The one thing that I love about LR and XPlane is the simple fact that they are always striving to improve their product and don't care what MS is doing as their target is not a sim that rivals FSX or FS9 or Flight, but reality itself. There have always been drawbacks in previous versions that have kept me majorly simming on FSX or FS9 (typically, the ATC immersion was lacking), but that gap has been made smaller. It is not gone until modifyable AI are introduced with timetable/route modifications. When they get to that fidelity and when you can have all the aircraft at KATL/KLAX/KJFK on the tarmac, arriving and departing with realistic quantities for rush-hour flights, I will see this as a completed feature. But for now, I love XP10. The water reflection and lighting in XP9 was massively better than FSX and still is and now XP10 just kills FSX for visuals. It also kills framerates, but I bought a copy of XP10 as soon as it was available for purchase, knowing that my dollars will go to support an organization that is ALWAYS improving their product from month to month, if not week to week. They also listen and interact with the customers and attempt to implement features that seem to be a majority favor of adding or modifying. This is why LR will get my support, both financial and morale. I know the product in 2 months may be a much more polished version than the one that just bought. Maybe by the end of the version cycle, it will have every feature I dreamed of. So far, they have a good base program with lots of room to build on, but they have to get the engine of the platform stable in its current version before they add some more. Why allow more monkeys to throw wrenches into the system before you've gotten the existing wrenches taken out? This is good strategy that works for lots of projects. Those of us that are consumers can do nothing but wait and see the progress. If too many people hold out, they will have no funds to continue development.I've heard people say that MS can make a far more stable sim than XP seems to be. The question I have for them is how could they not? They develop a program that works in an operating system environment THEY designed. I'd be skeptical of them if they didn't make a stable platform. LR goes far beyond and makes a sim that runs on 3 greatly different platforms that are as different as an aircraft, submarine and space station. That is a tough task and they do it time and time again.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would be disappointed at this early stage. Patience is a virtue. I'm prepared to wait for the updates, considering the planes I own work and are compatible (able to function in harmony) with XPX.

I could have been disappointed for sure. After trying the demo for a while I bought xplane and then thought I would buy a payware plane to get something better. I looked at that carenado that was discussed. If they said it was to be compatible I would expect that all features work. As a customer there is no 'loosely compatible'. When something is advertised with certain features it either works with them or does not. To say it's not incompatible because the sim does not crash doesn't do it for me. What is acceptable is if a developer says it will be compatible and they issue a patch later on to fix any issues. I do expect that it would then work as the original, unless they take the opportunity to upgrade. I worked for many years in development environments for strongly customer focused businesses so I understand from the developers perspective the issues. Even so I had to work with my 'customer hat' on all the time, forget I was the developer and not say stuff like it's close enough for the effort involved. Xplane probably doesn't loose customers like that industry did with really big churn rates but it does not hurt any industry to take a very strong customer focused approach. This sin't aimed at any company BTW. I have not seen anything saying carenado will not fix any issues. This is just my view based on some posts above..

Jason,I can't find anywhere on Carenado's site them saying their planes are XPX compatible.The Mooney for example.All I see with each aircraft is:Technical Requirements:Windows XP - Vista - 7 (32 or 64 bits) or MAC OS 10.3.9 (or higher) or LinuxXPlane 9.5 (or higher) <----- Not V10.xxPentium 2 GHz - 1GB RAM88MB available hard disk space.I personally don't think this is mis-leading!I own all of them for X-Plane and they work in XPX Demo.Ben's Bloghttp://www.x-plane.com/blog/ Second Post.

I could have been disappointed for sure. After trying the demo for a while I bought xplane and then thought I would buy a payware plane to get something better. I looked at that carenado that was discussed. If they said it was to be compatible I would expect that all features work. As a customer there is no 'loosely compatible'. When something is advertised with certain features it either works with them or does not. To say it's not incompatible because the sim does not crash doesn't do it for me. What is acceptable is if a developer says it will be compatible and they issue a patch later on to fix any issues. I do expect that it would then work as the original, unless they take the opportunity to upgrade. I worked for many years in development environments for strongly customer focused businesses so I understand from the developers perspective the issues. Even so I had to work with my 'customer hat' on all the time, forget I was the developer and not say stuff like it's close enough for the effort involved. Xplane probably doesn't loose customers like that industry did with really big churn rates but it does not hurt any industry to take a very strong customer focused approach.

