Where I stand with XP10

[h2egc 32]

Curious what possible is in the development framework of XP, but myself not interested at this point.

So why even ask?

[virtualstuff 762]

So why even ask?

I ask from a technical standpoint always curious...After reading back my post I was maybe not clear enough, I'm always interested in technology...But that doesn't mean I'm interested to develop for XP at this point in time for several reasons.So I hope this a better explanation what I meant to say lolBut I see there are sub forums for that so better to ask the question there...

[h2egc 32]

Thanks for clarifying!Have a GREAT day!

[virtualstuff 762]

lol Marco

Well Marco different opinions here lol and yes I have seen the demo local here and based on that gave my first impressions But at this point in time not enough spare time to check it out more Thanks for sharing the movie and your point of view ...Probably will buy it and have a more in depth look when development time permits.

[JasonHarris 96]

I am using the tm warthog as well. Default settings were not playable at all so I moved them around a bit and it handles ok now. Which leads me to a question. It seems from what I have read in numerous posts by experienced xp'ers that everyone must change the joystick settings to get a controllable plane because of the way that do works. This could take you anywhe from unit rollable to feeling like Fsx. If this is the case, why doesn't do have a default setting that has a better chance of working rather than no chance of working? It makes the whole thing of better flight model seem irrelevant if it is up to the users to subjectively set what they think a plane may feel like?

[Alan_A 1,650]

I am using the tm warthog as well. Default settings were not playable at all so I moved them around a bit and it handles ok now. Which leads me to a question. It seems from what I have read in numerous posts by experienced xp'ers that everyone must change the joystick settings to get a controllable plane because of the way that do works. This could take you anywhe from unit rollable to feeling like Fsx. If this is the case, why doesn't do have a default setting that has a better chance of working rather than no chance of working? It makes the whole thing of better flight model seem irrelevant if it is up to the users to subjectively set what they think a plane may feel like?

I think part of the issue is that X-Plane allows more options for fine-tuning the controllers than FSX does (what with separate settings for response curve, null zone and stability). To get the same level of control in FSX would require the paid version of FSUIPC, and even then, I'm not sure there's an equivalent for the stability option.More user options means more control, but of course there's also more chance for users to get things wrong. Look at what happens when people get ahold of the FSX display-setting sliders.It seems also that even at their most sensitive, the FSX settings are less sensitive than X-Plane's. That means that a potentiometer-based controller like a Saitek or CH, with more slop and play, would work well with the X-Plane default settings, but in FSX it'd benefit from some enhanced response curves in FSUIPC. The Warthog, on the other hand, works very well with FSX at max sensitivity and minimum null - no curves needed. But in X-Plane, it needs to have its responsiveness toned down.Again, ot comes down to the individuality of controlers. The Warthog is expensive and most users won't have it, so it doesn't make sense to "tune" for it.I do wish that interface designers wouldn't use labels like "realistic" and "unrealistic" for their sliders. The Warthog in X-Plane, for example, needs "unrealistic" settings in order to perform realistically. There's no sense in making people feel like they're cheating when in fact what they're doing is tuning the stick correctly.

So why even ask?

Because somebody who's curious today might be a customer tomorrow.Why stomp on his fingers just because he's not yet a convert?It'd be more helpful if X-Plane veterans could find ways to help MSFS users find their way - at whatever pace - into the program.

[N1G 88]

I think part of the issue is that X-Plane allows more options for fine-tuning the controllers than FSX does (what with separate settings for response curve, null zone and stability). To get the same level of control in FSX would require the paid version of FSUIPC, and even then, I'm not sure there's an equivalent for the stability option.More user options means more control, but of course there's also more chance for users to get things wrong. Look at what happens when people get ahold of the FSX display-setting sliders.It seems also that even at their most sensitive, the FSX settings are less sensitive than X-Plane's. That means that a potentiometer-based controller like a Saitek or CH, with more slop and play, would work well with the X-Plane default settings, but in FSX it'd benefit from some enhanced response curves in FSUIPC. The Warthog, on the other hand, works very well with FSX at max sensitivity and minimum null - no curves needed. But in X-Plane, it needs to have its responsiveness toned down.Again, ot comes down to the individuality of controlers. The Warthog is expensive and most users won't have it, so it doesn't make sense to "tune" for it.I do wish that interface designers wouldn't use labels like "realistic" and "unrealistic" for their sliders. The Warthog in X-Plane, for example, needs "unrealistic" settings in order to perform realistically. There's no sense in making people feel like they're cheating when in fact what they're doing is tuning the stick correctly.Because somebody who's curious today might be a customer tomorrow.Why stomp on his fingers just because he's not yet a convert?It'd be more helpful if X-Plane veterans could find ways to help MSFS users find their way - at whatever pace - into the program.

Well, I would love to be a convert but wheres the AA?. I would think that AA should work regardless of what some would feel are the shortcomings currently with xp10. I can't even begin to take a hard look at this sim with all the shimmering. It almost feels like they forgot it. It does not even work with a profile at the driver level for me.Bob

[Skystream172 0]

It's (FSX 172) actually more realistic than you might think. The 172's do fly rather easy. With X-Plane 9, I've got my settings set where I want. With 10. everything is a bit too touchy again........and needs to be toned down with setting adjustments. Default, isn't what I'd call that real.

