The bit where he says that they put crap in the game intentionally as a nod to the old days, or the bit where he calls a potential customer's ideas moronic?

That "potential customer" was trolling and all but asking to be called a moron.

Which bits do you agree with?The bit where he says that they put crap in the game intentionally as a nod to the old days, or the bit where he calls a potential customer's ideas moronic?

It's impossible to answer any of your questions or to have a rational discussion with you when you are already 100% closed minded about ANYTHING to do with X Plane. I mean, you even go through the task of putting up comparison screenshots between FSX and Flight.It's definitely an admirable effort and I'm sure many people appreciate it, but it further reinforces your allegiance to the Microsoft franchise, and anything that comes along to challenge that will NEVER be any good...as far as you're concerned.So there's really no point in continuing. If you can criticize ANYTHING about Flight or FSX, then maybe we can have an open and civilized discussion.Other than that, have a nice day.

It's impossible to answer any of your questions or to have a rational discussion with you when you are already 100% closed minded about ANYTHING to do with X Plane. I mean, you even go through the task of putting up comparison screenshots between FSX and Flight.It's definitely an admirable effort and I'm sure many people appreciate it, but it further reinforces your allegiance to the Microsoft franchise, and anything that comes along to challenge that will NEVER be any good...as far as you're concerned.So there's really no point in continuing. If you can criticize ANYTHING about Flight or FSX, then maybe we can have an open and civilized discussion.Other than that, have a nice day.

1. I don't post any comparisons of FSX and Flight, that's someone else entirely.2. Why do comparisons between them indicate any allegiance to a franchise? Comparison between one sim and it's successor is perfectly normal. I've seen plenty of posts in here comparing XP9 to XP10 - does that mean they're averse to any other sim?3. I can criticize plenty about FSX. Frame rates are awful, optimisation is completely insufficient. Default landclass is dull and over-generic, the online system is the worst I have ever used. Could name 20 more things.4. You've ignored my comment once again. You said my post is funny.So, tell me - which bits did you agree with, the intentional inclusion of crap, or calling a customer a moron?

1. I don't post any comparisons of FSX and Flight, that's someone else entirely.2. Why do comparisons between them indicate any allegiance to a franchise? Comparison between one sim and it's successor is perfectly normal. I've seen plenty of posts in here comparing XP9 to XP10 - does that mean they're averse to any other sim?3. I can criticize plenty about FSX. Frame rates are awful, optimisation is completely insufficient. Default landclass is dull and over-generic, the online system is the worst I have ever used. Could name 20 more things.4. You've ignored my comment once again. You said my post is funny.So, tell me - which bits did you agree with, the intentional inclusion of crap, or calling a customer a moron?

1. My bad. (You have similar names)2. When someone goes through the effort to find a location and make a comparison screenshot, it's safe to say that person is VERY passionate. Sure there are comparisons between XP9 and XP10, but not the exact location. Not that I have seen anyway. Are they averse to any other sim? History would say yes. But that's a generalization. Fault me for it if you wish.4. Because I don't like to get drawn into a pointless debate.As for whether I agree with what Tom Kyler said? That's none of my business. Tom is a grown man and can speak for himself. Instead of asking me whether or not I agree with him, why don't you ask him why he said what he said. You might make more headway if you get to the root of the discussion instead of dancing around it.EDIT:Actually, I will throw my opinion into it, seeing as you might think I'm ignoring you again.Enji, the OP, is out of line. It is completely unreasonable to assume that XP10, out of the box, can look like FSX with all the add ons. It ain't happening. As for Tom calling him a moron...if you read Tom's post again, he never called the OP a moron. He said his default logic was moronic. And if you ask me if I agree with that, then yes, I do agree.While we're asking questions, let me ask you this.Do you agree that XP10 should look as good or better than FSX + payware (REX, OrbX, etc...)

