ease of fsx in some areas (but don't miss the waiting forever to change to a new plane or time of day) but also am not convinced that using windows and fs for the last 10 years doesn't just make it feel a little alien. Sure there could be improvements to the interface-but after a couple hours I find nothing difficult about using it.I used to feel like you do about all the other xplane series-but 10 has me seriously excited. I even just uploaded a video on youtube of my experience tonight I was so thrilled.. I also saw some weather effects with rw downloads that took my breath away, and of course the night lighting, lack of blurries...lots of things to enjoy and explore.I won't be getting rid of fsx anytime soon-there are lots of things it can do xplane can't-especially with the wide variety of add ins. But I think xplane 10 is going to be getting greater attention from me.

So what your saying is, we need to spend MORE money after the $80 to make it a good flight sim?

I'd say the same applies to any sim..

It took me 4 years before paid for my first FSX add-on (OrbX PNW). The rest was stuff I made and free stuff. IL2 never paid for a 3rd party add-on.

lol, I think EVERYONE had a bad experience with FSX when it first came out.Wouldn't you agree?

I don't recall having any issues with FSX.

Geof, I can assure you all of that can be accomplished in FSX as well. It just requires someone knowing how to properly set up the flight dynamics.My point is X-Plane is being touted as the 'best'... and yet they release with the absolute worst examples of flight dynamics I could imagine. GA aircraft in particular are inherently stable, not unstable. In FSX you see that, in X-Plane... you don't. The King Air C90 is an extremely smooth flying aircraft in real life and it's fairly well balanced in it's behavior. It has extremely snappy pitch and roll performance. In X-Plane... that simply wasn't there. I couldn't keep the X-Plane C90 level at all. It kept wanting to roll left or roll right. It wouldn't trim for level flight. Absolutely nothing I tried could elicit stable behavior. It simply was not realistic at all.

I don't recall having any issues with FSX.

I seem to recall FPS issues among the vast majority of users. And I still see OOM errors with various add ons.Hardly trouble free.

lol, I think EVERYONE had a bad experience with FSX when it first came out.Wouldn't you agree?

I used it from day one ... the people that cried about it wanted sliders full right on day one.

I used it from day one ... the people that cried about it wanted sliders full right on day one.

Not just the FPS/settings. There's still the ocassional OOM error.