I'm a real world C172R and C172S pilot. I don't have a huge number of hours (I have just over 160) but I agree that the default control settings in X-Plane 10 are way too sensitive, as they were in X-Plane 9 with the default settings. I have not attempted to adjust them yet, but I was able to get X-Plane 9's C172 to feel more realistic by turning the sensitivty down on the roll and pitch. I'll have to play with it more and see what I can do. Unfortunately X-Plane 10 crashed on me after I switched back to the 747 and it lost all of my joystick assignments so I have to start from scratch again. At least I assume it was a result of the crash.Unfortunately 10 minutes at a time is too little to get very deep in this "demo". It's really annoying because half that time was spent setting up the joystick assignments. And I really hate that a permament message box appears that you can't close once the 10 minutes expires. Okay, you've disabled all ability to control the aircraft, but at least let me look around the cockpit without something blocking 25% of my display! This is not how you should do a demo. A better demo would be to let you fly all you want but restrict you to 10 square miles. I can't even put this thing through it's paces in 10 minutes. I've bought X-Plane 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, but I am still on the fence for 10. I hate to say it, but I think I still prefer FSX.

[h2egc 32]

@Ryan,I'm also using Nvidia Inspector with the same profile I had used for FSX, and have nice visuals.Also, have you purchased any pay-ware aircraft for XPlane?@Alan,I just found it strange, to ask. No reading between the lines.And most of the XP vets have been trying to help.@N1G,I am having no issues with shimmering or AA, what graphic card are you using?Are you using the latest driver?I'm also using Nvidia Inspector with the same profile I had used for FSX.Driver I'm using: 285.62

[Alan_A 1,650]

Well, I would love to be a convert but wheres the AA?. I would think that AA should work regardless of what some would feel are the shortcomings currently with xp10. I can't even begin to take a hard look at this sim with all the shimmering. It almost feels like they forgot it. It does not even work with a profile at the driver level for me.Bob

I don't claim to be an expert here but I've managed to tame the shimmering by pushing the AA as high as possible - right now I've got it maxxed out both on the top right of the "rendering options" screen and down below under HDR. I think I read somewhere that if you've got it set in HDR you need to turn off the main one, so it may be I'm harming my performance by keeping them both on. I need to keep experimenting.Are you not getting any response when you set AA?What video card/driver are you using?

@Alan,I just found it strange, to ask. No reading between the lines.And most of the XP vets have been trying to help.

Ah - I think I read hostility there where you didn't intend it. Always hard to read tone in these forums. Thanks for the clarification.

[FloB 34]

Where I stand with XP10I installed the demo the very first day and was diappointed very soon. After following the XP10 dev-blog for a long time I expected more of everything. Performance was poor on a brandnew oc i7 2600k rig. Deleted it after 3 hours of crashes, bugs, poor graphics and getting lost in the horrible UI...After some blog-comments about performance and after the very fast first patch I gave it another try and I tried harder this time, read the manual and Ben´s tuning hints. After 4 more hours I´m now quite sure that XP10 will soon be a real competitor to fsx (which I used before for may years) and whatever successor there may be. The horrible VC-graphics are gone (found the right rendering settings) performance is ok, even good now (but still some bugs with nvidia cards), the lighting is just wonderful (but still some bugs), cloud are not that crisp as REX, but they FEEL and behave real, traffic, streets and autogen houses are very crisp (but not very realistic in some places right now).The UI is still horrible, there are still performance issues and ground textures need an upgrade, ATC is not working for me etc....but. After after my first smooth night landing with nicely dimmed 744 VC and a thousand of lights all around me - it won me over. This thing definately has a future and as soon as they have fixed some minor things and upgraded some of the graphics during the next month, it is getting brighter and brighter.

[Murmur 3,944]

It'd be more helpful if X-Plane veterans could find ways to help MSFS users find their way - at whatever pace - into the program.

Agree... Thumbs up! Marco

[h2egc 32]

Glad you had a nice flight.One of the big things you'll notice over time with XP (besides it growing on you), is that it is consistently being updated, this is the norm.Most all the problems you've come across will be fixed for sure. Give it time.Thanks for giving XP a chance! You just have to be willing to put in some time.The ATC works for me.Try KSEA!Also, download the manual here: http://www.x-plane.com/files/manuals/X-Plane_10_Desktop_manual.pdfThe manual in the Demo doesn't have the ATC in it. Go to pages 61-62.The ATC acts like real world, you have to enter in the right frequencies first!

[N1G 88]

@Ryan,I'm also using Nvidia Inspector with the same profile I had used for FSX, and have nice visuals.Also, have you purchased any pay-ware aircraft for XPlane?@Alan,I just found it strange, to ask. No reading between the lines.And most of the XP vets have been trying to help.@N1G,I am having no issues with shimmering or AA, what graphic card are you using?Are you using the latest driver?I'm also using Nvidia Inspector with the same profile I had used for FSX.Driver I'm using: 285.62

Yep 285.62's. Tried the 175.33's too. Not getting it. The AA is just not there. Are you using Nick's recommended settings? If so, does the profile override the Anisio also? This is really strange because I have never had any game or sim that did not respond to an override at the driver level.Bob

[h2egc 32]

Bob,I'm usingMode: EnhanceSetting: 8xS(combined: 1x2 SS +4 MS)Transparency Supersampling: 2x SupersamplingIn XP: top right I have 8x by 8xLooks nice for me.Also, after you make any changes in XPX, close and restart it.