Jason the point is Laminar have asked developers to hold off fixing issues at the moment. Fixing issues that may very well be non issues as Laminar optimizes the simulator. If you go to the Carenado website, nowhere does it say XPX compatible. Everyone needs to take a step back and realize time is needed to fulfill promises.

But see, thats the prob

Jason,I can't find anywhere on Carenado's site them saying their planes are XPX compatible.The Mooney for example.All I see with each aircraft is:Technical Requirements:Windows XP - Vista - 7 (32 or 64 bits) or MAC OS 10.3.9 (or higher) or LinuxXPlane 9.5 (or higher) <----- Not V10.xxPentium 2 GHz - 1GB RAM88MB available hard disk space.I personally don't think this is mis-leading!I own all of them for X-Plane and they work in XPX Demo.

Maybe there needs to be some clarification about cross-major release compatibility. 9.6 and higher would, to some, mean anything newer than 9.6, which 10.0 is higher than 9.6.If you took a software title such as Take On Helicopters or some other title, they all say, for the OS, Windows XP SP3 or newer. Meaning that Vista and Windows 7 are both compatible software for running this program. Using that type of logic on "9.6 and higher" would seem that 10.0 is a compatible sim platform. Maybe saying something to the effect of 9.6-9.xx and 10.0-10.xx would fix the issue of major platform revision compatibilities. This is not a LR issue as much as a 3rd party developer advertising compatibility issue.

I agree somewhat, versions runs are always say. 9.0 - 9.9For someone NEW to XP I can see the confusion.

Jason,I can't find anywhere on Carenado's site them saying their planes are XPX compatible.The Mooney for example.All I see with each aircraft is:Technical Requirements:Windows XP - Vista - 7 (32 or 64 bits) or MAC OS 10.3.9 (or higher) or LinuxXPlane 9.5 (or higher) <----- Not V10.xxPentium 2 GHz - 1GB RAM88MB available hard disk space.I personally don't think this is mis-leading!I own all of them for X-Plane and they work in XPX Demo.Ben's Bloghttp://www.x-plane.com/blog/ Second Post.

Is 10 not higher than 9.5? What am I missing?Was it also not mentioned somewhere (perhaps the xplane site) that version 9 aircraft were compatable with 10?

Jason the point is Laminar have asked developers to hold off fixing issues at the moment. Fixing issues that may very well be non issues as Laminar optimizes the simulator. If you go to the Carenado website, nowhere does it say XPX compatible. Everyone needs to take a step back and realize time is needed to fulfill promises.

Hi Mike, I understand that from reading their blog. As I say this was not aimed at any developer as such. I based my comments on other posts in the thread where a couple seemed to sugges there is 'fully compatible' and 'loosely compatible'. In the eyes of the customer I don't think there is such a distinction if they purchase a product that says it has feature 1,2,3,4 and is compatible with version x,y. they would expect all features across those versions. I think it it absolutely fine that it might not work from day one as long as they fix it if they have said it would work.

LOL Geofa,I thought YOU use X-Plane? 10 is higher but it's not in a Version Run for XP of 9.xx

LOL Geofa,I thought YOU use X-Plane?10 is higher but it's not in a Version Run for XP of 9.xx

Say what? No where does it say only for xp9. It says xp9.5 or higher...and the above phrase mentioned (fool me once etc.)-had that happen already with version nine...Oh here it is-something about 9.6...http://forum.avsim.net/topic/323098-x-plane-10/

This is ridiculous, I thought I explained this clearly.

I think it it absolutely fine that it might not work from day one as long as they fix it if they have said it would work.

I totally agree, I'm willing to give them time to get it right, and then, when patience runs out, I'll start nagging them...

I have to agree with Geofa, given the frequent updates, the custom in the X-Plane world is saying "9.xx and higher" to mean only 9.xx runs, but for most people that's an equivocal statement and usually interpretated as "9 and subsequent versions".

Well it may in fact be via Goran's post-the link to Ben's site that there are some bugs to be fixed soon that will fix compatibility that it is a non issue (the F33 is 9.6 or above). It would be nice to put this one to bed..

Right from the horse's mouth - checkout counter at 33.20."Planemaker is pretty much the same in version 10 as it was in version 9 andversion 10 is supposed to have compatibility with version 9 airplanes..."

BTW, the same applies to scenery.