Where did I say that FSX should look as good or better than FSX + payware? Nowhere. Did I specify what addons? No. Did I say that the default, playable aircraft should match up to some of the payware addons I have installed with my FSX? No. Did I say that I expect XP10, 'out of the box, can look like FSX with all the add ons'? No. Since you believe yourself to be competent enough to call my logic moronic, I suggest you go back and read again my views, this time very carefully before you make yourself out to be even more of an incompetent reader.I've said numerous times, my expectations are in regards to the founding base of the simulator. Clouds, water, weather... - important visual elements. Do I expect these important elements to look as good as my 5 year old FSX? You better believe it. This is an 80$ piece of software. Nobody should have to pay out even more money to get these basic elements to look as good as another simulator 5 years older. Specialised add-ons are a great thing - aircraft, scenery in certain areas, airports, etc. Do I expect Laminar to have my local airport spot on, building for building? No. Do I expect them to have any airport, aircraft, scenery spot on? Again, not at all.In regards to the post above by Mountain Man, referring to myself: "That "potential customer" was trolling and all but asking to be called a moron." In what way was I trolling? By giving out my honest opinion about a piece of software? I suggest you stay away from magazines, newspapers, review websites and other news outlets if you are that offended by my opinion, let alone others. I specifically said in my opening post that I have ditched FSX for a few months due to the amount of problems with it - just incase I got jumped on by the XP fan boys, which seems to have happened. So tell me, in what way was I trolling?To tkyler - I refer you to this post's opening paragraph. I also hope you have absolutely no ties with Laminar Research.

I really want to be impressed by XP10 since I've pretty much ditched FSX and havn't played for a few months because of the amount of errors/issues with it. The graphics/scenery are such a huge part of a flight sim and I really did expect it to look as good, if not better, than my current setup of FSX (REX + other addons). With so much time that has moved on since the FSX release, for this brand new game not to match up graphically with an 'old' game (albeit addon'd) like FSX,

Nuff said

Where did I say that FSX should look as good or better than FSX + payware? Nowhere. Did I specify what addons? No. Did I say that the default, playable aircraft should match up to some of the payware addons I have installed with my FSX? No. Did I say that I expect XP10, 'out of the box, can look like FSX with all the add ons'? No. Since you believe yourself to be competent enough to call my logic moronic, I suggest you go back and read again my views, this time very carefully before you make yourself out to be even more of an incompetent reader.I've said numerous times, my expectations are in regards to the founding base of the simulator. Clouds, water, weather... - important visual elements. Do I expect these important elements to look as good as my 5 year old FSX? You better believe it. This is an 80$ piece of software. Nobody should have to pay out even more money to get these basic elements to look as good as another simulator 5 years older. Specialised add-ons are a great thing - aircraft, scenery in certain areas, airports, etc. Do I expect Laminar to have my local airport spot on, building for building? No. Do I expect them to have any airport, aircraft, scenery spot on? Again, not at all.In regards to the post above by Mountain Man, referring to myself: "That "potential customer" was trolling and all but asking to be called a moron." In what way was I trolling? By giving out my honest opinion about a piece of software? I suggest you stay away from magazines, newspapers, review websites and other news outlets if you are that offended by my opinion, let alone others. I specifically said in my opening post that I have ditched FSX for a few months due to the amount of problems with it - just incase I got jumped on by the XP fan boys, which seems to have happened. So tell me, in what way was I trolling?To tkyler - I refer you to this post's opening paragraph. I also hope you have absolutely no ties with Laminar Research.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. Enji, the thing is, you tried the demo, well actually it's a beta. A demo a lot of people are having issues with, while a lot are running it quite well. We don't have the answers to all questions in here. One thing I might suggest, is that you continue reading in this forum about the different setups, trial and error of others to better understand why you may have had problems achieving acceptable results using XPX. If you can get this sim running at the higher levels it can operate at, you'll be amazed.So hang in there, updates are made every few days to the demo and bugs are squashed expediently. I have added a video, not the most representative of what XPX can do but it's my first crack at this.http://youtu.be/q27Ih1y7NxI

It's impossible to answer any of your questions or to have a rational discussion with you when you are already 100% closed minded about ANYTHING to do with X Plane. I mean, you even go through the task of putting up comparison screenshots between FSX and Flight.It's definitely an admirable effort and I'm sure many people appreciate it, but it further reinforces your allegiance to the Microsoft franchise, and anything that comes along to challenge that will NEVER be any good...as far as you're concerned.So there's really no point in continuing. If you can criticize ANYTHING about Flight or FSX, then maybe we can have an open and civilized discussion.Other than that, have a nice day.

a couple of points ... 1. If its irrational, why do you keep trying2. you have the same allegiance to xplane (pot/kettle)

If you can criticize ANYTHING about Flight or FSX, then maybe we can have an open and civilized discussion.

I think he can, but does he need to when talking about xplane? He compared one part of it but do we always have to balance the ledger to talk about something? Anyway, I think the graphics are OK. I don't think the frame rates should be so low given what I am seeing on the screen and how much my cpu is idle at the same time but I think those optimisations will come. The graphics don't worry me so much as what the scenery will be for New Zealand. A mate in the airforce just gave me a complete set of NZ charts so I would be keen to do some more flights in this part of the world but our terrain can look a bit different and certinly varied so I am not sure how the autogen will work here.

Hi,already pre-ordered x-plane at aerosoft. graphics are nice and have really very much potential. However, when it competes with FSX it has to provide quality in all areas.There are truely great aspects in this simulator but for many new customers, overall impression might get destroyed by some areas, mainly UI (which is one of the worst i have ever seen in an software product) and, yes, by some of the planes... I was also shocked when i launched some of the planes in the beta, i thought some might even be corrupt. If there are planes that do not meet quality standards for visuals or flight model of 2012, they need to be removed from the package. Isn't there a vision for offering excellent in ALL areas at Laminar? If Austin thinks "It's my simulator, therefore i can keep all those debugging UIs and legacy stuff in the product", it will NOT thrill the masses.And, please respect others opinion. Regards,Heiko

a couple of points ...1. If its irrational, why do you keep trying2. you have the same allegiance to xplane (pot/kettle)

1. There's a difference between irrationality and open, honest discussion2. You obviously missed my many posts that state I have FS9 and FSX as well. Thought you were more thorough than that.

Ok I must commentI keep on hearing about the interface. I actually like the interface. It's certainly different but once you know your way around, it is fast and efficient and to be honest that is what it should be. As regards some of the planes you don't like, fine! don't fly them, fly the ones you do like or have a browse thru the freeware/payware aircraft.If you mean the settings menu when you refer to the debugging stuff, there is some very useful stuff in there especially when you are looking for your optimum setup (joystick graphics etc;) and when you are finished setting everything up, if the settings menu still upsets you then don't click it again.Sure I respect your opinion but I also respectfully disagree with it.All my observations are about XP9. If XPX is much different then my apology's and disregardregards PetePS I seriously doubt Austin and his team have given competition with FSX a second thought. Many users from FSX have switched to Xplane though, and a few quite happily use both.

About User Interface:It is about balancing between technical functionality and visual elements. For some, this purely functional approach with tons of settings might be OK. However, I prefer simplification, usability and guidance. Just as an example, have a look at this new simulator and how wind settings are managed: http://www.aeroflyfs...flugphysik.htmlAnd regarding planes:I also have a different view here. As a new customer: Should I invest 10 hours and try out all 30 models to find out which of them are crap and in the product due to historical and sentimental reasons? I would prefer to hear from Laminar that "Every plane in our product is excellent in visuals and flight model".Sorry, but I doubt this will be expected when you buy a x-plane 10 Aerosoft Metal Box in a store...Regards,Heiko

In what way was I trolling?

By suggesting that XP10 out of the box should look as good as FSX with hundreds dollars worth of commercial add-ons.

And regarding planes:I also have a different view here. As a new customer: Should I invest 10 hours and try out all 30 models to find out which of them are crap and in the product due to historical and sentimental reasons? I would prefer to hear from Laminar that "Every plane in our product is excellent in visuals and flight model".Sorry, but I doubt this will be expected when you buy a x-plane 10 Aerosoft Metal Box in a store...Regards,Heiko

I also have a different view- I love the quirky planes included, and still try some every now and then after 2yrs. The Japanese anime is crazy, for example. And really, 20 minutes for each plane? I can tell if a plane is a 'keeper' within a minute or 2.